QuoteThe Queen was "absolutely right" to stay with Princes William and Harry at Balmoral in the immediate aftermath of Diana's death because it gave them the strength to walk behind their mother's coffin, a former royal press secretary has said.
Her majesty was criticised heavily at the time by the "hostile" press for not appearing in public as the nation shared its grief over the sudden death of the Princess.
Dickie Arbiter spoke to Good Morning Britain about his front row seat to the most defining decade of modern monarchy.
.....
Mr Arbiter spoke highly of Princes William and Harry saying have "matured extremely well".
He defended Prince Harry's youthful gaffes, describing his experimenting with soft drugs and fancy dress Nazi costume as mistakes "almost all teenage boys" make.
More: Queen was 'right' to stay at Balmoral with princes after Princess Diana's death - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/2014-09-26/queen-was-right-to-stay-at-balmoral-with-princes/)
Cindy
Hmm, I don't think so.
I actually think this was right. To take them away from the melee and help them deal with things. Their feelings were the main ones that mattered.
^^ I agree. She was where she needed to be at the time. I do think that perhaps a short statement could have been issued, though, that the two boys needed the privacy.
Cindy
I don't think it had tat much to do with the boys, and there were plenty of people who could have stayed with them. such s Anne...
I don't think it had anything to do with the boys, she simply did not want to stay far from London and the more she saw tv the more she wanted to stay away.
She did want to stay away from London. She problably did want to keep the boys safe at Balmoral.. having said that, I don't think she ahd much scruples about shoving them out to meet the crowds....
I agree with you both HG and Cindy. In my experience a family's first instinct is to protect the most vulnerable members to be impacted. Giving the boys the space they needed to get over their initial shock and their possible feelings towards the press was the right thing to do.
If the BRF had to do one thing differently it would be that they should have sent a message explaining that they planned to stay in Scotland until just prior to the funeral.
I think the queen could quite well have made a statement of grief at Dis death, come to London for a day or so, and left the boys with other members of the family. She didn't - because she didn't really feel much grief for Di.. and didn't like pretending. And she wasn't too bothered IMO about sending the 2 boys out to meet crowds when things were looking bad... so I'm not sure how deep her desire to protect them was...
Quote from: TLLK on September 29, 2014, 04:06:06 PM
I agree with you both HG and Cindy. In my experience a family's first instinct is to protect the most vulnerable members to be impacted. Giving the boys the space they needed to get over their initial shock and their possible feelings towards the press was the right thing to do.
If the BRF had to do one thing differently it would be that they should have sent a message explaining that they planned to stay in Scotland until just prior to the funeral.
Yeah that would have been a good idea. But that's us thinking in hindsight. At the time her first instinct was probably well Diana is no longer a royal princess; it is not a matter of state, but a private family matter in which her two sons are more important than a bunch of strangers being upset. I get that they loved Diana, but I can guarantee that none of those people loved her or were more affected by her death than her sons. To have their closest family near them in a calm place with privacy was the correct move in my opinion.
I also believe that the BRF were giving the Spencers the opportunity to make her private funeral arrangements but it very quickly evolved into a public event that they were expected to play a major role.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on September 29, 2014, 05:24:49 PM
Quote from: TLLK on September 29, 2014, 04:06:06 PM
I agree with you both HG and Cindy. In my experience a family's first instinct is to protect the most vulnerable members to be impacted. Giving the boys the space they needed to get over their initial shock and their possible feelings towards the press was the right thing to do.
If the BRF had to do one thing differently it would be that they should have sent a message explaining that they planned to stay in Scotland until just prior to the funeral.
Yeah that would have been a good idea. But that's us thinking in hindsight. At the time her first instinct was probably well Diana is no longer a royal princess; it is not a matter of state, but a private family matter in which her two sons are more important than a bunch of strangers being upset. I get that they loved Diana, but I can guarantee that none of those people loved her or were more affected by her death than her sons. To have their closest family near them in a calm place with privacy was the correct move in my opinion.
but then the queen shunted them down to London and sent them out to meet the crowds, when she and the RF were getting hostility.
Well they couldnt stay away from London forever. It was during the initial shock where they needed to be in a safe place.
IMO if Charles didn't want his sons out in public prior to the funeral than I don't believe he'd allow anyone to push them out there. I believe that by taking small steps ie: Public appearance to view flowers in Scotland and later at KP gave them an opportunity to acclimate themselves to the public's mood prior to the procession and service.
^Sounds about right.
Quote from: TLLK on September 29, 2014, 07:14:20 PM
IMO if Charles didn't want his sons out in public prior to the funeral than I don't believe he'd allow anyone to push them out there. I believe that by taking small steps ie: Public appearance to view flowers in Scotland and later at KP gave them an opportunity to acclimate themselves to the public mood prior to the procession and service.
I think the RF was in shock, but I don't think it was right ot push them out, as I think was done. I don't see the need and it was pretty cynical to let them out to deflect criticism. I'm glad they felt able to walk in the funeral procession but I think it was a big strain on them...
I don't get why the boys had to go to Church (as usual) the morning after Diana died. Then no mention of Diana at all in the service. Really really cold. The Queen should have gone to London. Diana was not just a "Spencer" but the mother of her grandsons William and Harry.
I'm guessing that the boys wanted to go to the service. It is likely that they believed it was the appropriate thing to do.
The boys don't go to church regularly and never have, so why would they have wanted to go to a service instead of mourning at home, additionally, taking them to a church service the day AFTER their mother died and suppressing any mention of their mother is cold, cruel and as out of touch with people's feelings as one can get.
I've been under the impression that when they are with their paternal grandparents that church service is part of the routine especially when they were children/teens. Once they were adults, then they would be free to make their own choices regarding regular attendance. Going to church and praying for their mother seems like an appropriate thing to do and not an unusual request IMO.
Now I do agree that it was odd that the minister did not make a reference to their mother, but he would be the one to publicly offer up the prayers.
Quote from: TLLK on September 30, 2014, 12:08:24 AM
I'm guessing that the boys wanted to go to the service. It is likely that they believed it was the appropriate thing to do.
Probably. It would have caused speculation whether they had been there or not. Just like if the Queen had stayed in London people would have then questioned whether she actually cared about her grandsons since she left them at Balmoral. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. The truth is there is no "correct" way to deal with a death. It pretty much sucks all around.
I couldn't say it better myself HG. :goodpost:
Quote from: TLLK on September 30, 2014, 12:25:14 AM
I've been under the impression that when they are with their paternal grandparents that church service is part of the routine especially when they were children/teens. Once they were adults, then they would be free to make their own choices regarding regular attendance. Going to church and praying for their mother seems like an appropriate thing to do and not an unusual request IMO.
Now I do agree that it was odd that the minister did not make a reference to their mother, but he would be the one to publicly offer up the prayers.
Quote from: TLLK on September 30, 2014, 12:25:14 AM
I've been under the impression that when they are with their paternal grandparents that church service is part of the routine especially when they were children/teens. Once they were adults, then they would be free to make their own choices regarding regular attendance. Going to church and praying for their mother seems like an appropriate thing to do and not an unusual request IMO.
Now I do agree that it was odd that the minister did not make a reference to their mother, but he would be the one to publicly offer up the prayers.
Well part of the routine did not include their finding about their mother's death. That is decidedly not routine. Certainly the royals can speak and one of them could have told the minister to have prayers for Diana.
We're not talking routines here and church going. We're talking about two shocked grieving boys taken to Church. They should have been allowed time alone. The cameras were all over them. For supposedly superior people they acted shockingly stupid and unfeeling.
Double post auto-merged: September 30, 2014, 12:50:03 AM
Quote from: TLLK on September 30, 2014, 12:08:24 AM
I'm guessing that the boys wanted to go to the service. It is likely that they believed it was the appropriate thing to do.
How were they in any position to think in a normal way. The woke up to the news their mother died. I can't imagine them in any sort of state to say let's go to Church. Did they have a choice? I doubt it. It's all about appearances with that clan. And bringing them to Church was supposedly for comfort with no mention of their mother. Sounds monstrous to me. And Harry even asked if it was a mistake and his mother was alive since she was not mentioned in Church.
Quote from: TLLK on September 30, 2014, 12:25:14 AM
I've been under the impression that when they are with their paternal grandparents that church service is part of the routine especially when they were children/teens. Once they were adults, then they would be free to make their own choices regarding regular attendance. Going to church and praying for their mother seems like an appropriate thing to do and not an unusual request IMO.
Now I do agree that it was odd that the minister did not make a reference to their mother, but he would be the one to publicly offer up the prayers.
I remember reading that the Queen asked that Diana not be mentioned, that was insensitive and selfish decision, she didn't have to like Diana, but she should have put her children first.
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.
The family were left alone for the vast majority of the time. It's clear that everyone from the Queen down--Philip, Charles, Peter Phillips, Zara, Tiggy, devoted themselves to the care of the boys and Balmoral was the ideal place to do it.
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.
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.
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.
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? <_<
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.
^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.
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.
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 !!!
I've just explained why she should have said soemting. NO point in further arguing.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Good lord.
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.
Ok.
^^^ 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? ^^^
What is the name of this thread again?
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
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.
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.
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.
^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.
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.
William and Harry are both avid hunters so to them it may have been as enjoyable an experience could be in those circumstances.
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!
Good point Curryong.
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.
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
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 !!!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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. ;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
^ 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?
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?
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.
seriously there are certain normal forms that people employ especially in the case of death and other changes. At most services there is a time to pray for the dead so that would have been appropriate and natural - but maybe they were afraid of upsetting the boys.
I've wondered if there was so much chaos and turmoil that morning that it simply slipped their minds to request that the reverend include her in the prayers that day.
Iam not sure about that. I think that the RF were cool on the idea of remembering or praying for Di, and the clergyman knew this and thought ti was Best to stick too the sermon and service he Had originally prepared, because he was not sure how to proceed
Quote from: TLLK on October 30, 2014, 05:52:46 AM
I've wondered if there was so much chaos and turmoil that morning that it simply slipped their minds to request that the reverend include her in the prayers that day.
Slipped their minds? I doubt it. How could the death of William's and Harry's mother and its implications have slipped their mind? Seriously, I never heard of such cold heartedness by taking the boys to Church with not one prayer to be spared for their mother . Because they have the HRH does not make their actions always virtuous.
Double post auto-merged: October 30, 2014, 02:35:35 PM
Quote from: amabel on October 30, 2014, 06:36:05 AM
Iam not sure about that. I think that the RF were cool on the idea of remembering or praying for Di, and the clergyman knew this and thought ti was Best to stick too the sermon and service he Had originally prepared, because he was not sure how to proceed
The royals should have seen to it that he did not think it "offensive" to offer a prayer for the deceased mother of William and Harry. Even a deceased royal servant would not be treated so disrespectfully.
If the clergyman was 'afraid' to have prayers for a dead person who gave birth to WIll and Harry he has no heart either.
Quote from: cate1949 on October 30, 2014, 01:25:20 AM
seriously there are certain normal forms that people employ especially in the case of death and other changes. At most services there is a time to pray for the dead so that would have been appropriate and natural - but maybe they were afraid of upsetting the boys.
Praying for their mother would "upset" the boys?! Why? Very poor excuse if t his were the case. Why would not her sons want prayers for her. There is always a "place" for prayers.
Harry was upset because it caused him confusion so he asked Charles if he were sure "Mummy was dead."
Quote from: snokitty on October 30, 2014, 02:37:07 PM
It was also heartless to take them out hunting so they could kill. The royals made many mistakes when Diana lived so it was no different when she died.
why was it heartless to let them do something they like which would keep their minds off what had happened?
Quote from: amabel on October 30, 2014, 05:13:12 PM
Quote from: snokitty on October 30, 2014, 02:37:07 PM
It was also heartless to take them out hunting so they could kill. The royals made many mistakes when Diana lived so it was no different when she died.
why was it heartless to let them do something they like which would keep their minds off what had happened?
I agree that it was best for the family to permit the boys to carry on with the activities that they enjoyed at Balmoral. I do know that Peter and Zara took them hiking and riding during that time period.
I agree
@snokitty When you pretend nothing happened, children don't feel free to express their grief or ask questions.
Quote from: Limabeany on October 31, 2014, 04:58:51 AM
I agree @snokitty When you pretend nothing happened, children don't feel free to express their grief or ask questions.
where is the evidence that this happened? The boys clearly did express their grief, they still refer to Diana and grieve over her at times. I'm sure that they were glad at the immediate time of Di's death to spend at least some of their time doing something to take their minds off things. even in the extremes of grief life has to go on and we tend to try and take our minds off the worst of it, for a while.
A lot of people, even the most grieved, can be grateful for a little respite from overwhelming grief. People laugh, tell amusing stories, and appreciate the humor that their loved ones had in life. Memories can bring great happiness as well as sadness. People all grieve differently, even among families. You can laugh and cry at the same time.
I am a human with a heart, whose heart has been broken often. I know this from personal experience, having lost my brother, parents, grandparents, 2 uncles, childhood friends, and 2 adult best friends at young ages. At times I have felt stalked by death, and have been very grateful for a break of good times and pleasure, and some comforting, physical things to work through grief.
While I agree with taking the boys to church that morning it was the one place where they could pray for their mother in private, The actions of the Clergy and Royal family clearly did not afford the boys that option. Sandy was right in her post that Harry was confused and asked Charles if he was sure his Mummy was dead I read that as well. Diana may have not been popular with her former husband and in laws at that time but she was William and Harry's mother and the RF could have and should have also had the Spencer relations up to Balmoral for support as well.
Snokitty, no when my mother died I was 14, of course I didn't just run outside and play. I cried, screamed, and was heartbroken. But at some point, a child can't take that much grief.
I feel that it is healthy to suggest activities a child might like, just to relieve a little of that horrible, heart-wrenching grief for a short time. Children grieve differently from adults. They understand someone saying that Mummy wouldn't want you to cry all day. She loved seeing you play. Want to go outside and swing for a while? Or track animals, or go fishing, or something the child enjoys. That can be very comforting.
As William said, Never being able to say the word "Mummy" again in your life sounds like a small thing.
'However, for many, including me, it's now really just a word – hollow and evoking only memories.'
You never forget it, you learn to live with it. If adults felt Harry would benefit from putting his mind into something besides unrelieved grief, I think that's fine.
Double post auto-merged: November 25, 2014, 05:10:41 AM
I personally feel that grieving children should not be put on public display, especially at sensitive ages like William and Harry. IF that was really their desire, I suppose it's OK. But to push them into doing something they don't want to while they are grieving is wrong. IMO, and experience, of course.
My beloved grandfather died when I was 13. The first thing I did was go climb a tree. Then I ran as hard as I could to the back fields of the farm. I needed that excercise and activity to process what had happened. I was old enough to understand death but too young to deal with it and all the grieving activities. My parents understood that and allowed me to leave the funeral palour and go for walks, whatever.
I think it was wise to let the boys deal with the initial shock of Diana's death away from the public. And at that age physical activity is an outlet. So going hunting or hiking was good. It may have given them a chance to talk to the adults in their lives. Kids open up better when they are doing activities.
My mother died when I was eleven and a half. It wasn't like Diana's death. My mother died at home after a long battle with cancer. Even so, I can empathise with what William and Harry were feeling. Of course I cried and felt numb, for a long time. It's been decades now, but when I married, when I had my first baby, the ache was still there. You never forget.
Nevertheless, my father never discouraged playing with my friends in the days after her death. I went on a farm visit and I enjoyed it. I got a lot of comfort from being with people of my own age. What was the alternative? That I sat inside my home and mourned?
There was a lot of tension between the Spencers and Charles following Diana's death. I don't think the Spencers being at Balmoral would have been helpful.
There were overblown worries about Charles's safety on the funeral route but we don't know that William was forced into walking. That story seems to have become woven into the narrative of Diana's funeral
His grandfather Philip, who had attended many relatives' funerals, was said to have advised him to and told him he would probably regret it afterwards if he didn't. He also offered to walk by William's side. We have no known evidence that undue pressure was put on either of the boys, though.
Quote from: Curryong on November 25, 2014, 06:44:20 AM
There were overblown worries about Charles's safety on the funeral route but we don't know that William was forced into walking. That story seems to have become woven into the narrative of Diana's funeral
His grandfather Philip, who had attended many relatives' funerals, was said to have advised him to and told him he would probably regret it afterwards if he didn't. He also offered to walk by William's side. We have no known evidence that undue pressure was put on either of the boys, though.
I shouldn't think there was. I don't think that they should have been pushed out to speak to the crowds but I think that it was good, Even if not easy, for them that they walked in the procession. I think that Phil was right if he said to Will that he'd regret it afterwards if he didn't.
Double post auto-merged: November 25, 2014, 09:31:36 AM
Quote from: Curryong on November 25, 2014, 05:43:43 AM
My mother died when I was eleven and a half. It wasn't like Diana's death. My mother died at home after a long battle with cancer. Even so, I can empathise with what William and Harry were feeling. Of course I cried and felt numb, for a long time. It's been decades now, but when I married, when I had my first baby, the ache was still there. You never forget.
Nevertheless, my father never discouraged playing with my friends in the days after her death. I went on a farm visit and I enjoyed it. I got a lot of comfort from being with people of my own age. What was the alternative? That I sat inside my home and mourned?
There was a lot of tension between the Spencers and Charles following Diana's death. I don't think the Spencers being at Balmoral would have been helpful.
even if you are an adult, you don't Sit and grieve all the time, after a death. You may do it some of the time, but its just impossible to do it all the time. There are normal things that have to be done, routine stuff, that you still have to do like shoping and preparing meals and so on, and its human nature to want to relieve the grief after a time by doing something you enjoy which takes your mind off it a little. of course it never stops hurting completely but I think that having the boys stay at Balmoral and do their things that they enjoyed, Rather than siting around crying or watching all the stuff on TV was fare better
Double post auto-merged: November 25, 2014, 09:33:04 AM
Quote from: snokitty on November 24, 2014, 11:53:07 PM
If you were just told that your Mother had died your first thought would be to go do something pleasurable? :no:
They were children at the time, not full grown adults who could understand things better.
It wasn't theirs "first thought". but they would hardly sit and weep all the time and if they did, it wouldn't be good for them. After a day or 2, I think ti was good for them to go out of the house, do something that took some of their attention and gave them a little relief from their pain
Quote from: Curryong on November 25, 2014, 06:44:20 AM
There were overblown worries about Charles's safety on the funeral route but we don't know that William was forced into walking. That story seems to have become woven into the narrative of Diana's funeral
His grandfather Philip, who had attended many relatives' funerals, was said to have advised him to and told him he would probably regret it afterwards if he didn't. He also offered to walk by William's side. We have no known evidence that undue pressure was put on either of the boys, though.
I recall a moment during the funeral procession when the royals and Earl Spencer were paused under the Marble Arch and assumed they were not seen by the cameras. Phillip took the opportunity to pat them on the shoulder to reassure them. Offering William a choice and providing him with support appears to be the actions of a man who understood his grandson's nature IMHO.
I think Phil is fairly close to William, at lesast he was back then when probably Will didn't have the best realtionship with his father, because of the marriage problems. I think that he turned to his grandparents for a warm but "non dramatic" relationship and support. I think that Phil would indeed Say that even if it was hard for W to walk behind his mother's coffin, it was the right thing to do, and that if he didn't do it he would regret it later on, that he didn't show her the last respect of being there during her final journey.
^^^I've read that the two are very close. IMO he is the one who could best relate to his grandchildren's feelings when their parents' marriages ended due to his own childhood experience.
Well I am not srure that Philips the Loviey dovey granddad type! but I think that he was probably good for the kids, to give them warmth but "tough love support" at that time.