Diana wanted William to succeed the Queen
The newly-published political memoirs of Alastair Campbell, former spin doctor to Tony Blair, throws a little light in dark corners here and there.
The Queen at Prince William’s Passing Out, Sandhurst
He claims that Princess Diana wanted her son William to inherit the Throne directly from the Queen and bypass Prince Charles. Now this is not new, as Diana implied as much in her explosive Panorama interview following the publication of Andrew Morton’s book in which she secretly collaborated.
On January 21, 1997, three months before Blair became Prime Minister, Campbell says that Diana dined with the Blairs and the Campbells at a friend’s home in East London. He claims, “while she was looking for things in the kitchen, I asked about William, and she said she would have some influence over what happened to him and she was clearly determined he would be King.”
It’s all a bit vague the way it’s written, but it rings true nevertheless.
What’s interesting is the phrase, “she said she would have some influence over what happened …” Seeing that the succession is determined by Act of Parliament and not by a divorced Princess of Wales, it’s hard to take it seriously at first glance.
Could this be the reason that she so assiduously collected all that material about Charles, even interviewing and taping his staff? Tapes which have since gone missing.
Diana, the toppler of Kings is a new string to her bow — if it’s all true, of course.
Wills will be the next king after the Queen anyway. It’s so obvious.
By Lilyfromfrance on July 10th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
If this is all true, it provides a very plausible motive for murder. Diana is dead under suspicious circumstances and the tapes have disappeared, also suspiciously. “Something is rotten in Denmark.” (Hamlet)
By Gigi on July 10th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Gigi, the tapes were at Burrell’s house and were taken by the police. They have not been seen since — as far as I know.
But an amateur attempt by a deserted wife to blacken her husband would only be a motive for murder in Agatha Christie novels.
By John on July 10th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
What’s so suspicious about Diana dying in a car crash? That’s one of the leading causes of death–if not the leading cause of death–in the developed world. She wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, her driver was drunk, her car was traveling too fast . . .
If someone wanted to murder her, there are much, much better ways to accomplish such a feat, which don’t involve calculating an unpredictable number of factors (speed, where the car will collide, additional passengers in a car, making sure the Princess didn’t wear a seatbelt, making sure she fell forward in the car in just a specific way, accidentally crashing in a public place and thereby hitting bystanders . . . )
I mean, come on. Most “murders” happen behind closed doors or in remote areas and involve poisons or guns or being lost at sea, particularly in the case of anything pre-meditated.
And if the palace really wanted her dead and believed they were right to want this (which I don’t believe), then why on earth have they “changed”? What’s the Queen doing messing around with her RP accent? Why were the princes allowed to throw a concert? And with the Spencers present? If Diana’s brother had thought his sister was murdered, wouldn’t he be out there pulling a Dodi Fayed?
And speaking of Dodi Fayed, it’s well he should be looking for some other “cause” for the accident. Who hired the drunk driver? Who’s car was it that crashed? Who didn’t encourage Diana to wear a seat belt (not her bodyguard, as he was firmly strapped in). No wonder the guy is freaking out. He lost his son to an accident and can’t accept it.
As for the Queen skipping Charles in favor of William . . . I wonder how that really can happen. I mean, what are the mechanics? William would have to accept it. Charles would have to accept it. And Charles would have to have some kind of “other” role. I don’t follow the Royal Family assiduously enough to kknow what all the steps would be taken to ensure that this would take place.
By Marie on July 10th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Good stuff, Marie. Spot on.
For William to succeed his grandmother, Charles would have to renounce his claim to the Throne. It would be his decision, so was not in Diana’s gift — unless, of course, she had it in mind to destroy his reputation completely.
But that would be an act of savagery unlikely in such a saintly figure, would it not?
By John on July 10th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Let’s see what transpires. The Queen does not want the House of Windsor to crumble after her death and may even move Heaven and Earth to prevent it. If, as the Queen is said to have suggested obliquely to Paul Burrell, there are forces within the Palace with tremendous power for evil, perhaps there are also forces with tremendous power for good. Charles is unlikely to renounce his claim to the Throne on his own, but perhaps he can be persuaded by powerful forces for good. Stranger things have happened, even in modern times.
By Gigi on July 10th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
William could succeed Elizabeth if Charles dies before Elizabeth. How long-lived are Charles’ male antecedents? His abdicating would be highly unlikely given the family’s apparent feelings about Edward’s abdication when Elizabeth was a child. Though an abdication might be appropriate is if his health was so bad (and not expected to improve) that he could perform none of his duties.
By Merriam on July 10th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Right on Marie! Had to agree with everything you wrote! Like John said, spot on!
By On The Outside on July 10th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I believe the influence over what happened to William was taken out of context and that Diana meant what sort of character her son had. When it came to the people and the monarchy Diana knew that being seen as selfish and uncaring were not the way the RF should be seen. The RF is seen as out of touch and Diana wanted it to be relevant. I think that no matter what happens when HM dies Chucky will be either too old and have a very short reign or he will renounce.
By Trudie on July 10th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
if i were him and had waited all those years for the throne, the last thing i would want to do was renounce the throne in favor of anyone, even my son. especially if i was as selfish and self-centered as people seem to think charles is.
By Sarah on July 11th, 2007 at 12:23 am
If the Queen asked nicely, I don’t see why the Commonwealth parliaments wouldn’t change the order of succession.
By ClassyCanuck on July 11th, 2007 at 1:35 am
I think anything Burrell says should be taken in context. It seems to me that the Queen was making a general observation — probably to make conversation — about the shadowy nature of the secret services. I don’t think the word “evil” was used at all.
Much to much has been made of this single sentence vaguely remembered by an unreliable witness.
By John on July 11th, 2007 at 8:36 am
I agree - there was no conspiracy - it’s too illogical to even contemplate. It was all just a senseless tragedy. I also think Diana knew all too well that Charles will be King, unless something happened to him. I cannot see the Queen allowing William to ascend to the throne ahead of Charles unless Charles voluntarily abdicated, which is highly unlikely. He’s been preparing for this his entire life.
By Kat on July 11th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Actually - she openly questioned his ability to be King on national television. It was constitutional dynamite.
By kit on July 11th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Kit, if you read my post, you’ll see I made that point.
By John on July 11th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
One of the interesting things about Charles now is that so many of his projects–whole foods, environmentalism–are becoming somewhat trendy, at least in the US. I don’t know exactly how it is in the UK, but “being green” has really started to become an in thing. He could become kind at just the right time, and could end up looking more like a visionary than a loon.
By Marie on July 11th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Green is huge over here now, Marie. Charles actually started pushing it way back in the 1970s when it was a total non-issue.
He’s certainly something of a visionary who’s refused to be deflected by masses of adverse criticism.
By John on July 11th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Yep, Charles was “green” before “green” was in. Frankly - The green movement is very much overdue and I’m all for it. That is one thing I have always admired about Charles. He’s right about this issue - and time has proven it.
By On The Outside on July 11th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
That’s the thing! Charles is right on the money with being green, and though he’s often accused of being weak-willed, he’s certainly stuck to his guns when it comes to his beliefs concerning food and gardening. I bet we start seeing some PR spin on that fact in the not too distant future.
Actually, given the personal turmoil in his life, it’s kind of impressive that some of Charles’ intellectual interests have turned out to be so pertinent. Kinda cool too. A PR doctor will have fun with this.
By Marie on July 12th, 2007 at 3:13 am
And don’t forget his Prince’s Trust, a charity that has created more jobs for disadvantaged young people than the government’s Department of Employment and JobCentres. In fact the Gov’s youth employment scheme was modelled on the Prince’s Trust.
Oh, and while I’m at it, he has campaigned tirelessly for more human scale architecture and even built his own town, Poundbury, in Dorset, based on his ideas. I believe another is to be built in Scotland soon near Dumfries House, a wonderful country estate that he has saved for the nation with £20m ($40) of his own money.
Add to that his interests in education and suggestions for teaching more Shakespeare in schools, and there’s more to disappointed-in-love, good time Charlie than many people realize.
By John on July 12th, 2007 at 9:17 am