Page 9 | If Harry still lived in the UK , do you think the feud would have been sorted by now?

ThisPlumShark · 2025-03-10T17:34:51+00:00

I do feel the biggest hurdle between Harry and his family is that he lives in another country, I think if he lived in the UK there would be more opportunity for them to sort it out

smilesy · 12/03/2025 14:14

Zimunya · 12/03/2025 14:09

Both brothers indicate that it was tough:

Harry:
"Harry had previously said walking behind her coffin aged 12 was something no child "should be asked to do". He has now told the BBC he doesn't "have an opinion whether that was right or wrong", but "looking back on it", he is glad to have been part of the day."

William:
"Prince William told Sunday's 90-minute documentary, Diana, 7 Days, walking behind his mother's coffin was "one of the hardest things I've ever done".
The Duke of Cambridge, who was 15, recalled using his fringe as a "safety blanket" during the "very long, lonely walk". "I felt if I looked at the floor and my hair came down over my face, no-one could see me," he said.
"It wasn't an easy decision and it was a sort of collective family decision to do that... there is that balance between duty and family and that's what we had to do." The balance, he added, was "between me being Prince William and having to do my bit, versus the private William who just wanted to go into a room and cry, who'd lost his mother".

Having lost a parent at a young age myself I think it's utterly appalling that the family even considered this as an option for those young lads. And, a Vogue article indicates that Harry only did it because he didn't want William to be alone on that walk:

"Another plan suggested that the elder William walk without Harry. In his memoir, Spare, Harry recalls refusing to do so: “I didn’t want Willy to undergo an ordeal like that without me,” he wrote."

The Vogue article (https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/princess-diana-funeral#:~:text=As%20adults%2C%20both%20men%20have,he%20told%20Newsweek%20in%202017. ) goes on to say: "As adults, both men have spoken out about the deep pain this choice caused them – especially Harry. “My mother had just died, and I had to walk a long way behind her coffin, surrounded by thousands of people watching me while millions more did on television,” he told Newsweek in 2017. After he distanced himself from the royal family in 2020, he spoke more openly about the trauma: “The thing I remember the most was the sound of the horse’s hooves going along the Mall, the red brick road,” he said in the 2021 docuseries The Me You Can’t See. “By this point, both of us were in shock. It was like I was outside of my body. I’m just walking along and doing what was expected of me, showing one-tenth of the emotion that everybody else was showing.” Eventually, he admits, the pain caused by his mother’s death – and his subsequent suppression of it – led him to seek therapy."

It wasn’t the RF that wanted them to do it originally anyway though. It was the government. And yes if course it was tough. But you said they were forced to do it and that this was a symptom of the dysfunction of the RF. That is not correct, is it?

Zimunya · 12/03/2025 14:23

Agree that "forced" was the incorrect terminology. But the royal family not protecting two young, grieving boys, regardless of what the government or other members of the family wanted, is dysfunctional. Theirs was the worst grief - they had lost the mother they loved. They should have been loved, protected and supported - not put on display.

smilesy · 12/03/2025 14:30

Zimunya · 12/03/2025 14:23

Agree that "forced" was the incorrect terminology. But the royal family not protecting two young, grieving boys, regardless of what the government or other members of the family wanted, is dysfunctional. Theirs was the worst grief - they had lost the mother they loved. They should have been loved, protected and supported - not put on display.

But they tried. The Queen wanted to keep them at Balmoral but there was such a public outcry she felt obliged to bring them to London. And Harry said it was a family decision in the article you quoted. Maybe it was more the public that were dysfunctional in braying to see the boys? I really don’t think that this shows the RF are dysfunctional.
Don’t forget as well that Harry didn’t initially want to leave the RF. He and Meghan wanted half in half out. It was only when they were told no that they flounced

typo

Zimunya · 12/03/2025 14:37

Happy to see it differently. I think their main concern - regardless of the public, the government, or other members of the RF - should have been the safety and emotional welfare of those young lads. I don't accept that "they tried". The RF gets what the RF wants, in most circs. I do accept that you view this differently, and absolutely respect and support your right to do so.

Tomatotater · 12/03/2025 14:39

Zimunya · 12/03/2025 14:23

Agree that "forced" was the incorrect terminology. But the royal family not protecting two young, grieving boys, regardless of what the government or other members of the family wanted, is dysfunctional. Theirs was the worst grief - they had lost the mother they loved. They should have been loved, protected and supported - not put on display.

I agree. Yes, the press made a hoo ha about The Queen being in Scotland not London, probably to deflect blame onto the RF and away from them, and Tony Blair may have asked her to come back, but if there was one time to put the needs of two children over and above the ridk to the the Monarchy that was it. They could have put out a statement saying they were staying put to protect the children or even that The Queen as Head of State would come but not the children yet but instead they dragged them all to London to face screaming and crying loons and look at flowers. Can you imagine carrying on like that about a woman you never met in front if her bereaved children?

CoffeeCantata · 12/03/2025 14:50

As long as he is with Meghan, nothing will get sorted.

And even if they split (and I genuinely hope they don't for the sake of the children), Meghan will have Harry and the RF in a vice-like grip because she's the mother of 2 royal children. Harry won't easily be able to take them out of the US without her - or at least without her consent - so she's going to have a hold over him for the rest of his life.

smilesy · 12/03/2025 14:52

Zimunya · 12/03/2025 14:37

Happy to see it differently. I think their main concern - regardless of the public, the government, or other members of the RF - should have been the safety and emotional welfare of those young lads. I don't accept that "they tried". The RF gets what the RF wants, in most circs. I do accept that you view this differently, and absolutely respect and support your right to do so.

Whichever way you see it though, it’s not really a “dysfunctional” symptom is it? It’s making what with hindsight was an incorrect decision under a great deal of pressure . Lots of families do that. And again, Harry said it was a family decision. And he didn’t want to leave until he was told he couldn’t have his own way

StrawberryWasp · 12/03/2025 14:53

Thedom · 12/03/2025 13:47

Harry did defend Susan Hussey after the Meghan Markle fan accused SH of racism.

..... the Duchess of Sussex Meghan, and I love Susan Hussey”.
He continued: “And I also know that what she meant – she never meant any harm at all. But the response from the British press, and from people online because of the stories that they wrote was horrendous.”

However, I think that was partly also to undermine his family who had asked Susan Hussey to resign and while William made a statement saying there was no place for racism in theRF .

He is nasty and vindictive.

This must have outraged William who had to go hard on Susan Hussey because of M&Hs racism allegations. William had to send a clear message that nothing with even a whiff of racism would be tolerated.

Then H swings in looking all charitable and supportive of Susan Hussey when it was because of him the whole thing played out as it did.

They are alawys looking for one upmanship and to look good no matter who gets in the way. It's vile.

CoffeeCantata · 12/03/2025 14:55

jeffgoldblum · 12/03/2025 10:19

There is no feud , one side has told lie after lie and attacked their family publicly, the other side has said nothing!

Jeff - that's quite right. Yes - talk of a 'feud' both trivialises the issue and implies that the RF are equally at fault. It was a vicious, strategic, one-sided attack which 'the other side' haven't actively responded to at all, except to say mildly that 'recollections may vary' and that H & M are still valued members of the family.

You're spot-on. Feud, indeed!

CoffeeCantata · 12/03/2025 14:58

StrawberryWasp · 12/03/2025 14:53

This must have outraged William who had to go hard on Susan Hussey because of M&Hs racism allegations. William had to send a clear message that nothing with even a whiff of racism would be tolerated.

Then H swings in looking all charitable and supportive of Susan Hussey when it was because of him the whole thing played out as it did.

They are alawys looking for one upmanship and to look good no matter who gets in the way. It's vile.

Show quote history

Yes - when their lies and shenanigans are found out they backtrack with wide-eyed 'What, us? But WE didn't say that...the press (or insert other scapegoat) did!'

StrawberryWasp · 12/03/2025 15:03

Zimunya · 12/03/2025 14:37

Happy to see it differently. I think their main concern - regardless of the public, the government, or other members of the RF - should have been the safety and emotional welfare of those young lads. I don't accept that "they tried". The RF gets what the RF wants, in most circs. I do accept that you view this differently, and absolutely respect and support your right to do so.

Whether it was the right decision can be endlessly debated. Obviously those at the time, including the boys, thought it was.
I doubt anyone actually thought sod the boys do it for the crowds.

For some people, including children, having an act of bravery to perform for your loved one gives you courage to get through something hard, with a sense of drive and duty to do something for them. And will always have a sense of pride/ gratitude/ satisfaction that they did a hard thing to demonstrate their love for the person they lost.

For others they need to retreat and be cared for, they seek comfort and not action.

There isn't a right or wrong and the current view that comfort is the only way to help someone through difficulty is as flawed as the old stiff upper lip.

There are different ways through and decisions should be taken on the basis of the personality, needs and wants of the people involved.

Maybe it was the wrong thing for Harry, but he says he's glad, suggesting it's certainly not a straight forward right/wrong decision.

CoffeeCantata · 12/03/2025 15:14

There isn't a right or wrong and the current view that comfort is the only way to help someone through difficulty is as flawed as the old stiff upper lip.
There are different ways through and decisions should be taken on the basis of the personality, needs and wants of the people involved.
Maybe it was the wrong thing for Harry, but he says he's glad, suggesting it's certainly not a straight forward right/wrong decision.

You may have more detailed knowledge of this so apols, but I remember reading/hearing that Prince Philip didn't force the boys to do the walk but advised them that, if they didn't, they might regret it later in life. He said he'd walk with them if they decided to do it. But yes, it must have taken huge courage.

Of course it must have been harrowing for them and I'm not underestimating that, but I can see Philip's point. Sometimes young people don't see the big picture and - who knows? They might have been annoyed as adults NOT to have been made to do it. I know from my own children that I've been rebuked more than once for 'not making me do it!' when, at the time, they definitely didn't want to do something and I didn't want to push too hard.

MrsLeonFarrell · 12/03/2025 15:25

And Philip was in a position to know how it would feel to walk behind a family member's coffin as a very young man.

In hindsight things may have been decided differently, but the narrative that an uncaring, cold family obsessed with appearances forced two grieving children to walk behind the coffin is inaccurate.

Zimunya · 12/03/2025 15:33

smilesy · 12/03/2025 14:52

Whichever way you see it though, it’s not really a “dysfunctional” symptom is it? It’s making what with hindsight was an incorrect decision under a great deal of pressure . Lots of families do that. And again, Harry said it was a family decision. And he didn’t want to leave until he was told he couldn’t have his own way

Show quote history

Whichever way you see it though, it’s not really a “dysfunctional” symptom is it?

I think putting the needs / wants / desires of the public and the government above two desperately unhappy, grieving boys is dysfunctional. Most normal families wouldn't do that. Fully appreciate that you see this differently.

50GoingOn30 · 12/03/2025 15:57

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

MargaretThursday · 12/03/2025 16:30

I suspect if Harry hadn't walked, his line now would be that his cruel family hadn't let him when he'd wanted to.

It was very much pressure from the general public, lead by Tony "I'm such one with the people" Blair which meant they were brought back. I remember my mum was horrified at the time with the pressure that was put to do that.

CoffeeCantata · 12/03/2025 16:40

MargaretThursday · 12/03/2025 16:30

I suspect if Harry hadn't walked, his line now would be that his cruel family hadn't let him when he'd wanted to.

It was very much pressure from the general public, lead by Tony "I'm such one with the people" Blair which meant they were brought back. I remember my mum was horrified at the time with the pressure that was put to do that.

I think this kind of situation is an example of the difficult things we expect/ask the RF to do. Of course they're mightily privileged in a material sense, but we expect them to grieve in public (in fact, on a global stage) when their loved ones die and in the case of Diana's death, we want our 'pint of tears' or whatever, to prove they're grieving, in the case of the pressure put on the Queen to return to London with the princes.

JandamiHash · 12/03/2025 16:40

Zimunya · 12/03/2025 14:23

Agree that "forced" was the incorrect terminology. But the royal family not protecting two young, grieving boys, regardless of what the government or other members of the family wanted, is dysfunctional. Theirs was the worst grief - they had lost the mother they loved. They should have been loved, protected and supported - not put on display.

They absolutely were protected. The Queen stayed at Balmoral to protect them and be there for them and got absolute trounced for it in the press. Half wits expected her to be back in London showing support for Diana. It was the most unpopular time of her reign with it a doubt, because she protected them

JandamiHash · 12/03/2025 16:41

Zimunya · 12/03/2025 14:37

Happy to see it differently. I think their main concern - regardless of the public, the government, or other members of the RF - should have been the safety and emotional welfare of those young lads. I don't accept that "they tried". The RF gets what the RF wants, in most circs. I do accept that you view this differently, and absolutely respect and support your right to do so.

It really was their main concern which is why they kept them at Balmoral and didn’t shoot back to London. They are safer at Balmoral and away from the baying press pack

JandamiHash · 12/03/2025 16:56

StrawberryWasp · 12/03/2025 15:03

Whether it was the right decision can be endlessly debated. Obviously those at the time, including the boys, thought it was.
I doubt anyone actually thought sod the boys do it for the crowds.

For some people, including children, having an act of bravery to perform for your loved one gives you courage to get through something hard, with a sense of drive and duty to do something for them. And will always have a sense of pride/ gratitude/ satisfaction that they did a hard thing to demonstrate their love for the person they lost.

For others they need to retreat and be cared for, they seek comfort and not action.

There isn't a right or wrong and the current view that comfort is the only way to help someone through difficulty is as flawed as the old stiff upper lip.

There are different ways through and decisions should be taken on the basis of the personality, needs and wants of the people involved.

Maybe it was the wrong thing for Harry, but he says he's glad, suggesting it's certainly not a straight forward right/wrong decision.

Show quote history

This is such a brilliant post! When I lost a very close loved one and had to organise their funeral I remember really not wanting to be coddled or comforted - I wanted to just get on with everything and that’s how I managed. It may have seen cold or detached to some but it’s how I operate

Baital · 12/03/2025 16:57

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Yes, his sister and her entire family died in an air crash when he was a teenager (16, I think? so a little older than William or Harry) and he walked behind their coffins. So presumably his advice was based on his own experience. The advice may have been wrong for his grandsons (although Harry has since provided contradictory views), but it was probably given with their welfare front and centre.

JandamiHash · 12/03/2025 17:00

Zimunya · 12/03/2025 15:33

Whichever way you see it though, it’s not really a “dysfunctional” symptom is it?

I think putting the needs / wants / desires of the public and the government above two desperately unhappy, grieving boys is dysfunctional. Most normal families wouldn't do that. Fully appreciate that you see this differently.

Show quote history

But the RF isn’t normal, duty and bi our os weaved into their blood and thy have to consider things in a way normal people don’t.

I still don’t see anything wrong with what the boys did. I think in fact the reason Harry got away with a lot of shocking behaviour especially when he was young was precisely because so many of us watched the heartbreaking imagery of a sad little 12yo following his mummy's coffin, and that image stayed. However you can only have that image carry you for so long.

50GoingOn30 · 12/03/2025 17:29

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

MissRoseDurward · 12/03/2025 17:55

The RF gets what the RF wants, in most circs.

Constitutionally, the sovereign is obliged to act on the advice of his/her ministers. We don't know how hard Blair was pushing, but the Queen possibly thought this was not the time to push back. Would you have trusted him or his minions not to leak to the press that the Queen was going against the advice of her PM? The whole issue could have become an undignified public squabble, the last thing anyone needed.

And if anyone had a dysfunctional childhood, it was Philip. But he didn't let it define him, and he never, ever whinged.

Hortus · 12/03/2025 18:30

And if anyone had a dysfunctional childhood, it was Philip. But he didn't let it define him, and he never, ever whinged.

This, in spades and spades. What a pity Harry didn't inherit even a speck of Philip's strength, stoicism and respect for the institution of the Royal family.