Willam and Harry \"We Didn\'t Protect Her\"

[TLLK]

]Prince William confesses he and Harry "Didn't protect her." | Daily Mail Online

The Duke of Cambridge made the emotional admission in a major BBC interview about the week that followed Princess Diana's death in a car crash in 1997.

He said he and his brother were finally ready to talk about their mother 'because we feel we owe it to her'. He added: 'I think an element of it is feeling like we let her down when we were younger.'

William, who was 15 at the time, continued: 'We couldn't protect her. We feel we at least owe her 20 years on to stand up for her name and remind everybody of the character and person that she was. Do our dutie

Read more: Prince William confesses he and Harry 'let Diana down' | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Double post auto-merged: June 01, 2017, 10:03:02 PM

Not surprised at their reaction upon learning of her death as teens and children will often believe that somehow their actions and words contributed to a sad event ie: death, divorce etc...

[Curryong]

Yes, I think they felt a whole range of emotions after hearing such devastating news. All sorts of feelings have probably come to the surface for both sons on each anniversary. They are at least talking about it now, the new documentary should be very interesting, though inevitably DM commenters bring it down to the lowest common denominator, empathising with royals' feelings has never been a strong point with that rabble!

[amabel]

It seems to me that he's largely talking bout her relations with the Press, and I don't see how 2 boys of their age could have advised her or helped her much in her dealings with the newspapers... when she problably could have benefited from such help.

[Curryong]

I think William's talking about all sorts of things in connection with his mother, about his perceptions. He mentions her feelings of isolation and uncertainty as a young woman in an old institution, about her contentious relationship with the Press, about her charity work and her legacy.

I think William believes that his mother's legacy may have been damaged and diminished by critical biographies and articles since her demise and wants to stand up now at the 20th anniversary of her death and, together with Harry, talk about how great she was as a mother, about the bond between them. He and Harry also want to show what an inspiration she was to them in her charity work, in not being afraid to tackle serious and unpopular issues.

I don't believe either he or Harry are seriously contending that they wish that, as schoolboys of 15 and 12, they had taken over as their mother's media advisers. I just think there is a measure of regret there that she isn't there now they are grown men and they could all help and advise each other about the media and other matters.

I found it a very interesting article, and I'm very much looking forward to the BBC documentaries and Diana's two sons speaking about how they felt at her funeral, about the public reaction to their mother's death and many others things. Straight from the horses' mouths this time, and not through the prisms of commentators and Royal correspondents.

[amabel]

well of course not, but I think he problaby see her relations with the press as one of the big problems in her life, and that it literally led to her death.  and wishes that he had been older/wiser and able to advise and protect her from  the mistakes she made there.

[royalanthropologist]

It is a normal reaction. Nobody likes to get negative reaction or commentary about their dead parent. If that commentary is made on the basis of inaccurate speculation or outright deliberate lies then the hurt increases.  In Diana's case it makes it worse that some sections of the public seem to want to continue the battles of the 1980s and 1990s instead of celebrating what Diana meant to them. It is almost as if she were a stick with which they can attack the monarchy. The press is a partisan and duplicitous cheerleader for this sort of thing. It is the ultra fans and the press that made Diana's life impossible with their constant need for intrusive coverage and scandal. She could not have a normal life at all because of them. The interfered, sniped and opined about her life even when she was lying in her coffin. They are still doing it 20 years after her death.

The comments on the DM are appalling as usual. You have these crazed conspiracy theorists talking about murder as if they had definitive proof then what is a tribute to their mum is somehow turned into an attack into Charles and the royal family.  Sadly that marriage was overrun by sad and disturbed people who have nothing better to do than interfere in other people's lives.

[amabel]

that's true, but she unfortunately DID invite the press into her life.  I know she was unhappy and lacked good advice.. but she also refuse to take good advice.  And she was desperate I think to hit out, because she was so unhappy... but by "invading her own privacy", she opened the door to the media being able to romp intot her life and once she was gone they've had even more leeway to make up rubbish  stories.
And IMO the boys havent said much, till now when they seem to be bringing her name up all the time. I think they could have said more, many years ago about the unpleasant use of her life for "paper fodder".
(problaby would nto have stopped the press but i'd think more of the boys).
I agree that it is sad that SOME of Di's fans seem to be more interested in re fighting old battles, gong over Di's bad sad times and her angry unhappy response, than talking about her good side and her better times and the good that she did.

[royalanthropologist]

If I was being really honest with myself, I would probably behave worse than Diana ever did in her situation. She lacked the insight and internal resources that are required to deal with her unique circumstances. Diana craved the love, respect and attention of the one person in the world who would or could never give it to her. It was really a tragedy.

[amabel]

I don't believe Charles was ever likely to fall deeply in love with her, because his heart was at least partly given to Camilla.. but I think that Diana's essential character and nature was very much differnet to his, as were her interests.. and they botht had a bit of a weakness for being "moaners"... which rubbed up against each other..
but anyway, I think that had she been different  or reacted differently to him after marriage, I think they could have grown into a friendly marriage...
the problem was that Diana seems to have very quickly dropped "loving the country" and being a jolly amusing young woman as she had been during their courtship.  She was ill and depressed, and stormy.
he not being used to people not giving in to him, and probably not really that experienced with deeper relationships with women, was bewildered by her volte face.  I think the rest of the RF was as well.  They seem to have thought of her as a jolly lively fun kind of girl, and not foreseen any problems...
Now she was unhappy, stormy, angry, and they too were surprised and shocked and possibly began to think that the pre marriage Diana had been putting on "her best behaviour" and that now she was showing her true self  and it wasn't very likable.
Charles tired to be patient but he didn't understand why she was acting so differently, and since he wasn't deeply in love, he problaby soon began to get fed up and his "patience" problably came across to Diana as condescencion...

[Curryong]

What about if Charles's 'essential character' had been different or he had 'reacted differently' to her after marriage. Why does it always have to be Diana who 'changed'? Most partners in a marriage BOTH change and react and adapt, but apparently Diana had to be like one of those vines that wrap around the fig trees we have in Aus, a clinging vine in reality! 

[TLLK]

I think William's talking about all sorts of things in connection with his mother, about his perceptions. He mentions her feelings of isolation and uncertainty as a young woman in an old institution, about her contentious relationship with the Press, about her charity work and her legacy.

I think William believes that his mother's legacy may have been damaged and diminished by critical biographies and articles since her demise and wants to stand up now at the 20th anniversary of her death and, together with Harry, talk about how great she was as a mother, about the bond between them. He and Harry also want to show what an inspiration she was to them in her charity work, in not being afraid to tackle serious and unpopular issues.

I don't believe either he or Harry are seriously contending that they wish that, as schoolboys of 15 and 12, they had taken over as their mother's media advisers. I just think there is a measure of regret there that she isn't there now they are grown men and they could all help and advise each other about the media and other matters.

I found it a very interesting article, and I'm very much looking forward to the BBC documentaries and Diana's two sons speaking about how they felt at her funeral, about the public reaction to their mother's death and many others things. Straight from the horses' mouths this time, and not through the prisms of commentators and Royal correspondents.

Good points @Curryong. I believe that the brothers will choose to highlight her best qualities:1. Her ability to connect with the public. 2. Her charitable organizations especially groundbreaking work: AIDs etc...

I agree  that they won't bother with discussing her personal life other than their relationship with her as their mother. Her marriage, her treatment for bulimia/anxiety,her Spencer family, her lovers, her friends and critics will probably be off limits.

[amabel]

What about if Charles's 'essential character' had been different or he had 'reacted differently' to her after marriage. Why does it always have to be Diana who 'changed'? Most partners in a marriage BOTH change and react and adapt, but apparently Diana had to be like one of those vines that wrap around the fig trees we have in Aus, a clinging vine in reality! 

because she had given the impression of being into the things that he was into, like country life.. and then once married abruptly changed to a violent dislike of Balmoral and the country.  I think any husband would be a bit taken aback by such a volte face.  and she was marrying into a family that has a very formal structured lifestyle and where she had to fit in to their ways, not the other way around.  That was the way it was, back then.  Just as if she'd married the POTUS, she would have to fit in iwht American ways and do what they wanted.
And Charles DID adapt and try to please her, doing things like sunshiny holidays that weren't the sort of things he usually did.  He wrote to his friends to say he would have less time for them. He let her decorate Highgrove in her preferred way,... Although I wouldn't say he's a doting child lover, even Di admits that he was a fond father to the children when they were babies, bathing and feeding them.