The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry will attend a private service to re-dedicate the grave of Diana, Princess of Wales at Althorp House on Saturday 1 July.
The service, which will fall on what would have been the Princess's birthday, will be conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury and attended by her family. (Family expected to be present: Sons, daughter-in-law, grandchildren, siblings, nephews and nieces etc..)
I'm so glad to see this service of rededication happening. Although I believe that Diana was secretly reinterred, some time after the funeral, in the family church, and is no longer in that rather soggy plot on the island I think a family get-together at Althorp is perfect.
George and Char are going to grow up knowing about their grandmother, although of course they understand very little yet. But how fitting that they, their mother and Diana's boys will be there for the service. I'm glad to that the Archbishop is adding his presence. Diana's sisters, brother, nieces, nephews will be there too, I expect.
Thanks
@TLLK Such a fitting time on a day to celebrate her birth rather than in Aug or Sept. Over here its Canadas 150th birthday that day, but for the last 19 of them, its always been a bittersweet day for me.
I havent seen any news about the renovations to her site besides the original announcement, maybe they will start to filter out after this ceremony.
While I was typing, I agree with
@Curryong on her final resting place.
I actually think that is a wonderful idea for her family to have a re-dedication of her grave. Whoever thought about it and organized did a great job.
Good. Private. Spencers-Mc-F and PW and his family and PH ONLY.
ArchBishop of Canterbury, appropriate. YES, a religious head of the church. THEE ArchofCantar, YES!
No paps. Security at PRIVATE Althrope.
A very relaxed place and being around very relaxing people-Spencer Clan. GOOD!!
Private dinner/buffet inside Althrope ...most likely. Relaxed clothing worn by PK and PW and their kids...PH and the Spencers. Good! And I am a fan f PD and I like the inside scoops, pictures, but I have a feeling there will be no pictures released of of PW and his family , OH aand the Spencers-McQ's-Fellowes.
PD 's sisters and brother sharing stories and pictures to PW, PK, PH and the Spencer-Mc-Fellowes cousins.
All very approapriate and very private and on her birthday( DOB) and not (DOD)
Good for them all.
but if she had been re interred, why would they re dedicate the grave? it would be ridiciulous to take up the time of a bishop, performing a ceremony when there is no need.
Quote from: Curryong on June 28, 2017, 05:02:28 PM
I'm so glad to see this service of rededication happening. Although I believe that Diana was secretly reinterred, some time after the funeral, in the family church, and is no longer in that rather soggy plot on the island I think a family get-together at Althorp is perfect.
George and Char are going to grow up knowing about their grandmother, although of course they understand very little yet. But how fitting that they, their mother and Diana's boys will be there for the service. I'm glad to that the Archbishop is adding his presence. Diana's sisters, brother, nieces, nephews will be there too, I expect.
I'm agreed with you!! But I don't think paparazzi and media wouldn't allowed publish pictures out of respective for Princes William and Harry plus Spencer family also till says ok with that to publish magazine and newspaper from palace
Double post auto-merged: June 28, 2017, 08:13:50 PM
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on June 28, 2017, 07:22:18 PM
Good. Private. Spencers-Mc-F and PW and his family and PH ONLY.
ArchBishop of Canterbury, appropriate. YES, a religious head of the church. THEE ArchofCantar, YES!
No paps. Security at PRIVATE Althrope.
A very relaxed place and being around very relaxing people-Spencer Clan. GOOD!!
Private dinner/buffet inside Althrope ...most likely. Relaxed clothing worn by PK and PW and their kids...PH and the Spencers. Good! And I am a fan f PD and I like the inside scoops, pictures, but I have a feeling there will be no pictures released of of PW and his family , OH aand the Spencers-McQ's-Fellowes.
PD 's sisters and brother sharing stories and pictures to PW, PK, PH and the Spencer-Mc-Fellowes cousins.
All very approapriate and very private and on her birthday( DOB) and not (DOD)
Good for them all.
No publish pictures out of respect for Princes William and Harry plus Spencer family also till says ok with that or says NO you cant argue with that!
Double post auto-merged: June 28, 2017, 08:19:05 PM
Princes William and Harry to attend re-dedication service at Princess Diana's grave
http://us.hellomagazine.com/royalty/02017062836941/prince-william-harry-princess-diana-rededicate-grave/
Double post auto-merged: June 28, 2017, 08:22:26 PM
William, Kate and Harry to attend a private service to re-dedicate Princess Diana's grave on what would have been her 56th birthday
William, Kate and Harry to re-dedicate Diana's grave | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4648072/William-Kate-Harry-dedicate-Diana-s-grave.html)
Double post auto-merged: June 28, 2017, 08:24:23 PM
Princes William and Harry to attend service at Diana's grave
Princes William and Harry to attend service at Diana's grave - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40434275)
Double post auto-merged: June 28, 2017, 08:25:51 PM
Prince William and Harry to rededicate Diana's grave in private service on her birthday
Prince William and Harry to rededicate Diana's grave in private service on her birthday (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/28/prince-william-harry-rededicate-dianas-grave-private-service/)
Double post auto-merged: June 28, 2017, 08:30:06 PM
Prince William and Harry to re-dedicate Diana's grave in private service
Prince William and Harry to re-dedicate Diana?s grave in private service | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/822507/prince-william-harry-rededicate-diana-grave-private-service)
^ ^ We don't know whether the rededication on the island will be part of the Archbishop's duties on the day. It's all strictly private so we don't know. He may very well be there to bless the spot as a place of private retreat, prayer and contemplation. He almost certainly will be conducting a formal memorial service for the family, and this could take place inside Althorp itself. The Spencers don't have a private chapel so far as I know, but they certainly have enough rooms!
You know I have never agreed with Charles' Spencer's decisions for the funeral. They were all based on emotional responses rather than pragmatic decision-making. In his bitterness and search for somewhere to place the blame; he failed to see the wood from the trees. Diana had been offered (posthumously) her HRH title. The royals did not like her but were at least trying to make some amends, albeit reluctantly.
He threw it all back at them in that funeral speech and he ensured that forever, there would be awkwardness about the royal family celebrating Diana's life. She could have been interred at Frogmore or even Westminster Abbey had Charles Spencer not allowed his emotions to rule his head. Ironically the end result was that those people that loved and supported Diana were excluded. They had to pay a fee to visit the grave.
Perhaps all along they wanted something private and this is their chance to do it. Because it is a strictly Spencer family and friends affair, nobody will be on that service under duress or even to keep up appearances. That is what a proper memorial is supposed to be. Not one that is attended by people who do not like you or even actually despise you but are forced to attend for PR reasons.
its not at all clear whether the queen did offer to restore Diana's HRH and I think that in any case it was not advisable to restore it...
And I think it would have been wrong for di to be buried among the RF, it is much better that she was buried privately in her own home..
Of course the Spencers wanted her buried privately, but they felt that given how the public had shown grief and love for her, it was only right to agree to a public serrivice so that they could say goodbye to her.. and then she could be interred in privacy among her own people.. as I'm sure she would have wished...
Curryong,amabel and royalanthropologist,
Spencer family don't wanted intived paparazzi and media due Diana's death and I'm guaranteed they banned because haunted of Diana for more decades since 1981-1997
I don't think Spencer Familly have memorial service
When Diana's brother mentions at her funeral in 1997 and I'm hate to says he told his Royal nephew William and Harry for his mother's legend and mores but Spencer family really wanted Diana buried at Althorp where she raise from and Diana will remain as people's princess and queen's hearts..
All good points by everyone.
I only hope, for history's sake, when W is KofE, he will have his mother placed in honor due to her rank, HIS MOHTER.
Keep in mind many of us will here will be dead or in our mid 80's. QEII will be dead. PC will be dead. CSpencer, current Earl , will be dead. His son will be an adult and even as Earl, may not resist.
W will be King and he will be about in his early 60's.
This would be about 20-25 years from now.
I am so happy that this time on the 20th anniversary William and Harry will be able to privately be able to celebrate the life of their mother with the people that loved their mother. The 10 year anniversary has to be more public as they couldn't have a proper memorial service in '97 when she died to celebrate her life as they were children and all the inquiries in surrounding her death.
William and Harry will honor their mother with a statue in KP and are it appears to be honoring not only a beloved Princess but their beloved mother as they should without the Palace interfering.
Charles Spencer on His Sister, Princess Diana: She 'Deserves a Place in History'
Princess Diana's Brother Charles Spencer to Tell Her Story in People's Special (http://people.com/royals/charles-spencer-sister-princess-diana-deserves-place-history/)
Quote from: amabel on June 29, 2017, 05:25:26 AM
its not at all clear whether the queen did offer to restore Diana's HRH and I think that in any case it was not advisable to restore it...
And I think it would have been wrong for di to be buried among the RF, it is much better that she was buried privately in her own home..
Of course the Spencers wanted her buried privately, but they felt that given how the public had shown grief and love for her, it was only right to agree to a public serrivice so that they could say goodbye to her.. and then she could be interred in privacy among her own people.. as I'm sure she would have wished...
I am not so sure this is true. First of all I think it would have been more up to her direct heirs: William and Harry and not Charles Spencer.
Probably down the road, William will restore the title posthumously when he is monarch
Yes. The times that William and Harry catch up with the Spencer side of the family are few and far between nowadays, and I'm sure it will be a significant if sad occasion on Saturday.
The cousins will probably be there. I understand Diana's grandchildren will be taken there too.
Let's hope the only Middleton there will be Kate.
@Trudie. I rather doubt that the palace is interested in the rededication. It is not really nothing to do with them. Diana's family and their friends are remembering her. I just wish people would leave it at that instead of continuously trying to rope in other members of the royal family who would frankly rather forget about Diana altogether. It always seem as if there is this constant desire to put a negative spin on anything and everything. Why would the palace play any part in Diana's rededication? Makes no sense at all?
Quote from: sandy on June 29, 2017, 07:12:20 PM
Quote from: amabel on June 29, 2017, 05:25:26 AM
its not at all clear whether the queen did offer to restore Diana's HRH and I think that in any case it was not advisable to restore it...
And I think it would have been wrong for di to be buried among the RF, it is much better that she was buried privately in her own home..
Of course the Spencers wanted her buried privately, but they felt that given how the public had shown grief and love for her, it was only right to agree to a public serrivice so that they could say goodbye to her.. and then she could be interred in privacy among her own people.. as I'm sure she would have wished...
I am not so sure this is true. First of all I think it would have been more up to her direct heirs: William and Harry and not Charles Spencer.
Probably down the road, William will restore the title posthumously when he is monarch
since will and Harry were only children when Diana died, it was goig to be up to Charles S as the nearest adult male relative, to decide.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 30, 2017, 04:06:26 AM
@Trudie. I rather doubt that the palace is interested in the rededication. It is not really nothing to do with them. Diana's family and their friends are remembering her. I just wish people would leave it at that instead of continuously trying to rope in other members of the royal family who would frankly rather forget about Diana altogether. It always seem as if there is this constant desire to put a negative spin on anything and everything. Why would the palace play any part in Diana's rededication? Makes no sense at all?
Again William and Harry were children when Diana died it didn't matter what their opinions were the palace interfered and at the time of the 10 year memorial again the palace was involved as Willliam and Harry sought to bring both families together, at the time they were using Charles office and staff. Now that it is the 20 year anniversary both William and Harry are both in their thirties they can honor their mother anyway they want to as they have their own offices and staff and no longer have to use Charles office and staff. So it totally makes sense
A 1997 BBC report on the question of Diana's HRH being restored posthumously. It mentions a train journey made by Prince Charles and others like the then Sir Robert Fellowes, and the Spencers. I've read somewhere else that the two Charles's became furious with each other on that journey.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/hrh.html
@Trudie. Apart from William and Harry, members of the royal family were never really interested in celebrating or even taking part in Diana memorials. At the funeral Charles wanted to give her a decent burial but that was thrown back in his face with the likes of Charles Spencer and the so called Diana fans who were looking for someone to blame.
Then came the memorial. Diana's friend Rosa Monckton was given free reign together with the Labor government (that Labor government that had participated in the shameful bullying of the queen in the run up to the funeral) to come up with a monument or memorial. They made a hash of it; but somehow the royals braced themselves and appeared at the opening. Then the so called Diana fans started complaining that it must have been a royal plot after all, not to do a suitable monument for Diana (they do like their conspiracy theories- this lot). Some on the DM comments section even suggested replacing Queen Victoria's statue with Diana's (as if any one that mattered would consider replacing the "grandmother of Europe" with a divorced ex in law who had done all in her limited power to unsuccessfully destroy the Windsor/Saxe Coburg dynasty).
In 2007 (if the stories are to be believed); William and Harry tried to do a reconciliation event that would try to heal the old wounds and celebrate Diana as a national figure that transcended petty family wrangles. Once again the so called Diana fans stepped in and decided that it was all about them. They made a fuss (led by Rosa Monckton) and Camilla withdrew (despite being expressly invited by her step sons) The rest of the royal family appeared, but under implicit duress and barely disguised hostility. I rather suspect that it was not a pleasant or uplifting experience for them.
I believe that was the very last time the royal family wanted anything to do with Diana memorials. This was an ex daughter in law whom they had never liked or gotten along with. She had done her best to destroy them and one of their own (Charles). It is a testament to the delusional thinking of some so called Diana fans that they assume that after all that palava; the royal family is dying to be associated with another Diana memorial. They wanted none of it in the first place and are well glad that Diana's family can now do as they please.
When the royal family is left to do memorials; it does them rather well. The QM's funeral service was a stately, dignified affair with none of the aggressive emotional outbursts that had followed the "People's Princess". Even her memorials and statutes are very tasteful events with high quality workmanship. With Diana sadly, her so called fans continuously make it impossible to have any kind of decorum and dignity during her memorials.
For all its worth, I think that a re-dedication with Diana's descendants and the Spencer is right and appropriate. Because it is a private event, they will be able to keep away some of the more excitable so called Diana fans. It has nothing to do with any other member of the royal family (apart from Diana's descendants). I doubt any other member of the royal family will lose any sleep that they are not attending. It quite simply does not figure in their lives.
I am hopeful (but not certain) that the complete withdrawal of Charles and his family from Diana memorials will finally satisfy those fans of hers who have made it impossible to celebrate her life without going back into old battles and recriminations.
Charles Windsor represented the boys but as her ex husband really had no say in Diana's service. Charles himself was fearing for his life and whined that "they will blame me." He treated Diana badly in her lifetime so I think it was not only "Diana fans" who criticized him. "A decent burial" sounds like Charles was burying a family pet. William and Harry her sons even though minors had a say in it , according to various books(they were not tots then) William was 15 years old and could speak for himself and Harry was 12.
THe royals did have some say in the Diana fountain. Rosa was on the Committee. I think the royals did have resistance to the idea of a statue at that point.
No, the boys were not planning a reconciliation involving Camilla they were honoring their deceased mother. Dad was trying to pull the strings and perhaps he wanted to play happy families with Camilla. The boys deal with their high maintenance father and I think they were hoping Camilla would not go and hijack the purpose of the memorial. It would be in the papers Camilla this and Camilla that and did Camilla cry and what did she wear and on and on. Diana would be the forgotten one--the purpose of honoring her would be hijacked by a pathetic attempt by Charles to play Happy Families (and it was not the time or the place). What the heck do Diana fans have to do with it?! It would have been rude and crude for Camilla to walk in (and she would have destroyed much of the PR used for her to try to depict her as a good person). It's like in the average family where the children of a woman who died tragically wanted to set up a Memorial service. The woman who was instrumental in breaking up the marriage of the dead woman and her husband (the parents of said children) wanted to attend. I could only imagine how the purpose of the service would degenerate and even shouting matches within the family happening. It would turn into a Jerry Springer Spectacular! No way should Camilla have gone there or even though to fit. Charles also had to "inspect" Harry's speech about his mother and this was visible to all watching the service.
I think the boys might have limited it to "descendants" and Spencer relatives of Diana so Charles and Camilla would not try to lumber in and interfere.
I would not say Charles' fans are such great shakes--Junor seems to be a harpie about DIana and acts like Camilla and Charles are deities. Some fairness here please.
And royals are attending DIana's service: William, Harry, Kate, George, and Charlotte. How regal can it get!
Double post auto-merged: June 30, 2017, 11:45:52 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 30, 2017, 04:06:26 AM
@Trudie. I rather doubt that the palace is interested in the rededication. It is not really nothing to do with them. Diana's family and their friends are remembering her. I just wish people would leave it at that instead of continuously trying to rope in other members of the royal family who would frankly rather forget about Diana altogether. It always seem as if there is this constant desire to put a negative spin on anything and everything. Why would the palace play any part in Diana's rededication? Makes no sense at all?
The royals can't forget Diana's existence. Royals Harry, William, Kate, George and Charlotte will never let them.
Whatever
@sandy. I was responding to Trudie's points. As for the other stuff, it is really of limited interest to me.
@royalanthropologist Sandy is validating my points in her way so don't be so quick to dismiss her. No the royals weren't interested in Diana memorials however, as the mother of William and Harry they were involved like it or not and yes it was more or less PR exercises. Camilla was planning to go until the last minute when the Queen suggested she come up with a diplomatic illness as she saw the writing on the wall. Charles is too thick when it comes to Camilla and will promote her at any opportunity. As William and Harry is share the offices and staff of Charles at the time everyone knows that the staff's job is to promote Charles first.
Now that William and Harry have their own offices and staff there is no need to consult the palace and the boys can honor their mother any way they want. Again if Sandy posts things that are of limited interest to you why do you bother responding?
Actually you are right
@Trudie . I should not really bother responding to things that I find boring and repetitive. My comments were quoted so I assumed it was in reference to my earlier comments. All very childish IMO. This is so regal, people are weeping because they were not invited. They will not forget me whether they like it or not. Tedious, tedious, tedious. I should know better than to respond. :notamused:
OK
@royalanthropologist but in a lot of posts when it comes to how Camilla is perceived it is not just Sandy but you seem dismissive of others as well. While I am no great fan of Charles and Camilla I am not totally dismissive regarding them either. They seem happy in their own world Charles finally got the woman he wanted so perhaps it will make him better when he becomes King.
Charles and Camilla believe what they want to believe. But too many remember the past and take much of what Penny says with a grain of salt.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 30, 2017, 01:11:25 PM
Whatever @sandy. I was responding to Trudie's points. As for the other stuff, it is really of limited interest to me.
Then why do you bother answering? I can post when I want. No need to be rude.
Double post auto-merged: June 30, 2017, 04:25:49 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 30, 2017, 02:32:30 PM
Actually you are right @Trudie . I should not really bother responding to things that I find boring and repetitive. My comments were quoted so I assumed it was in reference to my earlier comments. All very childish IMO. This is so regal, people are weeping because they were not invited. They will not forget me whether they like it or not. Tedious, tedious, tedious. I should know better than to respond. :notamused:
The old saying applies here. If you have nothing good to say about someone then don't say anything at all. Yes you should know better than be rude.
Quote from: SophieChloe on June 29, 2017, 11:16:44 PM
Let's hope the only Middleton there will be Kate.
I don't think they're intive from Spencer family because wanted remember famous princess of Wales but Spencer and princes William& Harry wanted limited intive family members and friends who remember late Diana,Princess of Wales..
If Diana was alive today and Diana will banned Middleton family
Diana is iconic she is people's princess and queen's heart
I think Diana would have liked the Middletons. I doubt they will attend the service though.
Yes
@Trudie, I can be dismissive but there comes a time when further debate on something is pointless. Like I said before, I am personally just tired of all the war of the waleses stuff. There are no new angles or insights. Some people have just decided that Charles and Camilla are the devil incarnate and Diana was a saint. You cannot argue with that mentality. Better to let the person live in their comforting bubble of simplistic explanations and solutions.
'She deserves a place in history' Princess Diana's brother pays tribute for her birthday
'She deserves a place in history' Princess Diana's brother pays tribute for her birthday | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/823339/princess-diana-birthday-anniversary-death-brother-charles-spencer)
Quote from: royalanthropologist on June 30, 2017, 06:28:13 PM
Yes @Trudie, I can be dismissive but there comes a time when further debate on something is pointless. Like I said before, I am personally just tired of all the war of the waleses stuff. There are no new angles or insights. Some people have just decided that Charles and Camilla are the devil incarnate and Diana was a saint. You cannot argue with that mentality. Better to let the person live in their comforting bubble of simplistic explanations and solutions.
It seems that this is a two way street. Junor thinks Camilla was a saint and and others are blamed for C and C's mistakes. There is a bubble around the two of them and Junor seems to inhabit her own little world. I think she will be rewarded. Some people don't accept Junor's word as gospel truth to say the least.
IT would have been better to allow the boys to peacefully honor their mum and Camilla and Charles and Junor wait a bit for this book to be released.
I think it would have been nice for Charles to go, if only to support his kids and grandkids, and to represent the wider RF. I know the kids are royals, but theyre going more as her children than representing the royals.
I think it could have taken some of the steam out of the media circus that may occur this summer, and have the RF go from looking mean spirited and cheap, to at least a tiny bit magnanimous, and putting things behind from current events to history.
The longer the royals resist and avoid embracing Diana, and what she gave to the RF, warts and all, the longer her legacy will haunt them. Aside from my feelings on her, the shrewd PR move is to try and take the wind out her sails, and a big part of that was being the castout, the rebel, etc.
Charles of course is in Canada now. Charles long since moved on from Diana and is not her widower. It also would bring up a sticky issue about Camilla going with him. That would have been a problem.
@Duch_Luver_4ever. I think Charles and co have checked out of that particular train since 2007. I doubt that he will ever attend another memorial or remembrance. I do not even think that he is going to attend the unveiling of the statue. At the same time, one can understand. If you've had such a terrible marriage and an even worse divorce, you tend to want to forget about the whole thing. William and Harry are the right people to do the memorials. They can then invite their immediate family (or even friends) along like they are doing today. It is much easier than forcing the other royals to attend events that are uncomfortable for them. And of course, those who think Charles and Camilla are devils will have the pleasure of knowing that they are far, far away in Canada with not even the remotest chance of them ever participating in such events. Good all round compromise.
According to Junor, (Again. I'm constantly quoting that woman over the last few days :P) William and Harry were determined to avoid awkwardness and therefore put their collective foot down about any senior royals attending the Wembley concert on the tenth anniversary.
Seems a bit odd if they want Diana to be sitll considered part of the RF.
Why is it odd? Diana will be in the bloodlines of future monarchs. Her son is a future King as is her grandson. She also has another Prince the spare and a granddaughter. And a daughter in law. ALL are royal. So royals are attending.
Double post auto-merged: July 01, 2017, 11:31:17 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 01, 2017, 04:50:36 AM
@Duch_Luver_4ever. I think Charles and co have checked out of that particular train since 2007. I doubt that he will ever attend another memorial or remembrance. I do not even think that he is going to attend the unveiling of the statue. At the same time, one can understand. If you've had such a terrible marriage and an even worse divorce, you tend to want to forget about the whole thing. William and Harry are the right people to do the memorials. They can then invite their immediate family (or even friends) along like they are doing today. It is much easier than forcing the other royals to attend events that are uncomfortable for them. And of course, those who think Charles and Camilla are devils will have the pleasure of knowing that they are far, far away in Canada with not even the remotest chance of them ever participating in such events. Good all round compromise.
No they are not devils but it would really be inappropriate for them to attend, especially fresh on the heels of the Junor book and Camilla's interview. IT would turn into the Jerry Springer show. I credit them with having more sense. But maybe they don't?
I meant hat it seems odd that WIll and Haryr did not want senior royals at the 2007 service, if they want to have Diana considered part of the RF.
@amabel The Royal family were at the church for the memorial service William sat with the RF Harry sat with the Spencers. It was just the concert they didn't invite senior royals to.
Diana's brother Earl Spencer says 'she deserves a place in history' as William, Kate and Harry attend ceremony to re-dedicate her grave on what would have been the princess's 56th birthday
Earl Spencer says Diana 'deserves a place in history' | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4656768/Earl-Spencer-says-Diana-deserves-place-history.html)
Double post auto-merged: July 01, 2017, 03:08:15 PM
Princess Diana Would Have Been 56 Today, and Her Family Is Marking It in the Most Poignant Way
Princess Diana Remembered at Graveside Service at Althorp (http://people.com/royals/princess-diana-would-have-been-56-today-and-her-family-is-marking-it-in-the-most-poignant-way/)
You
@amabel, those young men are caught between a rock and a hard place. Whereas they wanted to celebrate their mother in a conciliatory mindset that brought the two sides of the family together; their efforts were stepped on by those who like to think of themselves as the only true Diana fans. They like the drama of having to lynch someone or do chaos. It is the vigilante mentality. So the boys have now decided to make things a bit more private. It will keep the overzealous vigilantes away and ensure that they can have a dignified ceremony. The other senior royals are doing their own thing so on balance it was a good move.
^
@royalanthropologist the boys are only caught between a rock and a hard place because of Camilla. Sorry but I find it in poor taste for any second wife to attend a funeral or memorial of a spouses former wife especially if she had a hand in the marriages demise.
But
@Trudie, with all due respect to you; it was not your place to decide who to invite to that event. It was her sons who made the guest list. You may find it distasteful but that is their family and their business.
In any case, the Diana fans have gotten their wish; no senior member of the royal family apart from Diana's descendants are attending. Charles and Camilla are thousands of mile away on duty. The rest of the royal family is doing their own stuff.
But Still, people are not satisfied...they want someone to be lynched and punished for something??? The self proclaimed super Diana fans have gotten exactly what they asked for: Diana is separated from the rest of the royal family (apart from her descendants) and they have nothing to do with her memorials.
There is a park where people can go and remember her if they like. There is also a statute at KP planned that will be entirely organized by Diana's sons with no input from the rest of the royal family. The Spencers have complete control over her grave. What more do super Diana fans want?
Diana is where she belongs, with her family who loved her and want to celebrate her. The rest of the royal family is well out of it.
:goodpost: everyone, I see what you mean
@royalanthropologist the boys are in an impossible situation, and while theres a vast range of opinion from them staying away to some wanting to flay them metaphorically on the cross of neglecting her in life and the hubhub during her death.
While even I get a little more dogmatic around certain important dates (birth, wedding, death, funeral) being reminded of what was lost and what could have been, I can understand why say HM, DoE and the other Princes wouldnt go, and obviously it would be wildly inappropriate for Camilla to go, it would have taken a lot of the wind out of the sails of the publicity to have Charles there, even just for a brief reading or something.
I know he probably, like you said, wants to put the whole thing behind him, he would get a lot of PR points for supporting the boys, and appearing to be the "bigger person" especially with the publicity over the Junor book. It would be like "look, even with whats being bandied about her temper, phone calls, etc. Im still coming to say thank you for giving me two wonderful boys".
But I also know it could be uncomfortable for him, the Spencers, etc. Theres no easy answers as she goes from current to historical figure, and both sides are going to have to come to terms with her being part of the RF at one time, but the lack of contrition keeps giving oxygen to the flames of publicity over Diana.
But knowing the way Charles is, by not being able to bring Camilla would virtually guarantee him not showing up, so the current schedule is probably the best option. Although I wonder if he'll recall another time he was here on July 1st, back in 83.....Diana looking so lovely on her 22nd birthday.
@Duch_Luver_4ever. I have thought that the most ideal situation was a family reconciliation. That should and ought to have happened even before Diana died. Bitterness kills you inside and sometimes you are in a situation where you are only hurting yourself. Saying "I will never forgive this person" is just creating emotional distress for you, particularly if the other person is so insulated from you that your anger practically means nothing to them. Diana had tried the woman scorned routine and it had no effect on Charles. He just left the home. Perhaps a mature and pragmatic approach might have had a different response from him. They had children in common and that might have been a foundation for a reconciliation. Instead Diana opted to continue the embittered wife approach, the very worst strategy she could adopt for someone like Charles. He just ignored her completely.
I think the boys wanted to do something toward reconciliation. They are the first witnesses of their parents' marriage after their parents. They know a lot more about that marriage than virtually any author or commentator or supporter. Those who really claim to care about them should have respected their wishes. William and Harry have been sending out messages of reconciliation time and time again, right from meeting Camilla at a time when she was person non-grata in the wider royal family and even during his wedding. It is only those who are eaten up by bitterness and a vigilante desire for public lynchings who fail to see what he is doing. They keep frustrating his efforts at every turn with their desire for some kind of grand revenge. Some of them are now even trying to push their tentacles to innocent grand children. This is not your grand mother, punish her, avoid her etc. Really, really pathetic stuff. It is poisoning yet another young generation.
Diana can and ought to be celebrated by the monarchy. She gave them so much, particularly when she was not on a revenge agenda against her husband. However, whenever such remembrance events are hijacked by people who make it all about their zealous support for one party in a failed marriage; the members of that monarchy have no choice but to move on and do other things.
I also suspect that those who want to insult, diminish and hurt Camilla are never really satisfied with their Pyrrhic victories. You can just see it with this latest rededication service. They have virtually gotten everything they wanted for the 2007 event but they are still not satisfied: Why is Camilla away doing high profile public duties, why is Charles not here, they will never forget her etc. That is the way of vigilantism and bitterness. You are never really happy until you let go. That is my opinion anyway.
well there seems to be no pleasing people.. if Camilla is invited to or came to a Diana memorial event she's attacked.. if she and Charles are "away and not there " for this latest event, there seems to be an implication that Charles is heartlessly "moved on" from his ex wife and sin't interested in her..
I agree
@royalanthropologist the children are likely the best "glue" to reconcile both sides, especially had Diana lived longer and found another person, it would have gone very far to clam the waters. Even I have to agree she would try and do things to generate publicity like her parading around in her leopard skin bathing costume on the day of Camillas 50th birthday party.
Im sure it did hurt her that Charles had moved on, but its conveniently forgotten (here come the letters) that Diana invited James Hewitt to Charles 40th birthday, and he didnt go out and have a photo stunt or some such thing, largely because it didnt hurt him emotionally, like Charles affair did to Diana.
Im surprised her circle of older friends and family couldnt offer her better advice on how to try and reconcile the marriage, since for a long time thats what she wanted most. I think it was just too little for them to build on with mutual interests, as the impression I get is Charles wanted a wife to be more of an intellectual companion than a physical one.
I think for the smoothing out of the monarchy and her, it will likely happen after HM is gone, possible Charles too, although once william moves a notch closer to the throne, he will have more leverage to speak his mind on the matter. Also I think once Charles is king, then they can look past things like the Panorama interview. Until then, I think the monarchy is worried that what Diana wanted will come to pass if something happened to Charles before HM passes, so they maybe dont want to let bygone be bygone, just yet.
I also agree that some people are loathe to give up their dislike of Camilla, even I have to admit that grips me from time to time. I was thinking when I walked the dog today, how do people in the UK teach their kids that cheaters never prosper...unless youre the heir to the throne.
I think just like the crown is waiting for Charles to sit on the throne before they forgive and welcome Diana back into the historical fold, I think the other side is waiting to see if Charles doesnt take the throne, then they'll be willing to forgive Camilla, and im sure a few would be willing to supple the black binbags for the boys to take her clothes out of Clarence House, a la Raine Spencer (sorry, I couldnt resist that one :lol:).
But yes, I agree a lot of bitterness and unpleasantness all round thats really unnecessary as it has zero effect on the events, but I guess just like ppl root for sports teams, they take sides on this.
Even if the marriage had failed, there was still room to work together. Diana had her talents and I am sure she would have been delighted to do some role. For a time, there were noises about her being made a goodwill ambassador for the UK. I think some other publicity stunt annoyed the queen and she vetoed the decision; devastating Diana in the process. Being divorced or separated from Charles need not have meant that Diana could not play a role in the royal family. It is just that the desire for revenge (sometimes on both sides) made it impossible.
How reassuring it would be if the Windsors and Spencers were actively involved in the memorials. Thanks to Charles Spencer and a section of Diana supporters, that is not to be. Perhaps they actually enjoy the drama of people fighting one another.
As I recall it was the panel Centerpoint had organized with her on the stage the same time as Jack Straw, shadow cabinet minister for Labour. They felt she was wading into politics, and I used to think for a long time it was just naivete, but when she met with Tony Blair before his election, and remembering her talking with friends over lunch over places like Manchester being revitalized with a Labour govt, does make me wonder if like many things Diana, theres some grey in the answer.
Things like homelessness, support for the poor, and total banning of landmines, while laudable goals, flew in the face of Tory policy and I sometimes wonder if it was her way of using some asymmetrical warfare of the govt and royals, by using causes that people could really not say no to, but would highlight opposition to the Tories in favor of Labour, given the Whig tradition of the Spencer family, it wouldnt surprise me. (here come the letters)....
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 01, 2017, 06:42:54 PM
Even if the marriage had failed, there was still room to work together. Diana had her talents and I am sure she would have been delighted to do some role. For a time, there were noises about her being made a goodwill ambassador for the UK. I think some other publicity stunt annoyed the queen and she vetoed the decision; devastating Diana in the process. Being divorced or separated from Charles need not have meant that Diana could not play a role in the royal family. It is just that the desire for revenge (sometimes on both sides) made it impossible.
How reassuring it would be if the Windsors and Spencers were actively involved in the memorials. Thanks to Charles Spencer and a section of Diana supporters, that is not to be. Perhaps they actually enjoy the drama of people fighting one another.
In her last year, DIana DID attend a school function with Charles since it concerned William. She would not have been shut out of anything to do with their sons. The boys are involved in the Memorial. ANd please stop blaming Diana supporters for the world's ills.
Double post auto-merged: July 01, 2017, 07:26:26 PM
Quote from: amabel on July 01, 2017, 06:22:57 PM
well there seems to be no pleasing people.. if Camilla is invited to or came to a Diana memorial event she's attacked.. if she and Charles are "away and not there " for this latest event, there seems to be an implication that Charles is heartlessly "moved on" from his ex wife and sin't interested in her..
Do you honestly feel Camilla should show up for a Diana memorial. She loathed Diana. IF she wanted to settle things with Diana, she never did while Diana was alive. I think she still loathes DIana judging by her interview and the Junor book. She would be called a hypocrite. Charles did move on from his late ex wife.
Camilla would only be shooting herself in the foot if she showed up at anything to honor Diana.
Double post auto-merged: July 01, 2017, 07:31:33 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 01, 2017, 05:38:00 PM
But @Trudie, with all due respect to you; it was not your place to decide who to invite to that event. It was her sons who made the guest list. You may find it distasteful but that is their family and their business.
In any case, the Diana fans have gotten their wish; no senior member of the royal family apart from Diana's descendants are attending. Charles and Camilla are thousands of mile away on duty. The rest of the royal family is doing their own stuff.
But Still, people are not satisfied...they want someone to be lynched and punished for something??? The self proclaimed super Diana fans have gotten exactly what they asked for: Diana is separated from the rest of the royal family (apart from her descendants) and they have nothing to do with her memorials.
There is a park where people can go and remember her if they like. There is also a statute at KP planned that will be entirely organized by Diana's sons with no input from the rest of the royal family. The Spencers have complete control over her grave. What more do super Diana fans want?
Diana is where she belongs, with her family who loved her and want to celebrate her. The rest of the royal family is well out of it.
In the stories that I read Charles was the one who was pushing Camilla to go. According to one article she was not happy about showing up there. Charles wanted to play happy families and was so thick headed he thought it was appropriate for Camilla to show up.
So if Charles told his sons, please invite Camilla they could hardly say no to him. For one thing he is said to be high maintenance and perhaps the boys wanted to avoid conflict. They are not stupid and I can't imagine their thinking it a good thing for Camilla to show up. This would have hijacked the event, and focused on Camilla (I can just see the cameras zooming in on Camilla's face for reaction shots and headlines about Camillas showing up). I think this would have been distressing for all concerned.
It speaks volumes that Camilla bowed out and did not show up. And no probably some common sense kicked in. I doubt she cares two cents about your "Diana fans."
Ah yes
@Duch_Luver_4ever. I do remember now. The Tories began to make disapproving noises. I do not think she really wanted to fight the government. It was John Major after all who had tried to ensure she would be crowned even when separated from Charles. I think it was more a case of not knowing the full impact of one's words and actions. That happens sometimes when you lead with the heart rather than the head.
Princes William and Harry attend service at Diana's grave
Princes William and Harry attend service at Diana's grave - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40470217)
Double post auto-merged: July 01, 2017, 08:02:44 PM
Princess Diana remembered on her 56th birthday as William, Kate and Harry pay tribute
Princess Diana remembered on her 56th birthday | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/823573/princess-diana-birthday-prince-william-kate-middleton-prince-harry-latest-news)
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 01, 2017, 06:42:54 PM
Even if the marriage had failed, there was still room to work together. Diana had her talents and I am sure she would have been delighted to do some role. For a time, there were noises about her being made a goodwill ambassador for the UK. I think some other publicity stunt annoyed the queen and she vetoed the decision; devastating Diana in the process. Being divorced or separated from Charles need not have meant that Diana could not play a role in the royal family. It is just that the desire for revenge (sometimes on both sides) made it impossible.
she was never going to be a "goodwill ambassador" for the UK. The queen was agreeable to her doing her charity work, provided she cleared It with the palace first.. and she was given money to run an office, after the divorce. But she was hardly going to be sene as an ambassador for the RF and the UK when she had criticised the RF and her husband, and had in effect walked out of her marriage...
I've been remembering Diana on her birthday, and all the good and bright and wonderful things about her. God bless her.
Quote from: amabel on July 01, 2017, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 01, 2017, 06:42:54 PM
Even if the marriage had failed, there was still room to work together. Diana had her talents and I am sure she would have been delighted to do some role. For a time, there were noises about her being made a goodwill ambassador for the UK. I think some other publicity stunt annoyed the queen and she vetoed the decision; devastating Diana in the process. Being divorced or separated from Charles need not have meant that Diana could not play a role in the royal family. It is just that the desire for revenge (sometimes on both sides) made it impossible.
she was never going to be a "goodwill ambassador" for the UK. The queen was agreeable to her doing her charity work, provided she cleared It with the palace first.. and she was given money to run an office, after the divorce. But she was hardly going to be sene as an ambassador for the RF and the UK when she had criticised the RF and her husband, and had in effect walked out of her marriage...
Diana as a divorcee could not be barred by the Queen for doing charity work on her own and not on the Royal calendar. She would not have to "clear things" with the Queen except when it came to say, taking Will and Harry out of the country for vacations and so on. Suppose Diana wanted to work with a charity the royals were not involved in then I don't see why she would need to clear it with the Queen. The only possibility is if it interfered with another royal's work with that specific charity.
Quote from: Curryong on July 01, 2017, 08:29:56 PM
I've been remembering Diana on her birthday, and all the good and bright and wonderful things about her. God bless her.
Agreed
@Curryong the forums been doing its usual thing, but you hit the nail on the head of what the focus of today should have been. I try to make it as happy a day as i can, but its still hard knowing its another birthday she will not see.
Usually around this time 10pm ish they have fireworks here for Canada Day, while most people are festive, even in years past when she wasnt as on my mind as she has been the last couple years, looking up, id always think about her, how old shed have been, what she missed out on, but also the wonderful things she did, and how both at the same time I was so lucky and cursed at the same time,to have her so deep in my heart.
Happy Birthday Duch, wherever you are, you are still loved by many....
Quote from: sandy on July 01, 2017, 09:07:55 PM
Quote from: amabel on July 01, 2017, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 01, 2017, 06:42:54 PM
Even if the marriage had failed, there was still room to work together. Diana had her talents and I am sure she would have been delighted to do some role. For a time, there were noises about her being made a goodwill ambassador for the UK. I think some other publicity stunt annoyed the queen and she vetoed the decision; devastating Diana in the process. Being divorced or separated from Charles need not have meant that Diana could not play a role in the royal family. It is just that the desire for revenge (sometimes on both sides) made it impossible.
she was never going to be a "goodwill ambassador" for the UK. The queen was agreeable to her doing her charity work, provided she cleared It with the palace first.. and she was given money to run an office, after the divorce. But she was hardly going to be sene as an ambassador for the RF and the UK when she had criticised the RF and her husband, and had in effect walked out of her marriage...
Diana as a divorcee could not be barred by the Queen for doing charity work on her own and not on the Royal calendar. She would not have to "clear things" with the Queen except when it came to say, taking Will and Harry out of the country for vacations and so on. Suppose Diana wanted to work with a charity the royals were not involved in then I don't see why she would need to clear it with the Queen. The only possibility is if it interfered with another royal's work with that specific charity.
Her office was being paid for by the RF's money, so I think that she would have had to clear things with the RF, so as to avoid any clashes with other royal's charity wrork and with the Foreign office for trips abroad
Tina Browns books says that she was not debarred from a public role and it was "Left for her to decide" what her public role was..
however she did not do that much work after her divorce and I think that the queen hoped she would not be doing very much, but would confine herself to a few occasional appearances. if she had wanted to volunteer for a charity in a small way, in a hands on role, I don't think the Powers that be would make any objections, it was up to her to deal with any security issues.. but for bigger issues, public appearances, it was obvious that they would nto want her trespassing on the fields of other Royals.. or getting close to straying into politics...
The period following Diana's divorce lasted barely a year until her untimely death, though. She may well have picked up more charities and causes ax the years went on had she lived. She probably felt very sad at that stage and felt that she didn't want to go plunging into a whole range of work.
The divorce arrangement was never that clear but I understood that:
(a) Diana was not to represent the queen abroad. In fact there is an example where the hosts were embarrassed because they could not play the national anthem or display the British flag when she arrived.
(b) All public engagements would have to be cleared by the queen
(c) She was not to talk about anything to do with her life in the royal family or the divorce.
(d) She could not take William and Harry anywhere without royal security
(e) She was forbidden from domiciling the children abroad (not holidays but actual moving away)
(f) She could not attend any state occasion without being invited by the queen. The queen did invite to a state banquet after the separation and the QM was apparently rude, hissing "what is she doing here?". Maybe they wanted to avoid any future awkwardness. Another banquet where she wore green, Charles simply did not turn up.
That is apart from the other terms. Diana had wanted to have her offices in St. James Palace but Charles refused, saying he would pay for her to be at KP. He insisted on the gagging clause and was apparently quite adamant on that one after she leaked the details of the negotiations to the press. It was that leak that galvanized the queen into releasing a very withering statement through her equerry to the effect that it was all in negotiation phase. I think they also indicated that the decision to give up HRH was Diana's and Diana's alone, by implication indicating that her team were telling lies about it.
I don't think Diana would have wanted offices in proximity of her ex
Quote from: Curryong on July 02, 2017, 09:20:51 AM
The period following Diana's divorce lasted barely a year until her untimely death, though. She may well have picked up more charities and causes ax the years went on had she lived. She probably felt very sad at that stage and felt that she didn't want to go plunging into a whole range of work.
I agree.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 02, 2017, 10:31:21 AM
The divorce arrangement was never that clear but I understood that:
(a) Diana was not to represent the queen abroad. In fact there is an example where the hosts were embarrassed because they could not play the national anthem or display the British flag when she arrived.
(b) All public engagements would have to be cleared by the queen
(c) She was not to talk about anything to do with her life in the royal family or the divorce.
(d) She could not take William and Harry anywhere without royal security
(e) She was forbidden from domiciling the children abroad (not holidays but actual moving away)
(f) She could not attend any state occasion without being invited by the queen. The queen did invite to a state banquet after the separation and the QM was apparently rude, hissing "what is she doing here?". Maybe they wanted to avoid any future awkwardness. Another banquet where she wore green, Charles simply did not turn up.
well that kind fo covers charity engagements, doesn't it? Obviously they ddi not want her to tread on other royals' toes in her charity work.. and so her engagements apart from possibly low level charity work would have to be cleared by the queen/Royal people.
so there was no scope IMO for her to "wrork with" the RF, except on rare occasions.
I don't remember her going to any state banquets, but maybe she did. SHe would not stay at christmas, even for lunch, even to be with her boys for a few hours so I don't quite see why she would want to attend social events with the RF. They did not want anyting to do with her and she didn't want anything to do with them.
Yes obviously there was going to be a "No talking about her marriage or divorce" clause, when it was "talking about her marriage" that had precipitated the whole divoce..
I think the queen was eager to "gag" her, since she knew that Diana had leaked things about the HRH to the press and she was keen to make sure that she did not talk any more to them..
Double post auto-merged: July 02, 2017, 11:55:27 AM
Quote from: Curryong on July 02, 2017, 09:20:51 AM
The period following Diana's divorce lasted barely a year until her untimely death, though. She may well have picked up more charities and causes ax the years went on had she lived. She probably felt very sad at that stage and felt that she didn't want to go plunging into a whole range of work.
she kept 6 charities, with an understanding that she would be more deeply involved with them and not be a "name on the writing paper" for hundreds but she didn't do much work for the 6 she kept. Its possible that she might have taken up more work in later years but I don't know. She would have had to show that she was really committed and was going to put in the time and interest, otherwise I think that chairties would not be too keen to take her on as a patron if she was not longer Royal... and wasn't going to be an active patron.
once bitten, twice shy. That settlement was written to avoid any further embarrassment to the queen and the institution. The last thing they wanted again was damaging exclusives and impromptu interviews or even people trying to upstage one another.
NOt everybody found her an "embarrassment". Charles has been courting the media lately and his buddy Junor has been putting down his parents in her book about Camilla. C and C seem to want to upstage events honoring Diana, planned by William and Harry. Charles plays the media for all its worth.
Double post auto-merged: July 02, 2017, 01:32:58 PM
Quote from: amabel on July 02, 2017, 11:52:41 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 02, 2017, 10:31:21 AM
The divorce arrangement was never that clear but I understood that:
(a) Diana was not to represent the queen abroad. In fact there is an example where the hosts were embarrassed because they could not play the national anthem or display the British flag when she arrived.
(b) All public engagements would have to be cleared by the queen
(c) She was not to talk about anything to do with her life in the royal family or the divorce.
(d) She could not take William and Harry anywhere without royal security
(e) She was forbidden from domiciling the children abroad (not holidays but actual moving away)
(f) She could not attend any state occasion without being invited by the queen. The queen did invite to a state banquet after the separation and the QM was apparently rude, hissing "what is she doing here?". Maybe they wanted to avoid any future awkwardness. Another banquet where she wore green, Charles simply did not turn up.
well that kind fo covers charity engagements, doesn't it? Obviously they ddi not want her to tread on other royals' toes in her charity work.. and so her engagements apart from possibly low level charity work would have to be cleared by the queen/Royal people.
so there was no scope IMO for her to "wrork with" the RF, except on rare occasions.
I don't remember her going to any state banquets, but maybe she did. SHe would not stay at christmas, even for lunch, even to be with her boys for a few hours so I don't quite see why she would want to attend social events with the RF. They did not want anyting to do with her and she didn't want anything to do with them.
Yes obviously there was going to be a "No talking about her marriage or divorce" clause, when it was "talking about her marriage" that had precipitated the whole divoce..
I think the queen was eager to "gag" her, since she knew that Diana had leaked things about the HRH to the press and she was keen to make sure that she did not talk any more to them..
Double post auto-merged: July 02, 2017, 11:55:27 AM
Quote from: Curryong on July 02, 2017, 09:20:51 AM
The period following Diana's divorce lasted barely a year until her untimely death, though. She may well have picked up more charities and causes ax the years went on had she lived. She probably felt very sad at that stage and felt that she didn't want to go plunging into a whole range of work.
she kept 6 charities, with an understanding that she would be more deeply involved with them and not be a "name on the writing paper" for hundreds but she didn't do much work for the 6 she kept. Its possible that she might have taken up more work in later years but I don't know. She would have had to show that she was really committed and was going to put in the time and interest, otherwise I think that chairties would not be too keen to take her on as a patron if she was not longer Royal... and wasn't going to be an active patron.
Ironically, Charles has courted the media for years and Junor has actually criticized the Queen in her book about Camilla. And Charles and Camilla are friends of Junor's. How come the "born into the family" people don't have some agreement not to air dirty linen.
Diana was one of the most famous women in the world at the time she died, if not THE most famous. She had almost iconic status in the US where her fame and celebrity had long transcended her status as a Royal. Diana was no Fergie. She could have gone on as patron of some worthwhile charities and causes on both sides of the Atlantic, and they would have been eager to have her.
Very true
@Curryong but that is only on the proviso that she did not break the terms of her divorce settlement. As I understand it, this was a contract and breaking it would bring certain consequences which I am not sure Diana wanted to dabble in at that moment in her life. The palace had said that it was up to her to do what she wanted, but underneath was the implicit requirement to comply with the divorce settlement.
Unlike for many divorcing couples, this one was handled by the mother-in-law's representatives and she even paid a significant part of the settlement. Of course when she died it all became moot point: all the money went straight back to the Windsors (W&H) since Diana had not bequeathed any substantial amount to any charity.
The woman had only a year left to live after the settlement. Diana had an attorney dealing with the fine print. THE money did not go to the Windsors (the family) it went to her two sons she had with Prince Charles. Diana did bequeath money to charities I am not sure if her mother and sister Sarah complied with all the terms of the bequests. I understand there were complaints. The boys have the option to donate to charities from their inheritance.
Quote from: sandy on July 02, 2017, 05:13:57 PM
Diana did bequeath money to charities I am not sure if her mother and sister Sarah complied with all the terms of the bequests. I understand there were complaints. The boys have the option to donate to charities from their inheritance.
no she didn't. she left everyting to her 2 boys, then afterwards wrote a letter of wishes, stting that she wanted some of hr property to go to her god children. That is not a charity.
Double post auto-merged: July 02, 2017, 05:28:07 PM
Quote from: Curryong on July 02, 2017, 03:16:37 PM
Diana was one of the most famous women in the world at the time she died, if not THE most famous. She had almost iconic status in the US where her fame and celebrity had long transcended her status as a Royal. Diana was no Fergie. She could have gone on as patron of some worthwhile charities and causes on both sides of the Atlantic, and they would have been eager to have her.
She might have done, provided that it didn't contravene the terms of her divorce settlement and the charities invited her. If her charities in the UK were unsure of her commitemetn to them, she might not have been asked to be a patron for other ones
I did say she left the money to her sons. Not the "Windsors". I think she left money to people other than her godchildren. But in any case all the bequests were not complied with by her sister and mother.
Had she lived, she might well have distributed some of the settlements to charities. She did donate much of her wardrobe to a charity auction in 1997, which did have large proceeds.
Quote from: sandy on July 02, 2017, 05:32:58 PM
I did say she left the money to her sons. Not the "Windsors". I think she left money to people other than her godchildren. But in any case all the bequests were not complied with by her sister and mother.
Had she lived, she might well have distributed some of the settlements to charities. She did donate much of her wardrobe to a charity auction in 1997, which did have large proceeds.
And I never said that she left her property to " the windsosrs". I said that she left the estate to be divided between her 2 sons. Then she added a letter of wishes that part of her property would go to her 17 godchildren. her family didn't comply with this, they just gave them all a keepsake.. but there was no bequest to charities.
I read someplace they all did not get keepsakes.
as far as I know they all got something, usualy something cheap. Not quite what Diana intended but a letter of wishes does not have the full force of a Will. Anyway, the point being she left nothing to charity
She die not expect to die at age 36. People do update their wills it has been known to happen. In any case DIana's charity auction bought big bucks to charities. Those gowns did not sell cheap
The management and execution of Diana's will showed the Spencers at their very worst Amabel. Indeed during the Burrell trial, all the dysfunction and mean-spirited attitude was laid bare. Diana had an estate worth at least $30 million. Nothing substantial was left to charity. Even the statement of wishes was ignored for reasons beyond me. The god children got a few trinkets and neither William nor Harry have ever indicated that they would give part of their share to charities. Diana was no Bill Gates when it came to giving out to charities. That was just not her thing. She was more into the PR stuff, publicity and engaging with the people.
As for the bequest, the entire fortune ended straight back to the Windsors (and make no mistake William and Harry are Mountbatten-Windsors). The effect of the will was to make them have some of the money they would have gotten anyway from their father and grandmother. From a purely dynastic point of view, the Windsors were not bothered about the size of the settlement since it went straight back to one of their own. Indeed Charles earns the entire settlement every year from the Duchy of Cornwall so it was pittance (although he pleaded poverty at the time to avoid engaging in a tit-for-tat haggling over the money).
No she wasn't. She could have just lived a life of ease using the money she got in the settlement, that Summer before she died she called attention to the Anti Landmine Campaign and donated her iconic gowns to charity. William and Harry may yet give some to charity. I would not write that off because they have not made "announcements." Bill Gates was never a royal family member, he made his own $$$$ from scratch (good for him!)and he never was the parent of royals. He has a lot more money than Diana could dream of. Anybody can accuse a donor of money to do it for "PR." It does not make it true.
WIlliam and Harry were Diana's own they did not spring from Charles head. They had two parents. Diana did not will money to her in-laws and William and Harry are to use the $$$ as they see fit. The money will be passed down to those of Windsor and Spencer blood.
Quote from: sandy on July 02, 2017, 06:12:42 PM
She die not expect to die at age 36. People do update their wills it has been known to happen. In any case DIana's charity auction bought big bucks to charities. Those gowns did not sell cheap
true it was probably a holder will, sicne she was young and did not expect to die so soon. Possibly had she lived longer she would have changed things. but it does not alter the fact that she didn't leave anything to charity in that will.
To be fair, Diana did raise quite a lot for charities, both directly with her appearances, and with her awareness she brought to various causes. How much money and awareness were landmines getting before she got involved? How about AIDS pre 1987?
Often she would double the proceeds a charity would get for appearing at a fundraiser. She raised an extra million at the one she got volunteer of the year award, not bad for a nights work. She raised millions with the sale of her dresses. Even her death raise a lot of money with the memorial fund (although like the will, it wasnt managed the best, thanks Sarah.....)How much is enough?
She wasnt a dot com millionaire or other businessman trying to buy respectability or hide from taxes by setting up a foundation. As far as rich people go her fortune was fairly modest, and like was said earlier by
@royalanthropologist she sadly didnt get the best deal with her divorce, and doubly so considering the end result of it all going back to the windsors, which of course we have the benefit of hindsight.
But I know weve danced around that before, but I think both the novelty of a royal divorce,possible asymmetrical access to financial documents and such under purvue of Royal Secrets Act, etc., plus her desire to be out (her financial adviser mentioned as early as 1990/91 she wanted out of the RF) worked against her, she should have gotten a scrappy California divorce lawyer to carve that Duchy up like a henpecked Long Beach dentist^^.
How many 36 year olds are thinking of giving vast sums to charity? While her children wouldnt have been left out in the street begging, I think she was right to make sure they were taken care of first. Its of course speculation and opinion, but had she lived to the usual life expectancy, she may have set up a charitable foundation once William was either PoW or King, and Harry was Duke of Whatever to dispense with her estate at that time.
Dianas strong suit was convincing others to open their wallet for charity, not making vast sums of money to hand over to it. While she was loaded by the average persons standard, among the rich she was an amateur at making money, im afraid.
Yes, Diana was an incomparable fund-raiser, as this 1997 article illustrates.
Diana 1961-1997: The charities - The best fundraiser in the world | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/diana-1961-1997-the-charities-the-best-fundraiser-in-the-world-1236947.html)
Again, can we stick to FACTS FACTS instead of opinions of this dead girl, dead issues, old news.
BRF do not give money to charities. EII and PC and CPB do not write out a check.
PD had a gown sale for charity . Google it. That was one she to give money, cash, to charities.
BRF do not give out checks from their banking accts, etc. to charities.
PD did this after divorce. Ok, her thing, but still, THEY do not this.
LOL!! WHY the jab, again, at PD regarding charities?
YES, PD's will by her was mishandled so badly by her side-mother, sisters.
Godchildren? Zero. Charities? Zero.
PW and PH , I believe BY BTH SIDES, did not receive their mother's collections of private jewelry, etc. I do not know for certain, but it seemed , the young princes got robbed. I, we KNOW, any estate jewels of the crown she wore , before her death, at divorce were returned to the crown. Those were not hers personally. Spencer tiara was not hers personally either.
Correcting some other posts here by some of us that are INCORRECT and are not a matter of OPINION, but they just deny FACTS FACTS.
HRH, D, Princes of Wales, whatever before and after divorce really did not matter in the media or with people or even in her work or in meeting rich n'famous or political people. She was still who she was.
YES, that title, for Brit arisots/nobility, it is everything. On a personal level, it was a blow to her ego. I cannot remember the particulars of what her name was or title or lack of title after divorce. If someone wants to post a google search of it, fine. I care not to read it or be corrected. NOT INTERESTED!!
YES, common sense , PW and PH are Windsors and anything PD had went back in the BRF funds or to PH and PW. AGAIN, PC did not reproduce asexually and PW and PH and PW's kids are not Camillas. The stork did not just drop off the kids at PC 's house.
Fatty Spencer 's comments at the funeral , for the world to hear , were then, now, and are public record, were hypocritical of him and were not classy. He could have left put some comments and said to PW and PH in private. Add, PD wanted, needed safe haven at Altrope, I do not know, maybe needing to get back to her childhood home for a minute and Fatty Spencer said no.
Double post auto-merged: July 03, 2017, 10:39:09 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 01, 2017, 06:42:54 PM
Even if the marriage had failed, there was still room to work together. Diana had her talents and I am sure she would have been delighted to do some role. For a time, there were noises about her being made a goodwill ambassador for the UK. I think some other publicity stunt annoyed the queen and she vetoed the decision; devastating Diana in the process. Being divorced or separated from Charles need not have meant that Diana could not play a role in the royal family. It is just that the desire for revenge (sometimes on both sides) made it impossible.
How reassuring it would be if the Windsors and Spencers were actively involved in the memorials. Thanks to Charles Spencer and a section of Diana supporters, that is not to be. Perhaps they actually enjoy the drama of people fighting one another.
In time, years make a difference, QEII could have changed her thoughts and PD would have matured and changed too. See Sarah Fergs-Ascot, Balmoral.
Windsors actively taking part in any memorials to PD, ummm, NO!! The boys had that concert and PC attended. QEII hardly wanted to see her subjects in their grief, well, FACTS again, we all know Tony Blair's role in that .
My thoughts..... NOT FACTS.
We do not live around them, but I am SURE the family members do not talk ill of PD to the princes or anything like that. Perhaps they do not even mention her. I AM SURE Camilla does not talk or say nice things about their mother to them or bad things either. Nothing. What could she say , " Wills, I know this is the anniversary of your mother's passing and I think about her often and how happy she would be with your guys today. I was glad to have known her and think about her often. I really liked her " I bet it is just a subject many do not approach the princes about. YES, their first cousins do ask, perhaps, in just general conversation. Sarah Fergs has said, as she would to the media, she des not see or hear from them ever ...years....years.... and we know PW and PH are close to PB and PE.
That would be an outrage for Camila , PC, Windsors to attend any memorials. Silly outrage.
People fighting. Section of D supporters, you lost me there. As if the public matters. No supporters of PD are fighting here or there, in the media. She is long gone dead. Nothing to fight about about. Her story ended. She has no present and no future.
Quote from: amabel on July 03, 2017, 04:28:08 AM
Quote from: sandy on July 02, 2017, 06:12:42 PM
She die not expect to die at age 36. People do update their wills it has been known to happen. In any case DIana's charity auction bought big bucks to charities. Those gowns did not sell cheap
true it was probably a holder will, sicne she was young and did not expect to die so soon. Possibly had she lived longer she would have changed things. but it does not alter the fact that she didn't leave anything to charity in that will.
She did not die at age 95. She died at age 36, her post divorce life was just beginning. I think she would have changed the will a few times and yes, given money to charity. At this point she was regrouping not set in her ways. It is also known that people often get new financial advisers as they get older.
I agree with
@Duch_Luver_4ever that nobody really experts to die that young, particularly if they appear to have the world at their feet with all the trappings of modern royalty. Like I said, Diana was more into the PR side of things and engaging with people rather than direct giving. That is not a criticism of her since a charity calls for all sorts of help from different people.
As for the "facts and opinions" debate, that is for the forum owners to decide. Typically people are allowed to share views and opinions about matters that are in the public domain. Those may be facts or non-facts. It is a bit presumptuous to demand that people do not express opinions because they do not chime with what one person considers to be "facts-facts". One man's facts could be another man's speculative musings and misinterpretations of reality.
Likewise, those who know me on this forum can testify to the fact that I do not take orders from anybody (no matter how politely or impolitely they are disguised); so I will continue expressing my opinions. If you do not like it, tough.
Again....
my opinion, yours, hers, his, everyone's opinion, FINE!!
Lets not try to make our opinions as FACTS. That is all!!!
PD was on the PR side of her charities. YES. That is a FACT.
I will fix it for you.
The BRF is PR for the causes and charities they support.
None of them. They do not cut a check. LOL!!
They do not have a foundation like Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or Bono and his wife.
It is does not work that way for them. They lend their image, time, efforts, in supporting cause by showing up. Reading a speech. Cutting some ribbons. Calling attention to the cause. Being a guest of honor at a dinner for a cause. Having a reception at KP or BP r CH or something.
Double post auto-merged: July 03, 2017, 06:30:22 PM
Yes Dutch, sandy amabel, the young and full of life do not expect to die , but it can happen. JFK,Jr. PD.
She left a will or trusts or both with parts set up her sons, charities, godchildren.
It was reported that the Spencer sisters and mother did not follow through on PD's requests...whatever.
Sad.
Nobody gives orders on the board but I don't like how some opinions are rather huffily dismissed. This is a discussion of events and posters interpret events as they see fit.