20 years later we lose Princess Diana on August 31,1997

sandy · August 20, 2017, 08:05:25 PM

Richard Kay is not a mind reader. He has no clue why Diana did that. I think Diana took the reasons with her to her grave. Why would she want to send a message to her divorced husband? IT was a bit late in the day for that and Diana had been seeing Hasnet since 1995.

Diana watching the documentary was logical. She wanted to see how the Camilla campaign was progressing. It shows she was not in any denial about it. Diana did not act "bitter." She moved on with her life, she even sold the gowns she wore as a royal for Charity. So she did not look at her gowns in the closet and think well this is the gown I wore when Charles and I went this place, and so on. She moved on. She certainly did not seem "bitter" or another Miss Havisham who refused to move on. She did move on.

amabel · August 20, 2017, 11:26:40 PM

Quote from: royalanthropologist on August 20, 2017, 08:29:37 AM
I actually do understand how the silly rules on divorce trapped two people who could no longer live in the same house together.

My
The
.

well its pretty obvious isn't it? They were not supposed to divorce. If their marriage was unhappy as other royal marriages had been at times, they were supposed to make the best of it.. As the queen is reputed to have said "Ken Palace isn't exactly bijou". I doubt if she really said that, but the fact is that it isn't unknown for royal and aristocratic couples to stay together for practical reasons, and for their children and lead largely separate lives. THey had plenty of space to spend time apart and should IMO have been able to be poltte to each other for the sake of the children, but I dot think they managed it that well.
I think that it DID hurt Diana that Charles had moved on though, because she still cared for him and still felt hurt that her marriage had failed.. and she hadn't had much luck in finding a new man who could give her a home and a life that she had longed for. but it wasn't going to be easy if you were married to the future King to find someone who had the wealth and rank to offer something similar and the confidence not to be intimidated by Diana's status.
So of course she still was hurt and still watnted to upstage him. Camilla was looking like she would be in line to marry Charles and take over the position that Diana had made such a success of. so IMO it is understandable that Diana was still hoping to outdo her on the public stage, to go on with her charity work and still be a draw in the press.

sandy · August 20, 2017, 11:35:10 PM

She was only a divorcee for one year before she died. I don't think any judgments about her finding someone can be made under the circumstances. Charles even had to wait 8 years after Diana died to get married due to a variety of circumstances including his grandmother not wanting a C and C wedding in her lifetime. At one point he said publicly he would not marry again.

It was still up in the air back then re: Camilla and Charles.

Diana was light years ahead of Camilla re: charity back then. Camilla was not known for doing charity work in 1997, she was only taking first steps back then with Mark Bolland guiding her. I don't think Diana felt threatened by Camilla in that regard. I think she would have done splendidly continuing her charity work had she lived. I think Diana wanted to try to surpass what she did not Camilla.

Diana did not actually need to remarry to have a successful life. She had two devoted sons and would have been a wonderful grandmother.

amabel · August 20, 2017, 11:50:40 PM

Camilla didn't have to do charity work to "beat Diana", she was going to outflank Diana if she married Charles. and the 50th birthday party was a clear sign that Chas was hoping to marry her in time.
And as you know Diana did indeed do some good work but her charity work in that last year or so was fitful. If she wanted to remain a well known figure, and not fade into obscurity, she would have to be seen in public and preferably be seen doing more tan having sunshine holidays.
People were getting fed up with the War of the Waleses, and with the whole Diana thing..and the Dodi holidays werenet helping. A lot of people felt she should not accept hospitality form the Fayeds and while some people were pleased to see her out with a man she could date in public others were feeling that Dodi was nothing but a spoiled extravagant empty headed playboy, who wasn't the sort of partner she should be with. Particularly because he was the son of a controversial and nouveau riche man like MAF.
So for the sake of keeping up a positon as a famous and admirable philanthropist I think that Di would have had to step up her game and be seen in the papers doing charity work, keeping on her interest in landmines and other charities and working rather than taking too many holidays.

sandy · August 21, 2017, 12:08:54 AM

Not necessarily. Diana probably still would have been as popular as ever. Camilla had no royal children. Diana would always be involved in royal events involving her sons with Prince Charles. Charles still had to wait 8 years to marry Camilla. Since the Queen Mum lived until 2002, Charles at the very least would not be able to marry her in 2003. There was also the Burrell trial which delayed matters. Diana's work was "fitful" because she was regrouping. She did more in that one year than many would do in ten. How many people can claim that in one year, they got a humanitarian award, called attention to landmines, sold iconic gowns and made much money for charity. Diana did much in that last year, she did not sit back doing her nails and living on her settlement. She also was discussing with Tony Blair about a role she might play in future (re: charities). Who are the "lot of people"? Diana was friendly with Al Fayed for years because he was a friend of her father's. Raine also worked at Harrod's for Al Fayed and Diana had made up with Raine by then. It was not as if Diana just randomly approached Al Fayed. Diana gave no sign that she would want to marry him.She had told her friend Monckton she was not ready to remarry.

Diana only had one year of life after the divorce so no conclusions can be made. But I do think she would have stepped up. Diana did not take 'too many holidays." She had a holiday with Rosa Monckton and two with the Fayeds (one with William and Harry). Her trip re: Landmines was nothing to sneeze at.

TLLK · August 21, 2017, 12:17:56 AM

QuoteWhat's the point of saying over and a gain that he SHOULD have fallen in love with her, or that he shoudlnt' have married her?
They were botht at fault.. but they were both victims of the particular situation that the RF was in at the time.

:goodpost:@amabel

sandy · August 21, 2017, 12:20:07 AM

The situation could easily happen again. Charles IMO was more at fault because he later admitted he preferred Camilla when he married Diana. Smith in her book about Charles writes that Charles "hoped" to fall in love with Diana. He's more to blame, he should not have subjected Diana to marriage when he knew he did not love her. He needed heirs and thought of himself only and thought Diana would just fall into line.

amabel · August 21, 2017, 12:25:59 AM

Subjected her to marriage?? Anyone wodl thnk that she had hated him and he made her marry him and become Princess of Wales etc.
She wanted to marry him.
And I don't know what you mean by the situation could happen again? That soemone royal is not able to just marry anyone they choose? Well that's always going to be the case, they are not as free as the rest of us.
But Wiliam and other young royals have now been allowed and indeed encouraged to have long live in relationships with the people they love...So they have as good a chance of getting tot know their future partner and getting used to them, before they commit, as most of us have.
So It is not likely that another young prince will be pushed into a "suitable marriage" in the same way.

Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2017, 12:28:18 AM

Quote from: sandy on August 21, 2017, 12:08:54 AM
Not necessarily. Diana probably still would have been as popular as ever. Camilla had no royal children. Diana would always be involved in royal events involving her sons with Prince Charles. Charles still had to wait 8 years to marry Camilla. Since the Queen Mum lived until 2002, Charles at the very least would not be able to marry her in 2003. There was also the Burrell trial which delayed matters. Diana's work was "fitful" because she was regrouping. She did more in that one year than many would do in ten. How many people can claim that in one year, they got a humanitarian award, called attention to landmines, sold iconic gowns and made much money for charity. Diana did much in that last year, she did not sit back doing her nails and living on her settlement. She also was discussing with Tony Blair about a role she might play in future (re: charities). Who are the "lot of people"?

As I've repeteadly said, Diana was attracting a lot more bad press in the last year or 2. And some of it was due to her affair with Dodi. Didn't matter wether she was going to marry him or not. Many people felt that she should not accept his father's hospitality so publicly, and be seen taking 3 holidays in a month or 2 with this controversial man.

sandy · August 21, 2017, 12:35:18 AM

No, she thought Charles loved her and she was besotted with him. She did not "hate" him and he did not "hate" her, he just did not love her and as Smith wrote "hoped to learn to love her." what was more absurd is that Smith compared them to Elizabeth and Bertie. The two did indeed love each other when they married. It just took Elizabeth some time to decide if she wanted royal life. But he did not have to "learn" to love her, he already did and she loved him. With Charles it was a matter of expediency, he needed heirs, Diana was suitable and she said yes to his proposal. Not a great way to marry anybody.

Charles theoretically could have married Camilla. He wanted to continue sowing wild oats and said to his biographer he felt himself "too young" to marry. Nobody stopped him from pursuing Camilla as a wife, he decided not to. And if he felt not "ready" to marry he could have told Camilla to wait for him and they had a future together.

This situation could indeed happen again. If someone has the same attitude as Charles had. It could happen.

It is a myth that Charles was "forbidden" to marry Camilla Shand. He could not have been bothered to pursue her.

William could have had the same attitude. William was not "forbidden' to marry Kate Middleton. At some point though, he did break up with her but decided to get back together. Kate also was not a married woman when William pursued her. Charles went back to Camilla after she married another man and had two young children with him. Different situation entirely. Kate and William were free and had no ex spouses when they married.

Charles was not "pushed" and at 32, he was not a baby. He just does not want to take responsibility for any decision he makes. A big flaw of his

Charles subjected Diana to a situation where there was another woman around and he preferred this other woman.

Diana was involved with Dodi for a few weeks. She did not elope to Vegas with him. She was free and she was dating. I don't recall her getting heavily criticized. She was admired for her Landmine work and the charity auction.

TLLK · August 21, 2017, 03:05:53 AM

QuoteIm of two minds on posting it, its very tough to read at parts, especially Diana's condition at the scene

Yes the article runs through the timeline leading up to the accident and then goes into some specific detail regarding the injuries and condition of the car's occupants. However I did gain a better understanding of how difficult it was for the rescuers to free and then treat the injured. Having read the article and the timeline I am convinced that the the rescuers did follow protocol and made the best decisions for their patients that they could given the gravity and severity of the situation.

@Duch_Luver_4ever -After reading Charles' comments, I do believe that he was speaking in the moment after receiving the news of the accident.For all his many faults, I do believe that Charles would have provided for the best possible rehabilitation care for Diana if she had survived the accident. And with her injuries her rehab time could have been extensive. I don't believe that he was referring to any sort of marital reconciliation with his ex-wife when he made those remarks.

amabel · August 21, 2017, 07:51:33 AM

Its not a myth Sandy. Charles could not have married Camilla AT THAT TIME. And yes Diana was getting more criticism in the papers in the last few years, as I've said a hundred times but I know you refuse to accept that.
I have no idea what you are on about William for, as he was in a completely different situation to Charles..
If he'd fallen in love with a married or divorced woman, there might be some possibility that there would be a problem with their marrying, so then there might be some similarity, but he hasn't. So I don't know what you are on about....

Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2017, 07:53:17 AM

Quote from: TLLK on August 21, 2017, 03:05:53 AM
@Duch_Luver_4ever -After reading Charles' comments, I do believe that he was speaking in the moment after receiving the news of the accident.For all his many faults, I do believe that Charles would have provided for the best possible rehabilitation care for Diana if she had survived the accident. And with her injuries her rehab time could have been extensive. I don't believe that he was referring to any sort of marital reconciliation with his ex-wife when he made those remarks.

well I'm sure that if Charles had said nothing of an emotional nature about Diana when she died or just when she was severlely injured we'd be hearing "Oh how heartless he is, even in an extreme situation he couldn't say anything kindly to indicate that he cared a little for her...."

sandy · August 21, 2017, 11:53:02 AM

No I did not say that. I said that even if he was not 'Ready' to marry there was still no reason for him not to tell her to wait for him when he returned from navy duty and they could discuss their future. He didn't. William said he was not ready to get married but that said, apparently he indicated to Kate they had a future together and they did not go their separate ways. They had an understanding (and more so after they made up in 2007). No Diana was not getting "more criticism"--of course the Charles people like Penny Junor and Charles' friends would criticize her. But I think Charles and Camilla were getting more criticism than Diana at the time. Charles had to hire a spin doctor (before Diana died) so there seemed to be some concern on his part about their unpopularity.

I think WIlliam and Kate are a very obvious comparison. They had an understanding. And she waited for him. Charles did not tell Camilla Shand to wait for him. I think there are obvious comparisons even if you don't. William did not just shrug, I am not ready to marry I'm moving on, so long Kate. He didn't. Kate did not up and marry someone else because Will told her obviously there was a future for them. Camilla up and married her long time boyfriend because Charles gave no indication to her of any sort of future. If he really loved her he would have moved heaven and earth.

I don't think Diana would have accepted Charles' "help". Diana did not even want the man at her father's funeral. She would have had the best healthcare without Charles help.

Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2017, 11:56:04 AM

Quote from: TLLK on August 21, 2017, 03:05:53 AM
Yes the article runs through the timeline leading up to the accident and then goes into some specific detail regarding the injuries and condition of the car's occupants. However I did gain a better understanding of how difficult it was for the rescuers to free and then treat the injured. Having read the article and the timeline I am convinced that the the rescuers did follow protocol and made the best decisions for their patients that they could given the gravity and severity of the situation.

@Duch_Luver_4ever -After reading Charles' comments, I do believe that he was speaking in the moment after receiving the news of the accident.For all his many faults, I do believe that Charles would have provided for the best possible rehabilitation care for Diana if she had survived the accident. And with her injuries her rehab time could have been extensive. I don't believe that he was referring to any sort of marital reconciliation with his ex-wife when he made those remarks.

If I had a loved one treated the way Diana was after the accident, I would have sued for malpractice. The answer is always that's how "they" do it. Well how "they did it" killed Diana because time was of the essence and she was bleeding to death. They bypassed two hospitals on the way. ANd DIana was allowed to stay in that car for an unnecessarily long time before they even started removing her from it.

Some writers say that if Reagan after he was shot had been placed in a slow ambulance he would have died from his injuries before he even got to the hospital.

The treatment was very slipshod.

royalanthropologist · August 21, 2017, 12:14:18 PM

@sandy says "If he really loved her he would have moved heaven and earth."

But he has moved heaven and earth. Have you read the latest polls? The man is as unpopular as they come (Camilla even more so if the polls are to be believed) but Camilla is still his wife. I am sure if he had dumped Camilla after 1997, the pro-Diana people would have cheered him to the heavens but he refused and has refused to budge. Camilla is here to stay. Charles had defied everybody to ensure she is "non-negotiable". If that is not love, then I do not know what is. In any case you only have to compare how Charles is now and how he was when married to Diana to know that he did not love Diana but definitely loves Camilla.

sandy · August 21, 2017, 12:29:40 PM

No he did not. He made her his married mistress instead of marrying her way back when. He did not tell her to wait for him way back when so she married Andrew Parker Bowles.

He could not have dumped Camilla, he named her publicly and her father told him "well what are you going to do about her now?" He also forced the divorce of the PBs.

Charles just had to have his cake and eat it too. If he really loved Camilla, he would not have been involved with so many other women and married someone else.

If he did not love Diana, he had no business marrying her.

royalanthropologist · August 21, 2017, 02:24:43 PM

But the thing is @sandy : mistresses, lovers, Diana etc are all in the past... at the end of the day it is Mrs. Camilla Mountbatten-Windsor. All the others he forsook. Diana in particular he forsook at a heavy price to his reputation (the recent polls speak for themselves).

His grandmother, mother and even father were opposed at one point. A large (and very vocal) part of the nation was opposed but he still insisted that he was going to stay with her. And of course, Charles is very happy with his new wife. No more complaints from him on that score. This is no longer a case of "whatever love means".

I also repeat: people marry for many, many reasons...not just love. In this case it was for dynastic reasons, not an unheard of concept in royal families. I would also add that Diana had no business accepting a proposal from a man whom she had doubts about and a marriage that she seemed to have entered with trepidation.

Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2017, 02:32:22 PM

btw this statement is not necessarily true :"He could not have dumped Camilla"

Charles can and has dumped mistresses before, completely and with a brutal finality. Kanga is a prime example: so it is not as if it was "marry Camilla or else...". He decided that Camilla was the woman for him and he was going to marry her regardless of whatever anyone thought or felt.

amabel · August 21, 2017, 02:36:21 PM

I wouldn't take too much notice of these polls. I think that the anniversary and the dredigng up of the various stories of how awful Charles was, has brought out people who already dislike him, or people who don't know much about him, and they may criticise him. however the vast majority of the population treat him ad the rest of the RF with vague indifferent tolerance. They're not going to be rioting in the streets when the time comes for him to be King.. and they will IMo accept Camilla being queen in the same way. Some people will never forgive him but no one is liked by everyone.

royalanthropologist · August 21, 2017, 02:43:12 PM

True about the polls (although on another thread) and I think that is how Charles takes it. This is not a competition for who's most liked, although some people would desperately like it to be that way. I sincerely hope the press do not harm the father-son relationship with their constant comparisons and search for signs that W&H are isolating Charles.

sandy · August 21, 2017, 02:47:09 PM

I think William is closer to his in laws now.

Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2017, 02:53:21 PM

Quote from: royalanthropologist on August 21, 2017, 02:24:43 PM
But the thing is @sandy : mistresses, lovers, Diana etc are all in the past... at the end of the day it is Mrs. Camilla Mountbatten-Windsor. All the others he forsook. Diana in particular he forsook at a heavy price to his reputation (the recent polls speak for themselves).

His grandmother, mother and even father were opposed at one point. A large (and very vocal) part of the nation was opposed but he still insisted that he was going to stay with her. And of course, Charles is very happy with his new wife. No more complaints from him on that score. This is no longer a case of "whatever love means".

I also repeat: people marry for many, many reasons...not just love. In this case it was for dynastic reasons, not an unheard of concept in royal families. I would also add that Diana had no business accepting a proposal from a man whom she had doubts about and a marriage that she seemed to have entered with trepidation.
Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2017, 02:32:22 PM

btw this statement is not necessarily true :"He could not have dumped Camilla"

Charles can and has dumped mistresses before, completely and with a brutal finality. Kanga is a prime example: so it is not as if it was "marry Camilla or else...". He decided that Camilla was the woman for him and he was going to marry her regardless of whatever anyone thought or felt.

Not Camilla. Charles named her publicly. He did something unprecedented he publicly named the married mistress and forced a divorce of the PBs (senior royals never did that before--Ernest Simpson took the blame for the divorce when he and Wallis parted ways--The King never named Wallis until she was a divorcee). He never said publicly I am having an affair with Wallis Simpson. But he did give up the throne for Wallis and wanted to marry her.

Charles naming Camilla caused a backlash. APB never complained until Charles outed her then got the divorce. Her father confronted Charles asking "what are you going to do about her now?" At that point he could not drop her without more of a backlash from her family and so on. He never outed any of the other mistresses. Just Camilla.

The only one truly opposed was the QUeen Mother. Margaret did not approve but she had no say in the matter. Both of them died in 2002.

If Charles thought Camilla the "woman for him" he would have told her to wait for him all those years ago. Once she married another man (and his friend) she should have been off limits so Charles could move on with his life.

TLLK · August 21, 2017, 03:05:46 PM

QuoteThey bypassed two hospitals on the way

Yes the ambulance did pass two hospitals because they were not designated as place that could provide care for them aka "trauma centers" in 1997. They took Diana to the hospital that had the team that was trained and skilled in working with severely injured people such as victims of severe car accidents. Had they been routed to the place that didn't have the team that was capable of handling and left the patients there, then yes you would have had a case for malpractice.

royalanthropologist · August 21, 2017, 03:24:41 PM

@TLLK. Many of the conspiracy theories stem from the fact that Diana's death in a way made things much, much simpler for the royal family. They would no longer have a struggle over parental rights and could bring up the children as they wanted. All the money paid out in alimony would return to the Windsor family via the children so there was no financial loss on their part. Besides Charles was free to marry whenever he wanted. Some people have found it neigh impossible to believe that someone as glamorous as Diana could be killed in an accident in a second hand car. It is a tawdry tale but one that stems from very poor judgement all through that fateful holiday.

As for @sandy regarding Charles. Camilla did not enter a happy marriage. It was full of rows, tantrums and mental illness. This was not a case of a sweet couple that were broken up by a wicked mistress. Anyway it is all moot point now. Diana is dead and Charles married Camilla. We are just bickering over spilled milk.

sandy · August 21, 2017, 05:38:05 PM

William and Harry have the settlement they did not have to return it to their father. So it did not return to the "family" but to Diana and Charles' two sons. Diana willed it to them.

Charles had to wait 8 years to marry Camilla he could not rush into any marriage: he hired Bolland, his grandmother did not want a wedding in her lifetime and there was the Burrell trial.

Camilla was in it from the get go. She caused the rows and the bulimia (not "mental illness"). She came between a husband and a wife. DIana said the rows were over Camilla. Charles should have stopped contacting her. She did undermine Diana and yes, I think she coveted what Diana had. I don't think she's a particularly nice person. Too bad Diana had to be in her orbit.

TLLK · August 21, 2017, 08:16:29 PM

The facts and fictions of Diana's death | UK news | The Guardian

An article summarizing the inquest into the accident in 1997.The facts and fictions of Diana's death | UK news | The Guardian

If you are uncomfortable reading the details of Diana's injuries, I'd strongly suggest that you skip reading the top half of the first article.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/nov/14/monarchy.davidbatty- More regarding the details of the accident.

Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2017, 08:41:39 PM

Finally the authors of the book Death of A Princess have rescinded their criticism of the SAMU system after reviewing the medical records.

QuoteIn the 1998 book, "Death of a Princess," Time magazine reporters Thomas Sancton and Scott MacLeod were critical of the French system, arguing that Diana could have been saved in a hospital operating room. SAMU was so upset with the indictment, according to the authors, that they threatened to sue.

But Sancton and MacLeod later rescinded their theory, based on evaluations of the medical records, in a 2004 Vanity Fair piece on the British inquest into Diana's death.

"I have actually revised my conclusions based on a fascinating series of interviews with a trauma specialist in Houston," Sancton wrote in an e-mail to ABCNews.com. "The bottom line is, whatever the merits or demerits of the French emergency medical system, poor Diana was a goner from the beginning because of the particular nature of her deceleration injury."

Defenders of the French system say that major road accidents like Diana's represent only about 12 percent of all emergency calls. Most are falls, domestic accidents, cardiac arrests and neurological problems.

Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2017, 08:43:00 PM

Princess Diana's Death: Anniversary Brings French Health Care Into Focus - ABC News

royalanthropologist · August 21, 2017, 09:37:58 PM

Once again @sandy. The last name of W&H is Mountbatten-Windsor. They are part of the family. It is of no lose to the Windsors if they get that money because they would have gotten it anyway when the Queen and Charles died. From their point of view, the kids got their inheritance early. Had Diana lived, she could have willed it to anyone she liked including her new spouse and other children but all that did not happen.

Again whether he married her 8 years or two years is of no consequence. She is now his wife. Wishing and hoping that he is somehow unhappy is not going to make it so. Charles has stated time and time again that he is content with his new marriage. Camilla has stated the same. It is a very different scenario from when he was married to Diana.

Nobody can make your marriage fail unless you help them to do so. The so called "she came between a man and his wife" is a typical excuse of people who do not want to face the fact that their marriage is dead. They prefer to blame an outsider instead of facing the weaknesses in their own relationship. The mistress merely completes the process that started long time ago.

C&D were doomed. It was going nowhere. The best they could hope for was an accommodation in which each led their own private lives and only met for state occasions. Charles would have tolerated that but Diana wanted him to be actively involved with her. Charles was not a child being forced to go after Camilla. He just one day decided that he could no longer live with Diana and left. Bickering over the embers of that dead marriage is a pointless exercise in my view.

sandy · August 21, 2017, 10:06:40 PM

It is their money, inherited from their mother. No matter what their last name is.

Diana had money of her own and had inherited a trust fund before she married into the royal family. Her theoretical husband may have had money of his own to will to their hypothetical children.

The marriage fell apart because Charles would not give up Camilla. His mistake was taking her on as mistress after she married another man (he did the same thing with Dale Tryon). They were doomed because as Charles later admitted he did not love Diana. That would doom any marriage as would the presence of another woman.

Charles was not exactly civil to Diana and put her down in public. Why would she fight to have someone like that around? After a while she had given up on him. Charles stomping away from the marriage without any sort of marriage counseling was really foolish of him and makes him look immature.

He did get to have his cake and eat it too. Charles should not have married Diana if he did not love her. He appeared to lack basic common sense. I think he thought the marriage would just fall into place without any effort. It didn't.

royalanthropologist · August 21, 2017, 10:34:13 PM

All moot point (did not go for counselling, gave up on the marriage, etc). Does not change a thing. He decided to leave and finalized it with a divorce. Could have, would have, should have...not going to change a thing. It ended.

As for the inheritance, it is completely irrelevant whether Diana was sitting on a fortune from the Spencers or was going to marry a billionaire. To the Windsors, their only interest in her will would be whether the money remained in the family or was otherwise given away to other people. All the alimony from the divorce went straight back to the Windsor children and therefore remained in the family as well as being intact.

In other words, Charles lost nothing financially in that divorce. All that happened was that his kids got a portion of their inheritance earlier and they would have gotten it anyway when he died. It was just another of those circumstances that seemed convenient for the Windsors; hence the conspiracy theories.

They never wished Diana dead but her death made things less complicated for them in the long run.