Diana and Charles Questions

[AdoraLovesCake]

So this is not a AIBU but it's an ATBU for are THEY being unreasonable.

I have seen a lot of you tube shorts marking the 25 year death of Lady Diana Spencer/the princess. They say she was a devoted mum and participated in the boys' school events, gave them macdonald's ect. Was a lovely, normal mum. I don't dispute that. Even though she died just before I was born so i hardly know anything about her, i think she is amazing and did not deserve to die. That brings me on to how some people said she wrote in her diary that she thought Charles was planning to kill her (staging an accident) so he could marry Camilla and that she knew something was wrong with the brakes in her car. For any of you who don't know, she died in a car accident in Paris on August 31rd 1997.

She was the people's princess and adored by all, she was one of us as her children went to public schools, she dressed casual. ect.

I also have some questions:

• Where was Diana buried, I know she had a state funeral thing?
• Did Diana see her kids much after the divorce?
• If Diana was alive now, what would her position be?
• Charles did not mention Diana in his becoming king speech - he could have said 'And the boys' mother who taught them so much' or something - do you think he should have?

YABU: They are being unreasonable and Charles did not order Diana's murder
YANBU: They are not being unreasonable and Charles did order Diana's murder

No it's fine.

And if Anglo-Catholic/Oxford movement then it's de rigueur

Diana was about to move to the USA and this was widely reported in the gutter press the week before she died. She was also reported to be marrying Dodi Fayed although we cannot be certain about this. She was holidaying on a yacht with him just before her death.

So I think she’d be living in the USA now, wheeled out to comment on events in the UK every now and again. Harry has literally done what she wanted to do.

Meghan is doing what Diana appeared to want to do effectively. Speak up and put the boot into the Royal Family effectively.

Diana came across as always moaning in the weeks before she died. She had lots of love affairs that were always headline news. I remember finding this tiresome. And wondering when she saw her kids but they were sent to boarding school as I understand it. Her death was very tragic and nobody could believe it had happened. People think about her now as she has beautiful grandchildren she will never see and that’s the a very sad and hard thing for William and Harry to bear.

Charles meanwhile was seeing the woman he had an affair with, his now wife of course. I remember being quite shocked about that. I went to uni with a vague relative of hers and even he was shocked and was considering changing his surname because everybody disliked her. But over time she has proven to be intelligent and hardworking and like any family where two opposites marry and it doesn’t last, there is a fallout with the offspring. One is like one parent, one like the other. And they don’t get gel.

Charles cannot mention Diana as he would bring his treatment of her back to the forefront of discussion and that seems to have been put to bed so to speak. Diana and Harry are very alike I would say in temperament - not the brightest unfortunately but very lovable.

Nobody thought Charles would be King and that William would be next in line. Margaret was not allowed to see her divorcee partner and as we know, Bertie had to abdicate because he fell in love with an American divorcee. Watch The Crown to find out more about that.

There is a snobbery towards America that goes way back. I believe this is what Meghan is up against and not the racism claims about the UK we’ve heard which are desperately unsettling. Hope that helps. It’s not that interesting really when you unpick it. All a bit sad and people are still preying off the Royals to make money. That’s what I felt with the Oprah thing. Meghan and Harry had to say stuff to bag some big money. Playing to the very audience Diana wanted to escape, ironically.

In the context of a Royal funeral - when the Monarch is the Head of the CofE - yes it’s very poor form. And it was done as a statement to say “Look how much I don’t respect your church” by a creepy narcissist who had no relationship with his nephews and still apparently doesn’t.

Ah ,thanks for the explanation.

And they were pilloried for staying at Balmoral, especially the Queen, she apparently was supposed to tear off to London to hold the sweaty hands of the baying mob instead of, for once in her reign, taking time out to look after the devastated children. I think that a lot of pressure to turn this tragedy into a public three ring circus came from Blair and Campbell who saw it as marvellous PR for them. Had the Royal Family taken over immediately no doubt they would have criticised for pushing the Spencers aside. At the time of her death I think she was estranged from her 'blood family', including her mother, her brother played to the gallery during the funeral, having left his wife and family back in South Africa,

I also don’t think she was an excellent mother. Her boys would have been about 11 and 13 when she went on national TBF and aired her dirty laundry about their father to the world. She would go months without seeing them, and when she died she hadn’t seen them for a month. I don’t think that makes her an ‘excellent mum’ - imagine those poor boys having to go to school the day after that interview knowing all their school mates probably watched it. Imagine knowing your parents were shagging about like rabbits with other people. She was not a good mum just because she was posh and took them to McDonald’s

So agree, We were friends with a few people who worked on the Royal Yacht and there ws a famous occasion where she was seen hugging the boys on the deck, Charles didn't get a look in, but when they went inside and the cameras weren't there they hugged with their father as enthusiastically, she's cleared off.

Earl Spencer definitely used the funeral for his own ends.

He was 'chief' mourner, in the middle then the boys either side, and Charles on one side Philip on the other.
Really it would have looked odd just to have had Earl Spencer.
Ex Husband and ex Fil couldn't really walk without the boys.
But Earl Spencer must have wanted the public funeral or it just wouldn't have happened.

I loved the clip of the Queen and Prince Philip meeting the crowds and someone telling them to 'look after the boys'. Philip responds 'that's what we've been doing'. I'm surprised he was so polite to be honest after the stick the family, especially the Queen, got from the press.

Meghan is doing what Diana appeared to want to do effectively. Speak up and put the boot into the Royal Family effectively.

There is no way that Diana would have done what Meghan's done, her, Diana's, row was with Charles, she was very supportive of the concept of monarchy otherwise, it was deeply engrained in her upbringing as a member of a very aristocratic family.

Misunderstood you, I thought you meant the Spencer’s were next of kin to the princes and would have had a say about their appearances in public.

Of course you are right, her siblings would have been Diana’s adult next of kin, and would have had final say over the funeral arrangements.

@Changechangychange
Thanks, glad you got what I meant 🙂

Were Diana’s parents dead before her?

Her Father was. Her Mother died in the early 2000s

So the princes now have no grandparents and only one parent left that’s sad for two men who are barely 40 years of age

Losing their mother that young was tragic
But lots of people don't have any Grandparents still alive when they are 40 surely?
I lost all of my Grandparents when i was between the ages of 22 and 29 and they were all well into their 80 ,s .

Yes its sad but definitely not unusual in anyway. I would say by your 40s you are lucky to have any Grandparents still alive and of course children of all ages unfortunately can lose a parent or both parents.

I was in that situation by the age of 17. I’m sure it’s not that unusual.

There are lots of documentaries about Diana.

I wouldn't believe Charles or the Queen ordered her death, though I think people within the establishment had a part in destroying her which inevitably lead to her death.

I was in that situation aged 10! Not unusual at all by age 40.

How many 40yr olds have their grandparents all alive? Assuming they and your parents had children in their late 20s/early 30s and not aged 16 or something, your grandparents would be around 100 years old by the time you turned 40.

DS is 5 and already only has two grandparents (my dad died in his 30s, and DMIL died of breast cancer aged 60). The other two grandparents are late 60s/early 70s, so realistically he’ll probably lose them in his teens or early 20s. DH and I don’t intend to die ourselves in the next 35 years, but we’ll be in our early 70s by then so it isn’t impossible is it?

Quite a lot of 40 year olds will have already lost a parent.

I'd say a high percentage of people only have one parent by 40.

But as PP have said, very common.

Charles was much more unusual to have had both parents in his 70s and a Granny until he was about 50.

So the princes now have no grandparents and only one parent left Sad that’s sad for two men who are barely 40 years of age

Eh? The death of their mother was of course tragic but the loss of your grandparents by 40 is absolutely par for the course, surely?

So the princes now have no grandparents and only one parent left Sad that's sad for two men who are barely 40 years of age...

My grandparents all died before I was born. Can't say I every noticed the lack of them tbh and both parents were dead by the time I was 40.

Can't believe it's that unusual.

And as many people are having their children later in life, as did my parents, I imagine it will become common.