Royal Gossip
October 19, 2017, 04:42:16 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 20th anniversary of Diana's death.  (Read 2457 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
india
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6291


« Reply #20 on: May 31, 2017, 09:39:02 pm »

^ Wrong??? It was just plain mean.
Logged
dianab
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1433


« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2017, 10:30:58 pm »

Royal spin that Queen was putting W & H before her duties/ the people is totally ridiculous!

She dragged the boys to church, just hours after finding out their mother had passed away. Heartless and cold! ps. they passed through crowds of hundreds of people (including the media) on their way to church. She was asked if she wanted Diana being mentioned in prayers. And St Queenie Liz said: NO. She just wanted those 2 teenagers get on with life because Diana was persona non grata to the Windsors. Emotions towards human beings is such a 'commoner thing' to old Liz!

This comments says it all:

Northernlass, Sunderland, 1 day ago
The Queen has never been known for her maternal instincts she had to be talked out of going ahead with a hunting party just a few days after Diana's death.

HAR1971, Newcastle Upon Tyne, 2 days ago
Driven through crowds of hundreds of people on their way to church, I doubt it. Probably the last place they wanted to be in the public eye. No choice in the 'firm'. Thank goodness Charles got his way for bringing Dianes body back, as the Queen would have left her to be brought back in a van!!


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4556404/Queen-comforted-royal-fan-Diana-death-backlash.html#ixzz4imvmWmKB
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-----------------------------

We let our mother down... we couldn't protect her, say William and Harry: Princes make emotional admission in interview about Diana's death
-Princess Diana died when her car crashed in a tunnel in Paris in August 1997
-Prince William has confessed he and Harry felt they 'let their mother down'
-Made the emotional admission in a major BBC interview ahead of anniversary
By Katherine Rushton Media And Technology Editor For The Daily Mail
PUBLISHED: 22:00 BST, 1 June 2017 | UPDATED: 22:25 BST, 1 June 2017

Prince William has confessed he and Prince Harry felt they let their mother down because they failed to protect her.
The Duke of Cambridge made the emotional admission in a major BBC interview about the week that followed Princess Diana's death in a car crash in 1997.
He said he and his brother were finally ready to talk about their mother 'because we feel we owe it to her'. He added: 'I think an element of it is feeling like we let her down when we were younger.'

William, who was 15 at the time, continued: 'We couldn't protect her. We feel we at least owe her 20 years on to stand up for her name and remind everybody of the character and person that she was. Do our duties as sons in protecting her.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4564214/We-let-mother-say-William-Harry.html#ixzz4imy6djMY

Charles (and the queen) must be beaming with pride of his sons. Camilla, Penny Junor, Sally B Smith, Bolland, Fawcett, Ross Benson, Ingrid Seward must to be overjoyed for W & H stand up for their mother...
« Last Edit: June 01, 2017, 10:38:22 pm by dianab » Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 36255


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2017, 12:36:04 am »

It wasn't their job to protect their mother; she should have been more responsible about who she was hanging around with.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6771


« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2017, 01:01:07 am »

Both their parents should have been more responsible about who they were with.
Logged
Sheridan_is_appalled
Baroness
***
Online Online

Posts: 658



« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2017, 01:08:24 am »

As it stands, so should they.
Logged

I haven't played since I stopped
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6771


« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2017, 01:27:33 am »

Yes!
Logged
dianab
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1433


« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2017, 01:32:45 am »

It wasn't their job to protect their mother; she should have been more responsible about who she was hanging around with.
i think they're talking her reputation. how her memory has been treated in this last 20 years

In 1990s there was the War of Waleses - St James Palace vs KP ... NOW is KP VS CH ...
Logged
Sheridan_is_appalled
Baroness
***
Online Online

Posts: 658



« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2017, 01:51:48 am »

If they didn't like the way Diana's reputation has been over the last 20 years, they should look at themselves first before invoking her name in an attempt to smooth over bad press or using it as a get-out-of-work card.
Logged

I haven't played since I stopped
dianab
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1433


« Reply #28 on: June 02, 2017, 02:04:42 am »

I agree with this comments:

Sarnie, Brisbane, 16 minutes ago

I think that it is nice that they are honouring their mother's memory, especially in the face of all the nasty attacks on her character by the PR machine of certain people. they rely on the fact that she is not here to defend herself when they plant stories to re-write history in their favour.

Patricia, San Diego, 1 hour ago
I don't think it's a coincidence that the Princes are speaking out. If you remember, at the beginning of 2017, there were a series of unflattering stories about Diana, possibly coinciding with someone's book. I think that they both have heard enough about their mother and this is their way of fighting back at the years of stories. In hindsight, I also wish those young princes were not pressured into walking behind the coffin. Perhaps it made that horrible, unbearable situation worse for them to be put on such a public display. I know it's a Royal tradition but it's harsh to do that with kids. Plus, the video of Harry outside of Balmoral, reading the notes and holding his father's hand is heartbreaking. It's sad that no one in their family and extended family saw their grief and then to compound it, shipped them off to boarding school right after the funeral. Would that happen today? I can't imagine Prince George being put through anything like this should the unthinkable happen.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4564214/We-let-mother-say-William-Harry.html#ixzz4inpEFf7H
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Logged
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2258



« Reply #29 on: June 02, 2017, 04:01:36 am »

When someone has just died,  prayers for the person are said--a hospital chaplain comes to the hospital room in some cases to pray with the family. The Queen did not allow prayers to be said for the boys' mother after they were brought to Church looking shell shocked. I think that was disgraceful and unnatural.

The Queen was wrong in this case.

The Church of Scotland do not say prayers for the dead - simple.

The Church of England, the Roman Catholic etc do.

That day they were in a Church of Scotland church and so no prayers for the dead. Had this happened when they were at Sandringham then there would have been prayers for the dead as that is Church of England not Church of Scotland.

Harry was probably too young to really understand the differences between the two churches at the age he was and he didn't go to the Church of Scotland services all that often (2 or 3 times a year) compared to 48+ a year in Church of England - hence his confused comment.

The Queen didn't give instructions to not say prayers for Diana as she doesn't have that power. All that happened was the normal procedure in a Church of Scotland church - no prayers for the dead.

The only time in her life that the Queen has put her family before her duty was that week when she put her grandsons ahead of her country. We don't know what conversations took place with the boys about going to church. William had only recently been confirmed so it is just as possible that they wanted to go to church. Many people do feel solace in a church at a time of grief. Maybe they wanted to be with their family wherever that was. Maybe they were forced. We don't know. Many people project their feelings and how they would react onto the princes without knowing what was actually said or suggested that morning or throughout that week. I have no idea but I refuse to judge someone without having all the facts.

The only facts I have are that:

1. the boys were told their mother was dead

2. the boys went with the rest of the family to church

3. Harry allegedly asked whether his mother was really dead as there were no prayers said for her

4. The Church of Scotland don't say prayers for the dead

On the basis of those facts I am not prepared to condemn, criticise or praise anyone. I don't have enough facts to make a judgement. Personally I would have gone to church as a Christian as that would have given me a great deal of comfort (and that is exactly where I did go when my parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles etc have died). I do understand that other people would find that strange and that is fine.

« Last Edit: June 02, 2017, 04:08:33 am by meememe » Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6771


« Reply #30 on: June 02, 2017, 07:20:56 am »

In a case like this, the Church of Scotland should not have been strict and avoided prayers. The QUeen asked that no prayers be said and she could have.

Harry was in shell shock mourning for his mother, I doubt he was thinking about technicalities. ANy Church should show compassion. The boys found out their mother died hours before, they were not theologians and I find it ridiculous if this were the C of Scotland's excuse.
Logged
Little light
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 912



« Reply #31 on: June 02, 2017, 02:40:59 pm »

It is not an excuse. No, this would not been possible in the CoS, Church of Scotland. And there would be no exceptions either.

I've been a Communicant Member of the Church of Scotland  for nearly 30 years by profession of Faith. And I'm a regular churchgoer too. Almost every week.



We believe JESUS when He said, "Let the dead bury the dead".  And also 'after death comes judgement'.


We do not pray for the dead as we believe they have already been judged by THE LORD. So what's the point?

They are dead already so no prayers will save them now. No Mass, whether it be Anglican or Roman Catholic, will ever save someone from their eternal judgement. It might give solace to the bereaved, but by virtue of their passing off this mortal coil, and their belief or otherwise in JESUS or GOD, is the only determining factor if you are going to heaven or hell. And prayers for the recently deceased does not change that fact.

By the time the two young princes had been told of their mother's death, PD had already gone to her final destination. I don't know where that was. Only GOD does as HE is our Judge.

And that's why we will not pray for the dead. When a member of the church dies, we are asked for prayers for the family of .... NOT for the person themselves as their judgement has been and gone. By GOD ALMIGHTY HIMSELF.

I don't know if there were prayers for PD's family and if so that would have been normal and expected.

As she was persona non grata, I don't think the BRF would have liked being asked to pray for PD's boys and extended family, which to me is decidedly unChristian and therefore evil. I don't know if prayers were asked for for her two young children.

If so, and no prayers were asked for the William and Harry, the BRF will have to answer to GOD HIMSELF for that omission.

But never, never, never do we ever pray for the dead. It's a complete waste of time. It doesn't mean we don't grieve for a loved one when they die. We do. Of course we do. But we never say prayers for corpses.  Only for the living who might be biblically lost, saved, or whose faith is wavering.

And both the Anglican and Roman Churches are biblically wrong in this matter. For example, if I pray for Judas Iscariot, will that save him from eternal damnation? Nope.

If I pray for Diana, will that save her from her eternal destination, be it hell or heaven? Nope. I don't have that power.

So your prayers for people who have died are wasted. Use your prayers for the living, and let the dead bury the dead, as Jesus said to HIS Apostles.

Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6771


« Reply #32 on: June 02, 2017, 11:00:03 pm »

I still don't agree with being so strict at a time like that. OR the Queen could have sent for a Chaplain to say prayers at Balmoral. Simple as that.
Logged
YooperModerator
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13140



« Reply #33 on: June 03, 2017, 12:06:40 am »

^^This post is over the line.  Everyone has personal spiritual standards and beliefs that should be respected.  Proselytizing is not allowed on this forum.  YM
Logged


\\\"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.\\\"  Thomas Jefferson
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6771


« Reply #34 on: June 03, 2017, 12:25:15 am »

I think it was sad that the Queen could not see or sympathize with what DIana went through regarding Camilla.The Queen was warned about Camilla and Charles involvement after she married Andrew Parker Bowles. She could have handled things better. Maybe given Charles a choice Camilla or his place in line of succession. Obviously Charles and Camilla still have contempt for Diana today. The Queen should have also realized how upset WIlliam and Harry were and how much they loved their mother and put aside some of the coldness she had towards her former daughter in law. The trouble too was that Charles felt he was the center of the universe and his grandmother really encouraged him to feel that way, that he could do whatever he pleased. I think there should have been a moratorium on the gratuitous, nasty comments by Charles' sympathizers about his late ex wife, like labeling her "mentally ill" and seemingly excusing Charles for his bad behavior. The dysfunction was very apparent in the days after Diana's death.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 36255


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 03, 2017, 12:42:16 am »

I don't think HM realized the threat since HM never faced any threat to her marriage ending at the hands of a scheming mistress. She was safely fixed in and it's not like HM understood that mistresses are no longer content to remain mistresses. Many of them break up marriages and many of them rub it in the new wife's face at every chance. It was likely unfathomable that Charles and Diana would divorce, also unfathomable that a mistress would become the wife of a prince.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
windsor2
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 8860


Harryite #21


« Reply #36 on: June 03, 2017, 03:03:51 am »

Platell's People: Diana would tell William and Harry 'don't look back in anger'
Quote
Even today, William says he feels ‘very sad and angry that we were not old enough to be able to do more to protect her’.

He adds: ‘She was lonely, she was isolated, things within her own life got very difficult. I hold a lot of people to account that they did not do what they should have done, out of human decency.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4568068/Diana-tell-Princes-Don-t-look-anger.html
Logged

Keep Calm and Carry On
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3043


« Reply #37 on: June 03, 2017, 03:24:31 am »

I think it's pretty clear that William's attitude towards the media, for better or for worse, was forged on memories of his mother's contentious relationship with the Press.
Having said that, Amanda Platell is a writer for a British tabloid. These particular newspapers have done quite a bit to tarnish the Diana memory and legacy over the years, so I'd say there is a fair amount of self justification in Ms Platell's response.
Logged
Joanna
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 218


Isabella of Portugal, Holy Roman Empress


« Reply #38 on: June 03, 2017, 11:00:35 am »

^I agree with you Rosella.

I also found this sentence quite telling
Quote
'I hold a lot of people to account that they did not do what they should have done, out of human decency'
I think that it proves my own and others beliefs that he holds resentment towards his family, perhaps both paternal and maternal, as from what we're lead to believe, Princess Diana was  isolated and perhaps a bit abandoned by so many people both her own blood and in-laws, it's heartbreaking.
Logged
deGuernsey
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 944

Gra


« Reply #39 on: June 03, 2017, 03:15:30 pm »

^I agree with you Rosella.

I also found this sentence quite telling
Quote
'I hold a lot of people to account that they did not do what they should have done, out of human decency'
  PW said this? Well, I will hold him to these words via the deeds re See Members Only Section. ... won't you?
Logged

Barnabe et Kitty...
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!