Queen Was 'Right' to Stay at Balmoral with Princes after Princess Diana's Death

Started by cinrit, September 28, 2014, 12:08:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

HistoryGirl

^That was a reaction to the public. The Queen's initial instinct was privacy. The public wanted to grieve with the boys apparently so that's what they got. To me, that was all ridiculous. Diana was their mother and they lost her.

cate1949

I think the following says it all with regards to the emotional capabilities of the Windsors - Prince Phillip's idea of comforting two boys whose mother had just died in a violent car accident - was to take them  hunting - the Queen nixed that idea fearing that news of what they were doing would get out to the public - so instead Phillip took Harry and Will out to stalk animals.  Nothing like a little blood sport to comfort a grieving child.

HistoryGirl

William and Harry are both avid hunters so to them it may have been as enjoyable an experience could be in those circumstances.

Curryong

We don't really know WHAT they were doing at Balmoral, Zara apparently took them bike-riding on occasions. In the aftermath of Diana's death there would have been few photographers/journalists hiding on the estate trying to see them. As I remember, news editors of newspapers and magazines were getting death threats and members of the press and paps were trying to make themselves as inconspicuous as possible for weeks.

Philip was/is a great believer in activities/sports as healing forces. I believe he knew more than most what they were going through though. His own childhood had absent parents and his favourite sister and her entire family except for one baby killed in a plane crash. Apparently he was given a small piece of wood from the plane that he showed a school friend.

Being shoved from pillar to post between various relatives in Germany and Britain in the school holidays wouldn't exactly have been great fun. He got attached to his uncle George, Marquess of Milford Haven. George died after a long lingering illness. Nothing much to be carefree about there!


DaisyMeRollin

Quote from: Curryong on October 01, 2014, 12:22:57 AM
We don't really know WHAT they were doing at Balmoral, Zara apparently took them bike-riding on occasions. In the aftermath of Diana's death there would have been few photographers/journalists hiding on the estate trying to see them. As I remember, news editors of newspapers and magazines were getting death threats and members of the press and paps were trying to make themselves as inconspicuous as possible for weeks.

Philip was/is a great believer in activities/sports as healing forces. I believe he knew more than most what they were going through though. His own childhood had absent parents and his favourite sister and her entire family except for one baby killed in a plane crash. Apparently he was given a small piece of wood from the plane that he showed a school friend.

Being shoved from pillar to post between various relatives in Germany and Britain in the school holidays wouldn't exactly have been great fun. He got attached to his uncle George, Marquess of Milford Haven. George died after a long lingering illness. Nothing much to be carefree about there!

Not to mention his mother's mental instability and eventual resignation to a convent. Kind of off-topic, but the political divide that emerged with burgeoning Nazi sympathies that divided his family probably exacerbated the loss of his sister that died in that plane crash prematurely. Phillip had it rough. 

Totally agree with you, by the way.

Edit: Unfortunately, I think Harry's more impulsive behaviors are mirroring Phillip in some capacity.
"No one is dumb who is curious. The people who don't ask questions remain clueless throughout their lives." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

amabel

Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 30, 2014, 10:33:52 PM
^That was a reaction to the public. The Queen's initial instinct was privacy. The public wanted to grieve with the boys apparently so that's what they got. To me, that was all ridiculous. Diana was their mother and they lost her.
yes so they should have been allowed to stay at Blamoral where they could be kept busy and away from the public.. the queens initial impulse was IMO that she was rather annoyed that Di's death had impinged on her holiday.  not very unselfish. I think that yes there was some concern for the boys, she would hardly be a human being if she didn't feel something for them...but a lot of her feelings were selfish.

I don't believe that most of the public wanted the boys to be sent out, albeit when they were sent out of course they talked to them.. What they wanted was a statement from the queen, a public appearance by her, soemting to show greif and solidarity,  and the flag to be flown at half mast even if it wasn't royal protocol.  they wanted some kind of statement from teh RF to show that they had SOME feelings for the Young woman who had just died.  Even if the public HAD been clamouring for the boys, which IMO they weren't, the Queen if she was a decent grandmother here, should and could have refused and let her own children do the talking.. but I think it was pretty clear that when she was getting nervous about the public bad feeling towards her and the RF, she sent the boys out to meet them, because she knew they would not get hostility and it might improve things

Double post auto-merged: October 01, 2014, 05:45:09 AM


Quote from: cate1949 on October 01, 2014, 12:02:53 AM
I think the following says it all with regards to the emotional capabilities of the Windsors - Prince Phillip's idea of comforting two boys whose mother had just died in a violent car accident - was to take them  hunting - the Queen nixed that idea fearing that news of what they were doing would get out to the public - so instead Phillip took Harry and Will out to stalk animals.  Nothing like a little blood sport to comfort a grieving child.
I don't blame hi for that, I think ti was best to let them do something they enjoyed, which kept their minds off the grief and kept them away from teh TV and newspapers which could only upset them.  But I can't see how their being sent to talk to the public was a help

Eri

Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on September 30, 2014, 06:28:31 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on September 30, 2014, 05:54:47 PM
Quote from: Eri on September 30, 2014, 10:59:05 AM
The way she was bullied to show something she wasn't feeling was disgusting and absolutely ridiculous at the same time !!! Di was NOT part of her family , she was a loose cannon who had done nothing but try to destroy her in the last Years of her life she owned Di NOTHING !!!
She owed her grandchildren and Diana's children respect, regardless of how she felt about Diana. She was "bullied" to show she was human, and not a bird on a gilded cage out of touch with her subjects.

Though people may refer to Diana as a "loose cannon", the other side of the coin is that she was a segue into a more human standard of royalty, like Lima mentioned. Granted, the tit-for-tat in the implosion of the 1990's between Charles and Diana may be chided (and rightfully so at times), it did buck some of the needless idolatry toward RF and served as a reminder that they are truly not the moral standard that Britain should live by.

Margaret and the DoE's transgressions were whispered about but conveniently swept under the rug at times. There's still questions as to the sexual preferences of old Eddie boy, QE's uncle. Do you think Diana should have continued to look the other way, Eri? You're quick to criticize Harry and Kate as individuals, you are certainly a bit stubborn about allotting leeway in your perception of the circumstances, that we realistically don't have a clue about.
She looked the other way while doing HEWITT once he ditched her for his carer however ... give me a break with the "looking the other way" thing she was a infamous adulterer herself !!!

HistoryGirl

Quote from: amabel on October 01, 2014, 05:43:30 AM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 30, 2014, 10:33:52 PM
^That was a reaction to the public. The Queen's initial instinct was privacy. The public wanted to grieve with the boys apparently so that's what they got. To me, that was all ridiculous. Diana was their mother and they lost her.
yes so they should have been allowed to stay at Blamoral where they could be kept busy and away from the public.. the queens initial impulse was IMO that she was rather annoyed that Di's death had impinged on her holiday.  not very unselfish. I think that yes there was some concern for the boys, she would hardly be a human being if she didn't feel something for them...but a lot of her feelings were selfish.

I don't believe that most of the public wanted the boys to be sent out, albeit when they were sent out of course they talked to them.. What they wanted was a statement from the queen, a public appearance by her, soemting to show greif and solidarity,  and the flag to be flown at half mast even if it wasn't royal protocol.  they wanted some kind of statement from teh RF to show that they had SOME feelings for the Young woman who had just died.  Even if the public HAD been clamouring for the boys, which IMO they weren't, the Queen if she was a decent grandmother here, should and could have refused and let her own children do the talking.. but I think it was pretty clear that when she was getting nervous about the public bad feeling towards her and the RF, she sent the boys out to meet them, because she knew they would not get hostility and it might improve things

Double post auto-merged: October 01, 2014, 05:45:09 AM


Quote from: cate1949 on October 01, 2014, 12:02:53 AM
I think the following says it all with regards to the emotional capabilities of the Windsors - Prince Phillip's idea of comforting two boys whose mother had just died in a violent car accident - was to take them  hunting - the Queen nixed that idea fearing that news of what they were doing would get out to the public - so instead Phillip took Harry and Will out to stalk animals.  Nothing like a little blood sport to comfort a grieving child.
I don't blame hi for that, I think ti was best to let them do something they enjoyed, which kept their minds off the grief and kept them away from teh TV and newspapers which could only upset them.  But I can't see how their being sent to talk to the public was a help

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree because I'm not of the mid to think that just because you don't like someone it means that you can't lament their death. And I do believe she loves her grandchildren and thought of them first when she took them to Balmoral.

Windsor

They are a family first and foremost, and their duty rested with taking care of their family. Princes William and Harry were obviously deeply hurt to hear their mother was dead, and was only right for The Queen and the rest of the family to offer the boys guidance, privacy and above all, LOVE! This wasn't about Diana at all, it was about protecting the young princes from the media, and the public at large at a time when they were most vulnerable.


DaisyMeRollin

Quote from: Eri on October 01, 2014, 07:51:08 AM
Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on September 30, 2014, 06:28:31 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on September 30, 2014, 05:54:47 PM
Quote from: Eri on September 30, 2014, 10:59:05 AM
The way she was bullied to show something she wasn't feeling was disgusting and absolutely ridiculous at the same time !!! Di was NOT part of her family , she was a loose cannon who had done nothing but try to destroy her in the last Years of her life she owned Di NOTHING !!!
She owed her grandchildren and Diana's children respect, regardless of how she felt about Diana. She was "bullied" to show she was human, and not a bird on a gilded cage out of touch with her subjects.

Though people may refer to Diana as a "loose cannon", the other side of the coin is that she was a segue into a more human standard of royalty, like Lima mentioned. Granted, the tit-for-tat in the implosion of the 1990's between Charles and Diana may be chided (and rightfully so at times), it did buck some of the needless idolatry toward RF and served as a reminder that they are truly not the moral standard that Britain should live by.

Margaret and the DoE's transgressions were whispered about but conveniently swept under the rug at times. There's still questions as to the sexual preferences of old Eddie boy, QE's uncle. Do you think Diana should have continued to look the other way, Eri? You're quick to criticize Harry and Kate as individuals, you are certainly a bit stubborn about allotting leeway in your perception of the circumstances, that we realistically don't have a clue about.
She looked the other way while doing HEWITT once he ditched her for his carer however ... give me a break with the "looking the other way" thing she was a infamous adulterer herself !!!

The first paragraph. Read it one more time.

Nothing beneficial came from the public being privy to the haphazard Benny Hill sketch of the RF chasing their own tails in the 1990's?
"No one is dumb who is curious. The people who don't ask questions remain clueless throughout their lives." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

sandy

Quote from: Eri on October 01, 2014, 07:51:08 AM
Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on September 30, 2014, 06:28:31 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on September 30, 2014, 05:54:47 PM
Quote from: Eri on September 30, 2014, 10:59:05 AM
The way she was bullied to show something she wasn't feeling was disgusting and absolutely ridiculous at the same time !!! Di was NOT part of her family , she was a loose cannon who had done nothing but try to destroy her in the last Years of her life she owned Di NOTHING !!!
She owed her grandchildren and Diana's children respect, regardless of how she felt about Diana. She was "bullied" to show she was human, and not a bird on a gilded cage out of touch with her subjects.

Though people may refer to Diana as a "loose cannon", the other side of the coin is that she was a segue into a more human standard of royalty, like Lima mentioned. Granted, the tit-for-tat in the implosion of the 1990's between Charles and Diana may be chided (and rightfully so at times), it did buck some of the needless idolatry toward RF and served as a reminder that they are truly not the moral standard that Britain should live by.

Margaret and the DoE's transgressions were whispered about but conveniently swept under the rug at times. There's still questions as to the sexual preferences of old Eddie boy, QE's uncle. Do you think Diana should have continued to look the other way, Eri? You're quick to criticize Harry and Kate as individuals, you are certainly a bit stubborn about allotting leeway in your perception of the circumstances, that we realistically don't have a clue about.
She looked the other way while doing HEWITT once he ditched her for his carer however ... give me a break with the "looking the other way" thing she was a infamous adulterer herself !!!

Diana ditched Hewitt. Look it up. And what does this have to do with the thread. Another shot at Diana perhaps?

Double post auto-merged: October 01, 2014, 02:38:56 PM


Quote from: Windsor on October 01, 2014, 10:31:22 AM
They are a family first and foremost, and their duty rested with taking care of their family. Princes William and Harry were obviously deeply hurt to hear their mother was dead, and was only right for The Queen and the rest of the family to offer the boys guidance, privacy and above all, LOVE! This wasn't about Diana at all, it was about protecting the young princes from the media, and the public at large at a time when they were most vulnerable.



I agree but it was also most assuredly  about Diana. The boys beloved mother died. I don't think the boys wanted to be protected from paying their final respects to their mother.

TLLK

Quote from: Curryong on October 01, 2014, 12:22:57 AM
We don't really know WHAT they were doing at Balmoral, Zara apparently took them bike-riding on occasions. In the aftermath of Diana's death there would have been few photographers/journalists hiding on the estate trying to see them. As I remember, news editors of newspapers and magazines were getting death threats and members of the press and paps were trying to make themselves as inconspicuous as possible for weeks.

Philip was/is a great believer in activities/sports as healing forces. I believe he knew more than most what they were going through though. His own childhood had absent parents and his favourite sister and her entire family except for one baby killed in a plane crash. Apparently he was given a small piece of wood from the plane that he showed a school friend.

Being shoved from pillar to post between various relatives in Germany and Britain in the school holidays wouldn't exactly have been great fun. He got attached to his uncle George, Marquess of Milford Haven. George died after a long lingering illness. Nothing much to be carefree about there!
Excellent response curryong and I agree with you regarding Phillip. He's of a generation that found different ways to cope with their tragedies in life and they happened on a more regular basis due to the lack of antibiotics and modern surgery techniques.   IMO Phillip's childhood/teen years  had more similarities to his grandsons'  than their father and paternal grandmother's. I believe that made him the most sympathetic figure and the boys forged a deep bond to him during those years. Phillip does not display his gentle side very often but I do recall him reaching over to pat them on the shoulder as they waited  under Marble Arch during the funeral procession. He likely thought they were out of view of the public and was comfortable with sharing physical affection then.

The boys were with people that know them and their personalities better than anyone else. IMO having their older cousins whom they reportedly admire and love deeply there must have also been a comfort. Diana had described William as a "caged tiger" on weekends at KP, so having the opportunity to work through some of those emotions during a long hike or ride/bicycling was likely beneficial.

sandy

I don't think Philip's years were close to Will's and Harry's at all. First of all William and Harry had first both parents then one directly involved in their upbringing. Philip was sent to England and spent time with his Mountbatten uncles. Philip had parents that were exiled from their home country and Philip was not exactly wealthy to put it mildly.  He also had much older siblings that married into German families. William and Harry never experienced worrying about money or being uprooted from their own country's. I think he was and is  just a loving grandfather which is enough.

TLLK

I disagree. His parents separated early and according to the biography "Her Majesty" Phillip was very close to his father and his sisters. His father's early death did affect him and for much of his childhood Princess Alice was unavailable. So I find that the brothers had a similar conflicted relationship with both parents for some part of their lives. They have shared that they loved their parents but they couldn't have helped but feel the tension in the household and the strain of the "War of the Wales."

IMO Phillip understood those emotions because he'd lived in a similar situation.

sandy

Princess Alice did not die when Philip was young. Diana died when the boys were 15 and 12. Philip did spend much time in his youth with his Mountbatten uncles.

cinrit

Sandy, their childhoods were similar, not exactly the same.  They both lost their mothers, but under different circumstances.  I don't think spending time with your uncles makes up for the loss of a mother, no matter how you lose her.

Cindy
Always be yourself.  Unless you can be a unicorn.  Then always be a unicorn.

TLLK

Quote from: sandy on October 01, 2014, 08:23:22 PM
Princess Alice did not die when Philip was young. Diana died when the boys were 15 and 12. Philip did spend much time in his youth with his Mountbatten uncles.
I never said that their childhoods were exactly the same only that they were similar.  ;)

sandy

I don't see them as similar or the same or however it is expressed.

Philip was in a unique situation and he had the added trauma of having his sisters marry Nazis.

. Cindy of course the uncles were no substitute and I never said they were.

Louis Mountbatten had plans for Philip to marry Princess Elizabeth and fortunately for him, the two fell in love.

DaisyMeRollin

Quote from: sandy on October 02, 2014, 12:24:19 AM
I don't see them as similar or the same or however it is expressed.

Philip was in a unique situation and he had the added trauma of having his sisters marry Nazis.

. Cindy of course the uncles were no substitute and I never said they were.

Louis Mountbatten had plans for Philip to marry Princess Elizabeth and fortunately for him, the two fell in love.

I doubt marrying into other Germanic royal families that had high-ranking officers was the traumatic part. They were sitting pretty with Landgraves and Princes. They probably weren't privy to the inner-workings of the Nazi party, the SS or the concentration camps. You're sensationalizing now.

Even Edward and Wallace Simpson were hob-nobbing with Nazis.
"No one is dumb who is curious. The people who don't ask questions remain clueless throughout their lives." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

amabel

Quote from: HistoryGirl on October 01, 2014, 09:46:56 AM
Quote from: amabel on October 01, 2014, 05:43:30 AM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 30, 2014, 10:33:52 PM
^That was a reaction to the public. The Queen's initial instinct was privacy. The public wanted to grieve with the boys apparently so that's what they got. To me, that was all ridiculous. Diana was their mother and they lost her.
yes so they should have been allowed to stay at Blamoral where they could be kept busy and away from the public.. the queens initial impulse was IMO that she was rather annoyed that Di's death had impinged on her holiday.  not very unselfish. I think that yes there was some concern for the boys, she would hardly be a human being if she didn't feel something for them...but a lot of her feelings were selfish.

I don't believe that most of the public wanted the boys to be sent out, albeit when they were sent out of course they talked to them.. What they wanted was a statement from the queen, a public appearance by her, soemting to show greif and solidarity,  and the flag to be flown at half mast even if it wasn't royal
Double post auto-merged: October 01, 2014, 05:45:09 AM


Quote from: cate1949 on October 01, 2014, 12:02:53 AM
I

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree because I'm not of the mid to think that just because you don't like someone it means that you can't lament their death. And I do believe she loves her grandchildren and thought of them first when she took them to Balmoral.
I don't say that at all. Its possible to dislike people and sitl feel a twinge of sorrow when they die, but I don't think that was the Case with the Queen. I think she like the rest of the RF Had only a very slight bit of sympathy for Di's death, and were chiefly preoccupied with what it was going to mean for them.  I think she did try to help the boys, but she then took them to London to talk to the crowds, which IMO they should not have been asked to do.

sandy

They  should not have been taken the next morning to a Church service where there was no mention of their mother much less prayers for her. 

Eri

^ But yet again Diana was her EX daughter in law if anyone should have prayed for Diana that Morning was the Spencers NOT Liz her death had nothing to do with Liz !!! She was no longer part of Liz's family !!! This is crazy ... if Sarah died Tomorrow would Liz be expected to mention her at Sunday's Church Service or as usual there is one set of rules for Diana and one for the rest?

amabel

I think if Sarah York died, yes the RF would mention, her, while Sarah's not popular they have probably learned from the Di fiasco.  As for Diana', yes I think that the boys shodl have gone to church,but it would have been a lot more comforting if their mother's death had been acknowledged and she was mentoned in the prayers.
Are you saying that the boys weren't part of Dis' family?

sandy

Quote from: Eri on October 29, 2014, 04:52:53 PM
^ But yet again Diana was her EX daughter in law if anyone should have prayed for Diana that Morning was the Spencers NOT Liz her death had nothing to do with Liz !!! She was no longer part of Liz's family !!! This is crazy ... if Sarah died Tomorrow would Liz be expected to mention her at Sunday's Church Service or as usual there is one set of rules for Diana and one for the rest?

Oh please Eri. Diana was the mother of two of the Queen's grandchildren.  Maybe Diana should bere buried in a Potters field with no name on her grave  and the boys slamming her. Would you have wanted that?
Sarah has grown up daughters. Why would the Queen call the shots.
If you don't think it was coldblooded for the boys not to hear prayers for their recently dead mother at a Church service. Suit yourself.