Thoughts on Prince William's speech?

[Aspiringmatriarch]

I've been musing on this, I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the Bashir interview created a 'false narrative'. Obviously Diana was lied to, which is appalling, and I'm sure that fueled some of her paranoia but isn't it true that she was spied on at times e.g. with the squidgygate tapes? And she'd already collaborated with Andrew Morton saying many of the same things, and apparently wanted to do an interview after Charles gave his.

I don't know... it just feels odd to me that William is essentially asking for it to be struck from the record. He was apparently angry with her after the Bashir interview and was teased about it at school, which must have been horrible. Is he trying to protect her memory or is there an element of trying to tidy it all away?

I think she probably was paranoid but it wasn't the BBC that made her so! There are tapes of her sessions with (I think) a public speaking coach where she talks about the problems she had with Charles and the royals from day 1. She says she went to the Queen for advice and was told "I don't know. Charles is hopeless". And that was it.

Call me cynical, but I think there's been a palace PR campaign for the past 20 years to rehabilitate Charles in the public's eye!

I think having the floorboards taken up to check for bugs makes sense. Photos were leaked to the press from a security camera in a private gym of her images. Journalists were doing all kinds of crazy things to get photos and phone recordings. The Royals private mobile phones were hacked into and calls recorded.
I think William is being very disrespectful of Diana.

Could it be that William is a mature child who feels love for both of his parents and is quite able at the same time to see their faults and conditions, including paranoia, and that he is his own man?

most people don't then talk about their parents faults publicly.
they have loyalty. PH does it and gets ripped apart. PW does it and gets called mature!

@upinaballoon I am a mature adult and can see the good sides and bad sides of both my parents. If I was famous I would never talk ti the media about their bad points, or if they were known I would be understanding and supportive. And I think this is particularly bad because Diana is dead, she can't defend herself from these very negative things William is saying.

Paranoia is not a fault, it is a mental health condition. You talk as if he was accusing her of being a criminal, rather than acknowledging that she had a distressing mental health condition which this incident exacerbated . It didn’t cause it but it did cause her to be more vulnerable .

It’s not William who is gaslighting her it’s the disgusting posters on here who are treating it as if she had done something shameful . William wasn’t ashamed of her , he knows that paranoia is a genuine condition .

How on earth can people on here think they know more about her than her own family .

He is diagnosing her with paranoia when she had very good reasons to be distrustful. That is what the palace did to Diana. Telling her it was her mental health making her imagine the affairs Charles had. Or it was her mental health that led to her being very unhappy instead of how she was being treated. William is just carrying on the tradition.

I know I'll be attacked for saying this but I'm not sure that members of the public (which I'm presuming we all are) can say that we know Diana's state of mind better than one of her children.

Why would you be attacked for that? I don't know Diana, I do know what she said and what the press did to her. I think in those circumstances being very distrustful was normal behaviour.
I do not think an adult child can retrospectively diagnose his mum as having paranoia.
The people who knew Diana best will have been her close adult friends.

Arguments for both sides of that coin. We can see from above. He sees things through charles' lens but also with his childhood connection to her as a mum and not a woman.

Well.... the image of the RF given out to the public comes before everything else without a shadow of doubt.
Hence, it's easier to blame Bashir for anything Diana did... than to blame her ex husband's treatment of her and the situation she found herself in. She was always going to do an interview.

Personally I think the RF are in uncharted territory and are struggling with SM and the fallout from the Oprah interview. Never complain, never explain is now irrelevant and outdated. People want explanations and deserve them. I am hopeful this is a move towards systematic and sustainable changes, they cannot go on being antiquated and out of touch. A new modernised slimmed down RF with more transparency on finances is desperately needed.

Honestly, had Harry given exactly the same speech about Diana then I doubt he'd be defended. He'd have been torn to shreds!

The trouble is... the word 'paranoid' is used to dismiss someone's thoughts/feelings.

'You're paranoid' said to you when you think you've put weight on, you thought you saw your ex across the road, you could've sworn you overheard your friend saying something about you

Yes, people suffer from paranoia (and I have spoken to people with this troubling condition) but the word has to be used carefully. Personally, I don't think it was right for William to use it in this context.

@Roussette I totally agree.

I struggle with the fact that both of his parents were so egotistical and grandiose to wash their dirty linen in public with absolutely zero concern for the hurt, shame and humiliation their actions would have on their children.

These actions have obviously, alongside other things, been a huge burden that that PW and PH continue to carry.

The parents may have felt relief with their public disclosures but all they achieved was shifting their pain and inflicting trauma onto their DCs as collateral damage,

The saddest part was PW recollecting being asked to watch the Panorama interview in the study of his tutor at Eton and then just returned to his dorm after. Where was the support and protection from his parents? Did either of them ever consider the consequences of their actions on their DC? At worst the didn’t, at best they did but thought still worthwhile.

@Sssloou I agree. But the whole RF is like that. The Queen and Philip supposedly only saw their children for 20 minutes a day when they were brought to see their parents by the nannies. And there is plenty of film of the Queen returning from long trips away only to greet Charles as a young child in an offhand and distracted manner.
The whole family is dysfunctional.

[quote astonafar]@Sssloou I agree. But the whole RF is like that. The Queen and Philip supposedly only saw their children for 20 minutes a day when they were brought to see their parents by the nannies. And there is plenty of film of the Queen returning from long trips away only to greet Charles as a young child in an offhand and distracted manner.
The whole family is dysfunctional.[/quote]
That’s one part of a cold, traditional, emotionally devoid or neglectful childhood.

But it does explain or excuse the additional proactive choices made to actively broadcast their sex life / affairs / collapsing marriage in public with no concern of the consequent emotional injury to their own children.

The Q and PP didn’t at least do this.

Well.... the family have not been able to move with the times have they.... It's all built on image and what to give out to the public to keep the Monarchy relevant.

I understand why they are there... continuity and stability etc. I just don't understand how they can be revered so much. And the pages and pages and hours dedicated to the reporting of royal trivia just diverts national attention from substantial topics.

And yes, they are a dysfunctional family.

Even if she were paranoid to some extent, for William to publicly declare it was terrible. Harry got attacked for commenting on William and Charles being trapped, how dare he speak for them? But at least they are alive and capable of responding. William makes an uncalled for public judgement on his deceased mother's mental state that just happens to cast doubt at the legitimacy of her words which were unfavourable to Charles and the monarchy. He quite clearly chooses a side there and plays along with his father's PR attempting to rewrite Diana's story.

Rousette, I suspect that we'll see a very different monarchy once Charles fully takes over. It will naturally slim down - the only royals who will be able to pass down titles to their children are William and Harry. There were rumours that Charles wanted to issue a rebuttal to the Oprah interview so the days of 'never explain' are probably over too. I can't see Charles moving into Buckingham Palace either.

@KatherineParr Charles has always tended to outspoken. I think the RF will be in for a rocky ride after the Queen dies.

@Frezia well said.

the only royals who will be able to pass down titles to their children are William and Harry

And Edward's son, but I highly doubt he'll be a "working royal".

I think as a country were ready for a change and some of the positive response shown to Megan and Harry was due to them presenting a fresh, personality led different approach.

I think if Prince Charles could appear down to earth - a bit flawed (ie divorced we all know his story etc so quite relatable in a way the queen never was) and focus on Englishness and environment / conservative with a small c I think he could be very popular.

@sadgirl45I Perhaps, but I think Charles is too arrogant to pull that off.