Girl recalls meeting QEII after Diana's death

[TLLK]

The Queen comforted by a fan after Diana death backlash | Daily Mail Online

I do recall this scene in the film The Queen with Helen Mirren.

[royalanthropologist]

That was a  nice gesture from such a young girl. I hope her life turned out well. It was such a brave and thoughtful thing to do. Certainly a relief from the mob mentality of the floral fascists.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Im going to try and walk the line between both sides, yes it was nice the girl made the gesture, although my suspicious nature wonders if it wasnt a bit too well timed.....and one didnt want the gates stormed, etc. there is a middle ground that will disappoint everyone.

As we've found out more about events that week, nearly every action of the RF smacked, of callous, cold indifference to both Diana, and as a result, the Queens subjects, and her sons by not taking a different tack sooner.

From making the boys go to church that day, to no mention of her at church, to the disagreements over funeral arrangements and media silence, it was badly handled.

I think HM and PP use W&H as a shield to deflect any criticism of their handling of the event. While one didnt expect the boys to make an appearance in London, even HM and PP didnt have to come physically, had she given an address from Balmoral in the first 48hrs, it would have put out so many fires.

But things like the funeral disputes and the press begging to hear from the Queen didnt serve the boys best interests, and god knows what they heard, or saw red faces and stony glances, im sure they picked up on the energy, and now that theyre older, im sure they know about it, one wonders what that makes them think for their grandparents.

While I can understand how the Queen, personally, felt ill will towards Diana for what she said in Panorama, even if it was making light of the bitter fruit the queen is reaping from her shaky parenting of her children, she was her grandchildren's mother, and that was the time to put those things aside, and say whats expected when one passes, and technicalities aside, bring her into the royal fold. Not for her sake, but for the boys. William, at least, will be the future of the monarchy, and did she want him to have a chip on his shoulder over his mothers treatment at such an important time?

That was the perfect time and example of having to do duty, something you dont want to do, but do it because its either your position to do so, or for the care and well being of the people you have charge over, and draw your lavish lifestyle from, and it was a miserable failure, HM having to be dragged like a petulant child to give her message, and admonishing the PM "was that contrite enough" granted Blair had his own political hay to make, like everyone involved, but I do think he also was legitimately worried about keeping things together, compared to HM, let them eat cake approach.

But they thought, despite losing almost every publicity battle with Diana over the last 17 years, why, at this most important and emotionally charged time, did they think they would win this one? While they did eventually win the day years later, and they mention the monarchy's self preservation instinct that made them bend the knee and honor Diana.

It was only the fact that the British (sorry my British members) have the ridiculous habit of shooting blanks at the Queen, or other political figure, theyre displeased with, that kept that week from turning into a bloody revolution. I'll never know why the IRA or the republicans didnt seize on that, frankly golden opportunity to sow chaos, maybe HM had factored that in, when it comes to it, they might be mad, and shoot blanks, but never the real thing. But I think if like they say, the boys were the prime interest, things would have been done a lot differently, and what you see with the boys talking now as a result of that, partly.

Now, for the other side, while I am a big proponent of people expressing their grief during that time, I do think the "floral fascism" was an ugly side to it, shown in such things like Christophers Hitchens "the mourning after". People should only express it if they felt free to do so, and shouldnt have felt compelled to do so. I do think the majority of people were honestly expressing their grief, and whenever you get a large group of people together, theres sadly a dissolution of social responsibility that can lead to bad behavior, although the British reserve kept the palace gates from being tore down.

As an aside to Diana fans, I was disappointed at Richard Kays boot licking to HM in the article, but after his interview in Reinventing the Royals, ive come to expect it,despite his crocodile tears on recent Diana specials.

Sorry the other side didnt get equal time, while ive tried to be my usual grey that annoys many, its still something that I have pretty strong feelings on, and if you look at it from a Machiavellian perspective, the RF made two mistakes, they showed the public their true selves at a time that didnt serve them, and they missed an opportunity to "kill" Diana with kindness, so to speak,and put her to rest much sooner and diffuse so much of the ill will from that time.

Youd have thought after so many years of underestimating the publics reaction to her, they'd have not missed the chance to do this right, instead they may have to put up with her much longer than they planned.

[Curryong]

I think the Queen had, by 1997 sunk into a good deal of complacency about the deep and enduring bond there was between herself and her people. She had grown up and spent her adulthood in a much more deferential Britain than that of the 1990's and Elizabeth was of course a woman of 71 at the time of her former daughter-in-law's death. The Queen's opinions had been long formed and through the days following Diana's demise she believed the Press was fermenting it all and her attitude and that of other older royals was mostly 'We mustn't be bullied by what the Press says'. 'Steady as we go' might have worked once and in some crises, but not in this one.

The Royal family were cut off almost completely at Balmoral, as if that other world, the one in London didn't exist. In that mindset a public broadcast from Balmoral would have been considered absurd. It wasn't until mid-week that the Queen came to realise that the Press were in fact reflecting a very profound public attitude. Then she moved.

(By the way, I don't believe that the public mood was driven by the Press from the beginning. The British Press was itself shell-shocked and very aware that there was an anti-pap, anti media feeling abroad. Journalists and photographers themselves were bewildered by what they saw in London I believe; the sorrow, tears, the flowers appearing, the hint of anger against 'Them', courtiers, Establishment, the court, the whole Royal set-up. This was at the beginning of that week. It was a new phenomenon, but one which they quickly latched on to.)

It wasn't until the Queen and Philip saw the mountains of flowers around the Palaces and saw some of the many anti-Royal messages, that they realised that the public mood was not favourable. They were bewildered according to some accounts. I have read that courtiers wondered whether people would throw things. In fact the Queen was given a clap when her car appeared.

I was in London in that week and I would not describe the mood as revolutionary. I heard people's remarks among the crowds, there was sadness, some resentment, some annoyance, some degree of criticism of the Queen and especially of Charles. But tearing down the gates of BP, declaring a republic, burning the Queen in effigy, no.

A UK Gallop Poll taken immediately after the Queen's speech on Diana from BP found 2/3 of respondents reacted favourably. They were satisfied. However, the BRF learned lessons from that week. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.

[amabel]

Hmm, while not wanting to get into the whole row right now, I felt that the queen had so obviously bene pushed inot thtat statement that it ddn't impress me at all.
I don't think there was any serious "republican" feeling as such but there was disappointment with the way that the RF had behaved, that they had been isolated up there in Balmoral and hadn't realy been aware that Diana HAD been so loved and that people were grieved at her death.

[TLLK]

A UK Gallop Poll taken immediately after the Queen's speech on Diana from BP found 2/3 of respondents reacted favourably. They were satisfied. However, the BRF learned lessons from that week. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.

:goodpost: Lessons that will hopefully not be  forgotten that they cannot take their goodwill for granted.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

One thing that stuck with me in Reinventing the Royals was how even though they (RF) had seen pictures of how one had to BE there to get a feel for the mood (thanks to @Curryong for adding some first hand views of being there) that the pictures wernt enough.

I also agree that the Queen had been pushed to make the speech and was not sincere at all, but peoples default setting is to defer to HM, so it was enough for them. They wernt sure how the visit would go, so they planned it as hear the gates as possible so if it went bad they had an escape route.

[royalanthropologist]

The thing that amazes me is that people expect the royal family to be these impersonal robots that do not react to attacks against them. Why would people assume that the queen was intensely grieving for a woman who had destroyed her son's reputation and threatened her job (which is to be monarch)? Do people grieve for troublesome in-laws who have left the family under very acrimonious circumstances?

I still maintain that the London mob was mainly made up of people who needed help. They should not have been encouraged in their ridiculous display. The queen made a speech was about as sincere as an apology from a politician. You could clearly see she was grinding her way through. It was a PR speech written by the likes of Blair's spin doctors.

It is precisely because of that speech that the queen has never forgiven Tony Blair. He is unlikely to be honored in the way that other Prime Minsters like Thatcher were honored. This was a mob of republicans and sick people bullying an old woman to do their bidding. They succeeded and Charles Spencer crowned the spectacle with his outrageous speech. It was a low point in British life.

The monarchy is now a lot more cynical. They play the press game in order to "be in touch" but deep down they still resent the idea that they are at the mercy of the Murdoch press.

[Curryong]

Royal, there were hundreds of thousands of people, of all age groups and both sexes, who came out with flowers and candles and little notes. They were upset, they were somewhat disappointed that the Queen wasn't there in London, in BP, but they weren't a mob or 'floral fascists', persons who 'needed help' or  even, most of them, republicans who wanted to pull down the Queen and the monarchy. They were simply people, mostly Britons, but some foreigners who happened to be in London, people from all walks of life, many of them young. They were ordinary people who had loved Diana as a public figure and were sympathetic to her.

I was born in England, was brought up there, know British people and have been in Britain many times in the years since I emigrated to Australia. The people in those crowds, and I was there, weren't screaming out hatred of the Queen or Charles, raising their fists, yelling insults and threats about the monarchy. They were simply grieving people who wanted to pay tribute to a woman they admired and loved. That is all. I didn't see ulterior motives in the people who were mourning Diana and I really think it's pretty off to ascribe such to them, quite frankly.

Someone did a breakdown on the 43 remembrance books set out at St James Palace on that week, and on the people who queued, for hours, to sign them. A large proportion were women, young (under 45) and were middleclass (over 50%) the last people on earth who would be manning barricades, pulling BP gates down and demanding the Queen's abdication.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Sorry @royalanthropologist it seems I didnt lay my thought process out enough. I didnt expect the queen to say something because she was grieving for Diana, one can fully expect her to have ill will towards Diana given the way things ended, but her saying something or handling things differently wasnt about what she was feeling, it was about acknowledging what the boys and the country were feeling.

That duty thing pundits like to say shes so full of. not just the speech, but making the necessary arrangements without there having to be a big row over it. It wasnt just a family burying a troublesome ex in law, if they want to feed off the public purse, they have to take the public sentiment into account as well. In many ways the RF are our family, and like Judy Ward said, she was "a girl for us" and we wanted it known we lost something special and her sent off right. The RF certainly used the publics adoration of her to cement their position for many years, well the bill for that came due that week.

I think she bristled at Blair when she should have thanked him for "making" her do what needed to be done, even if she just about  tanked it. She's certainly free to deny him honors, and of course he took full political advantage of the situation, but he as a PM was going to have a brief time in the sun.

She had the luxury of time and position to endure it and come out looking all the stronger for doing what people needed even it we all knew it wasnt easy for her to do it gracefully, but seemed to channel her own inner Diana at her worst a bit that week being sour, sully willful and deflecting blame(it wasnt me, I had to care for the boys).

In time from Sept 97, there would be time for the queen to say or through action suggest what she feels personally about Diana. But that week was about her people and by extension, grandchildren.

Im sure it was hard, maybe one of her top three times as far as doing duty when it was either hard, or what she didnt want to do, but that week was not about her for once in her reign. Whether she liked it or not, Diana eclipsed her in the publics mind and heart, it was a before then unheard of event in terms of public sentiment.

What was needed was for the queen to show as the countrys mother, so to speak, she understood her people were in pain, and wanted it acknowledged and its object of said pain, honored and put to rest in a manner befitting.

Its kind of like when one of your kids is broken hearted over someone you dislike, as much as you want to say what you think about the person, that is not the time. Even if youre right, they're not ready to hear it, maybe once the emotions are done, reason will carry the day, but then and there your duty is to care for them and see them through it, even if you have to say some things that make you cringe about that person, they still love them. you dont say those things because you love the person you dislike, you say it because you love that kid.

That week the Queen showed she didnt "love" her kids ie the people (if you know what I mean, maybe not a one to one analogy, but the best I can think of on the spot). I also think its why Charles Spencers speech got so much applause, even if he, like everyone else in Dianas life and death, had something they wanted out of it for themselves. Instead, she could have left him without a leg to stand on if shed handled it better.

I have to agree with @Curryong  I know youve had some bad experiences with some on the forum that are possibly coloring the remembrance of that time. I think the majority just wanted it understood that they suffered a loss that needed to be acknowledged, I think they were somewhat ready to put aside their feelings towards the RF and their role in events that caused her to be there in Paris, if it was dealt with promptly and properly, but as the week dragged on, I think it only served to confirm peoples worst feelings about the RF, when it was totally unnecessary for that to happen.

I know there are some aspects of the press that make it tough for the monarchy, but they are accountable to them in a modern society, and they use the press now rather than the point of a spear to enforce their right to rule. Im sure deep down they resent it, they likely long for the day when people could be drawn and quartered, but from the Magna Carta forward theyve had to do this dance with the populace, we wouldnt have had civilization without it, wed still be limited by states limited to the small distance a monarch could rule by force of arms.

Now im not suggesting we have Diana to thank for modern society, but she did show the RF what was going to be the next century's "point of the spear" in terms of gaining and holding power, albeit she taught them often times with the business end of it. But it think they did resent having to show some account to the people and it was a low point in British life, but I think more in terms of the RF showing how out of step they were with modern life. Now today it may just be baby steps and window dressing, and the public have seemed to snapped back into servile position.

It was described that week as a boil that had to be lanced that built up from 1992 onwards, not just the scandals, but the Windsor castle fire showed just how much wealth was hoarded up there while the economy at that time was in bad sorts. No one likes change, certainly not an institution that thrives on trying to keep things the same, but periodically they need those stormy periods to catch up to society.

Things seem to have settled down, royal spouses are boring again,and while im sure the crowds and flowers will be nothing like it was 20 years ago, but even now, people still have feelings over it. It was a golden opportunity for the RF to catch up in 97, and to gain benefit from what Diana did, just by trying to act sincere and making a few funeral arrangements.

Thats the sad part, I could see if it was a great expense, or some material sacrifice to do it, but it was that people saw the pettiness and bitterness, not directed at Diana like HM and the RF thought it was, but it was directed at the people, and they read that message loud and clear.

I know we agree to disagree sometimes, and this might be one of those times, and thats okay. I know you have different opinions on that week, and I think I understand some of whats behind them, and can see that. But I hope that some of these ideas which maybe wernt thought of in this way, will open up the possibility of a rethinking of some of what went on that week.

I know that im certainly not an unbiased observer in those events, as it wasnt just a shocking news event for me that week.  :flower:

[amabel]

Royal, there were hundreds of thousands of people, of all age groups and both sexes, who came out with flowers and candles and little notes. They were upset, they were somewhat disappointed that the Queen wasn't there in London, in BP, but they weren't a mob or 'floral fascists', persons who 'needed help' or  even, most of them, republicans who wanted to pull down the Queen and the monarchy. They were simply people, mostly Britons, but some foreigners who happened to be in London, people from all walks of life, many of them young. They were ordinary people who had loved Diana as a public figure and were sympathetic to her.

I was born in England, was brought up there, know British people and have been in Britain many times in the years since I emigrated to Australia. The people in those crowds, and I was there, weren't screaming out hatred of the Queen or Charles, raising their fists, yelling insults and
/quote]
True absolute nonsense.. I think that there were people who were normally "indifferently ok" iwht the monarcy, who were annoyed and disappoitnted by the RF's lakc of feeling as it seemed.. and who may have become a bit more republican minded, after the week.. I like the queen, but I think she made a big mistake in not making a response sooner and at lest trying to sound more sincere.  OK she didn't like Diana, and I can understand why, but DI was a young woman who had died tragically, the mother of her 2 grandsons..   THe queen could have made more of an effort, to show the people that she did care that Di had been prematurely lost to her sons and the world.
Of course there were alsos loads of people who didn't care, who didn't go to see the flowers or look at the news who were irritated by those who were saddened.
Fine.  but a lot of people DID and felt saddened by Di's death, upset that such a thing could happen to a young woman who should have had protection form messy things like car accidents..
It wouldn't have been that hard for the queen to make  a flying visit to London earlier and made  a speech..
And within a short time, I think that people accepted the queen had made the appropriate gesture, even if pushed into it, and fairly soon the "big grief" over Di subsided..
Now there are still people who seem to be carrying a grudge against Charles or the QUeen for what happened in the past.. but at the time of Di's death, I think it was the queen who goofed up and she was forced inot making a "right gesture".. and I think that over the years, she has learned frorm Diana's life and death and things have been changed in the RF which make it easier for newcomers marrying in etc

[royalanthropologist]

I see your points @Duch_Luver_4ever but I still think the queen was seething with resentment. Princess Margaret was allegedly annoyed that her holiday had been disrupted by the inconvenient death of that "unfortunate girl". The QM was relieved that a thorn in the monarchy's side was no longer potent. Charles probably felt a mixture of shock and regret at the death. However, the royal family was still hostile to Diana and what she stood for. Panorama still rankled.

The responsible and human thing would have been to acknowledge that someone who had been in the institution for 15 years had died in tragic and unexpected circumstances. Certainly mentioning her in prayers would have been the christian thing to do but the queen let her personal resentments overcome her. The public at first expressed genuine shock and disappointment at the apparent coldness (when you die, people tend to remember mainly the good things in the immediate aftermath). Later on, things became darker with insults being bandied and the queen being sent subtle threats by Tony Blair who behaved like step mum figure.

[amabel]

They were in the C of Scotland, which does not pray for the dead.  Its possible that no one quite knew what to do, with the shock, so the clergyman just stayed wth the sermon he had prepared...and the RF, in shock if not grieved did not make any request for her to be mentioned..
But I tink that they were indeed not that grieved at her death and did not realise that the public would react as they did.  having said that, the grief reaciotn wasn't that long lived./