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.

sandy

It is one thing to go to Church and pray for a deceased love one. It is another when the loved one is not even mentioned in the prayers! Very cold and heartless.

The Queen or Charles could have requested prayers for the deceased Diana. Why should it be left up to the clergyman? The family of the deceased requests prayers of the Church for the loved one.

I don't think the Queen acted particularly religious that day.

William did not get his wish since nobody mentioned "Mummy." Heartless.

TLLK

From my experience with working with children/teens, routine is very important to them. Going to church in Scotland with the BRF would have been a part of that routine and a semblance of normalcy on a very shocking day. If the boys stated to their father and other members of the family that they wanted to go to church, then their wishes should be honored. I believe that is a reasonable request.  :)

I do agree that it was odd that Diana wasn't mentioned that day, but I wasn't leading the service that morning.

cate1949

I think remaining in Scotland with the boys for some time was appropriate - and when Charles brought them outside of the gates of Balmoral to see the flowers that was appropriate.  Having them speaking and shaking hands with the crowd at BP seemed way off to me.

But I am reminded that once in Scotland - the Queen does not interrupt her vacation there - the Queen does have some rigid patterns of behavior - things done just so for decades.




Eri

The whole thing was ridiculous ... Di was her EX daughter in law on what Planet the family of the EX is expected to grieve or participate in the death of the EX? The only one here who should have been expected to was Charles but for some reasons some MANIACS expected Liz to cry and fall on the floor grieving?  <_<

amabel

No Eri, people expect the queen to show some solidarity with the people who were grieving, even if it wasn't a grief she personally shared.  whatever her differences with Diana, Di was her grandson's mother and she was loved by her boys. Even for that reason, I think that her reactions were pretty cold.  Even if you only take it that Di was a Young woman whom she knew well, who had died prematurely, most people would feel a tinge of sorrow at her life being cut short.  The queen could have made an effort to show her people that she felt something, and if she'd had done that, people would have ben less angry.  what she did was to oly show up when absolutely forced to, and to shove her grandchildren out to meet the crowds, when they were the alleged excuse for her staying in Scotland...

Double post auto-merged: September 30, 2014, 10:41:34 AM


Quote from: Curryong on September 30, 2014, 01:51:11 AM
Let's not forget that the Queen is a deeply religious woman and both she, PP and Charles may well have felt that the boys would gain some spiritual comfort from going to church. I have read that William said that he wanted to pray 'for Mummy' at church. This wasn't a PR exercise. Yes the minister should have, in my opinion, have offered up prayers for Diana, but he explained why he didn't later and defended himself.

that's one thing, even if the boys aren't very religious, I think that going to church was appropriate.  but saying that they were looking after the boys, and then when pushed, going to London with them and letting them out to meet the crowds to deflect criticsm from herself, was hardly decent behaviour IMO.

HistoryGirl

^Maybe she's not an outwardly emotional person. I think the important thing was what she told her grandsons, which we don't know. Diana was no longer a royal princess, I can see why she felt no need to make a public statement until everybody freaked out on her.

amabel

Beucaase Diana was still part of her family, even if divorced by reason of her being the mother of the boys.  And she was a beloved public figure.  the Queen wasn't an ordinary ex mother in law....She too is a public figure and the head of state. She is supposed to lead her people in greif.

Eri

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 !!!

amabel

I've just explained why she should have said soemting. NO point in further arguing.

HistoryGirl

I think it shouldve remained private for the most part. If ppl wanted to grieve privately that was their personal business. The Queen was beholden to her grandsons and she thought that was the best option; if her thinking as a grandmother was wrong then I suppose there is nothing more to say.

amabel

But it was a publicly felt grief for a public figure.  The queen as head of state, is expected to do something that shows she is on the same page as her people when a thing like this happens.  Like a disaster or war.. Neither she nor DI were private individuals. I think that she was concerned with the boys, but it wasn't the whole reason for her remaining in balmoral.  It was IMO mostly because she didn't want her holiday interrupted, she didn't feel any real grief for Diana, and didn't want to have  public funeral for her. She could have made a short statement at the beginning of the week, and maybe come ot London for  a day or so.. the boys had plenlty of people to look after them up there.  And if the boys were her main concern then I can't see how she could justify using them to go out, newly bereaved and very young, to talk to people.. just because she knew the RF was getting a lot of flak and they were the ones who were most likely to arouse public sympathy. I don't believe the Spencers wanted a public funeral.. But when they saw the public reaction, they realiased that it was unfair to deprive the public of a chance to join in and say goodbye to Diana and were willing to allow a public funeral.  However I think the queen simply didn't want it..

HistoryGirl

Well then we'll have to agree to disagree because while I don't think the Queen liked Diana, I cannot believe that her grandsons' grief would not have moved her to do what she thought was the best for them.

Curryong

Quote from: amabel on September 30, 2014, 02:36:22 PM
But it was a publicly felt grief for a public figure.  The queen as head of state, is expected to do something that shows she is on the same page as her people when a thing like this happens.  Like a disaster or war.. Neither she nor DI were private individuals. I think that she was concerned with the boys, but it wasn't the whole reason for her remaining in balmoral.  It was IMO mostly because she didn't want her holiday interrupted, she didn't feel any real grief for Diana, and didn't want to have  public funeral for her. She could have made a short statement at the beginning of the week, and maybe come ot London for  a day or so.. the boys had plenlty of people to look after them up there.  And if the boys were her main concern then I can't see how she could justify using them to go out, newly bereaved and very young, to talk to people.. just because she knew the RF was getting a lot of flak and they were the ones who were most likely to arouse public sympathy. I don't believe the Spencers wanted a public funeral.. But when they saw the public reaction, they realiased that it was unfair to deprive the public of a chance to join in and say goodbye to Diana and were willing to allow a public funeral.  However I think the queen simply didn't want it..

How do we know that it wasn't Charles who felt that, by appearing with his sons publicly in London at such a time he could deflect public annoyance away from himself. I was in London then and believe me, among people I listened to in the crowds that day, he was getting a lot of criticism. The Queen wasn't the only one in charge of the boys. Their sole remaining parent would surely have had some say.

amabel

I don't know. I wasn't really thinking about what Charles was doing or thinking.  The queen was at that time getting most of the flak for being so cold, as it was seen.. and I'm sure that if she felt that it was wrong for the boys to be pushed out, and used as "front men", she'd have refused to let it be done. 

OK I think that people weren't that crazy about Charles, but from what could be seen, he was trying to sort out a public funeral, and from what  I've read, back from that time, he DID do his best to push for a public funeral and help with the arrangemetns whereas I think the queen while she permitted it, wasn't really keen on it.
I am sure that if she felt Charles was using the boys unfairly, she would have not let them be so used.

Double post auto-merged: September 30, 2014, 04:13:34 PM


Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 30, 2014, 03:03:17 PM
Well then we'll have to agree to disagree because while I don't think the Queen liked Diana, I cannot believe that her grandsons' grief would not have moved her to do what she thought was the best for them.
She probably did, Im sure she felt it was best for them to be kept safely at home..
but all the same I think that she had other motives such as not wanting to go to London, not wanting to make  statement about Diana etc.  I think when she was pushed into it, it sounded false because it was false...

HistoryGirl

Of course it wasn't what she wanted. Her first instinct was that it be private because Diana was no longer a princess. She was forced because of public outcry. Which I'm sure she thought ridiculous; and it was in my opinion because she was helping her grandsons at the time...I get ppl were upset cause they thought Diana was like family, but it would've been nice for them to actually acknowledge the fact that her real family (specifically her sons) were the first ones that mattered.

sandy

too bad she thought it was ridiculous. If she did it was a fine way to think of the mother of two of  her grandchildren.

If Diana's sons "mattered" it was pretty shabby of the royals not to have their mother mentioned in Church and they could have.

Double post auto-merged: September 30, 2014, 04:55:49 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 !!!

Diana was and is the mother of two of her grandchildren not someone to be treated like rubbish. The Queen's son Charles did his share of trying to hurt the monarchy with his infatuation with the married mistress and he even trashed his mother via his authorized biography. I don't  think it would have gone over well Eri if Diana was treated like garbage by the Queen. Maybe there would not even have been a monarchy anymore had she acted that way.


sandy

Quote from: Eri on September 30, 2014, 09:06:14 AM
The whole thing was ridiculous ... Di was her EX daughter in law on what Planet the family of the EX is expected to grieve or participate in the death of the EX? The only one here who should have been expected to was Charles but for some reasons some MANIACS expected Liz to cry and fall on the floor grieving?  <_<

Maniacs. How insensitive to call people that. Even if  you don't like Diana not everybody shares your loathing.  Diana's DNA can't be ripped out  of Will and Harry now can't it?

Double post auto-merged: September 30, 2014, 04:57:58 PM


Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 30, 2014, 04:56:04 PM
Good lord.

Say what?!

I am expressing my opinion.  Good lord to your comment. Ditto

Double post auto-merged: September 30, 2014, 04:59:20 PM


Quote from: TLLK on September 30, 2014, 03:00:36 AM
From my experience with working with children/teens, routine is very important to them. Going to church in Scotland with the BRF would have been a part of that routine and a semblance of normalcy on a very shocking day. If the boys stated to their father and other members of the family that they wanted to go to church, then their wishes should be honored. I believe that is a reasonable request.  :)

I do agree that it was odd that Diana wasn't mentioned that day, but I wasn't leading the service that morning.

What routine. Their mother died. How can anybody think of "routines?"

And honestly you don't think the Queen or some courtier could have thought to have Diana mentioned? They are not a bunch of morons and they can talk.


DaisyMeRollin

^^^ Here's your ceremonial robe. You swing the incense and I'll chant. We can round out our say with ritual self-flagellation. Sounds like a good day, huh? ^^^
"No one is dumb who is curious. The people who don't ask questions remain clueless throughout their lives." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

sandy


HistoryGirl

Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on September 30, 2014, 05:32:24 PM
^^^ Here's your ceremonial robe. You swing the incense and I'll chant. We can round out our say with ritual self-flagellation. Sounds like a good day, huh? ^^^

Sounds akin to what occurs around here at times yes lol

Limabeany

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.
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

DaisyMeRollin

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.
"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, 04:40:26 PM
Of course it wasn't what she wanted. Her first instinct was that it be private because Diana was no longer a princess. She was forced because of public outcry. Which I'm sure she thought ridiculous; and it was in my opinion because she was helping her grandsons at the time...
sorry but again how  was it helping her grandsons to send them out to talk to crowds? when both of them were pretty shaken up as you wold expect over the horrible tragic death of their mother?   I think ti was pretty obvious that the boys were pushed out.. and that it wasn't' appropriate for THEm to be the ones whom the public saw...The boys could have stayed safely at Balmoral, till it was time for the funeral.. and the queen should have done her job and made a couple of public gestures to show that she was in sympathy with the public grief.