Options

Prince Charles and Sons

2»

Comments

  • Options
    neelianeelia Posts: 24,186
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That's not quite true...my heart nearly broke when I saw the footage of the Queen, who had been away for a month greet her young son with a handshake... his wee face :cry:

    Compare that to Dianas show of affection on that yacht after her absence from her boys

    That upsets me too. That show of affection that Diana showed was the one I was talking in my post where Charles did the same thing.
  • Options
    benjaminibenjamini Posts: 32,066
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How very mature was Diana if as was reported, she wept and cried on one side of a door as William passed tissues under it to her. All we know is what is reported in the gutter press.
  • Options
    zx50zx50 Posts: 91,272
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Girth wrote: »
    Marrying the heir to the throne was probably not a wise move in this regard then.

    Diana showed that you can distance yourself from royal protocol when married to a member of the Royal Family.
  • Options
    zx50zx50 Posts: 91,272
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    benjamini wrote: »
    How very mature was Diana if as was reported, she wept and cried on one side of a door as William passed tissues under it to her. All we know is what is reported in the gutter press.

    How on earth could the tabloids have known this?
  • Options
    benjaminibenjamini Posts: 32,066
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    zx50 wrote: »
    How on earth could the tabloids have known this?

    Diana courted the press, perhaps she told them.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,510
    Forum Member
    zx50 wrote: »
    How on earth could the tabloids have known this?

    It was in that book what she wrote
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,510
    Forum Member
    A public display of emotion is no indication of "a loving parent". Everyone's different, and to analyse a relationship based on how an individual acts in the media spotlight smacks of nothing more than a desire to believe one thing or the other.

    Anything can be interpreted in various ways. For example, just playing devil's advocate, I'm sure it could be argued that Diana's public displays were cynical attempts to use the kids in order to get extra media attention for herself, or to promote the media image she wanted to portray.

    It all depends on what someone wants to believe ... if they have a need to believe rather than just admitting they don't actually know.

    I was comparing the two scenarios... one which was stiff and one which was openly affectionate
  • Options
    benjaminibenjamini Posts: 32,066
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    zx50 wrote: »
    How on earth could the tabloids have known this?

    http://www.people.com/people/prince_william/biography/

    1990. It was widely reported.
  • Options
    coughthecatcoughthecat Posts: 6,876
    Forum Member
    zx50 wrote: »
    Diana showed that you can distance yourself from royal protocol when married to a member of the Royal Family.

    I don't know ... Fergie wasn't exactly a stickler for protocol! :D
  • Options
    benjaminibenjamini Posts: 32,066
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    zx50 wrote: »
    Diana showed that you can distance yourself from royal protocol when married to a member of the Royal Family.

    Her reasons were very suspect tho. She was a deeply damaged and flawed individual who visted upon her children her owns rather dysfunctional childhood.
    William and Harry survived despite their parents, not because of them.
  • Options
    justatechjustatech Posts: 976
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I was comparing the two scenarios... one which was stiff and one which was openly affectionate

    You forget that most people were still very restrained in their behaviour in those days and apparently Charles was coached by his nanny on how he should greet his mother. Perhaps the Queen felt gutted that her little boy would greet her in such a business-like way?
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 520
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    justatech wrote: »
    I think the Queen has been a devoted wife and mother. She clearly adores Prince Philip even after such a long marriage and shows affection to both her children and grandchildren. Just because she doesn't pose for the cameras with arms outstretched for hugs, as Diana did, doesn't mean that she cares one iota less for her family than Diana did.

    The Queen herself came from a close and loving family which is evident in photographs of her with her parents and Princess Margaret when she was a child, and also from her continuing close relationship to her mother and sister until their deaths.

    The obviously close bonds between Charles and the two boys makes a mockery of people's claims that Diana gave all the love in that family. People who continue to believe that, despite the evidence of their own eyes, are not worthy of being listened to on any subject.

    Most of this tommyrot about not caring, springs directly from the aftereffects of Diana's death, when the media, in an attempt to shed the blame for Diana's death, chose to focus on the Queen and accused her of being uncaring because she wasn't weeping and wailing in public.

    Dragging two bereaved children away from privacy to be the focus of media attention is a shameful act by the media and, when sufficient time has passed, most right thinking people will agree it bordered on child abuse by the media that they insisted on those two boys being brought to London to satisfy the world's press. It was shameful then and it is still shameful.

    I completely agree with just about everything you've said!

    I remember hearing an interview with Prince Philip where he states that he wasn't supposed to take part in the walk
    Behind Diana's coffin but the two boys were nervous and he said he would do it to help them feel stronger. Just shows, they might not be affectionate in public but the royals do care for each other just like most other families.
  • Options
    Prince MonaluluPrince Monalulu Posts: 35,900
    Forum Member
    justatech wrote: »
    <snip>
    Most of this tommyrot about not caring, springs directly from the aftereffects of Diana's death, when the media, in an attempt to shed the blame for Diana's death, chose to focus on the Queen and accused her of being uncaring because she wasn't weeping and wailing in public.

    Dragging two bereaved children away from privacy to be the focus of media attention is a shameful act by the media and, when sufficient time has passed, most right thinking people will agree it bordered on child abuse by the media that they insisted on those two boys being brought to London to satisfy the world's press. It was shameful then and it is still shameful.

    This^^
    Thought it was $hite at the time, various members of the press crowing about their influence, as if it was a good idea still gives me the pip.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,510
    Forum Member
    justatech wrote: »
    You forget that most people were still very restrained in their behaviour in those days and apparently Charles was coached by his nanny on how he should greet his mother. Perhaps the Queen felt gutted that her little boy would greet her in such a business-like way?

    I think you need to watch the footage
    That's not what happened
Sign In or Register to comment.