Diana, 7 days and the walk behind the coffin

I doubt any of us are privy to the truth.

I have never believed the lamb to the slaughter claims, too many of her claims do not fit with the truth .

I think you'll find that marriage was organised and promoted by the late Queen Mother and her great chum, Diana's grandmother lady Fermour (sp). I think the spectre of a repetition of Edward V111th hung over the Palace,which was to be avoided at all costs. Prince Charles was undoubtedly cajoled, pushed bullied into finding a suitable bride (not Camilla!!) without baggage, and Diana poor girl, was in love in a Mills and Boon sort of way. Basically, it was doomed before they are even took the vow, which of course is very sad,but doesn't make P.C a bad person.

Yes; marriages do go wrong [as did mine]. But they do, in general, start off with two people loving and respecting each other and wanting to spend the rest of their lives together, to the exclusion of all others. Not from a position of lies and betrayal right from the start .

I think it's very sad that in order to be a good king you have to be a royal version of a pop star attractive, trendy young, media savvy and no doubt more besides. Good works count for nothing, a life of service and loyalty also appear to count for nothing. I think Charles will make an excellent hardworking dedicated king, I simply cannot understand either of those two somewhat idle young men using this anniversary to manipulate and dominate the media in dragging all this up again to the obvious distress and humiliation of their father. I think it's very unkind and could be detrimental to the survival of the monarchy - perhaps that's what they want, as Prince William shows no sign of working towards kingship and would probably be much happier living the life of a very wealthy country gent with all the advantages and none of the responsibility!!
Lots of peoples marriages go wrong and end badly, it doesn't make either of them a bad person. The P of W is happy and contented in his second marriage which has to be a good thing, and for his own sons to manipulate adverse public opinion, as they knew it would is imo disgraceful and makes them unworthy of high office.

Good post nightowl

I've been away and have missed the media coverage and the programmes leading up to the 20 year anniversary, and coming back this has struck me as an echo of the collective madness that gripped the country 20 years ago. I thought it strange then, and even more so now. That's not to say I didn't find it very sad at the time and I felt for those boys terribly, having, like many of us, children of the same ages. But now I feel - enough. The media is using her as cynically as it did then, and I'm afraid I think her sons have made a huge mistake taking part in any of it. They have reopened old wounds for their father, and cast him once again in a very bad light, which isn't good for the future of monarchy. I just think it's time to let it rest now.

I'm quite glad though that Harry at least said, quite tactfully I thought (and I've only read this so I may have got it wrong) that he found it strange that people were weeping and wailing when they didn't know Diana. I'm sure the collective hysteria did nothing to help them in their grief at the time and perhaps did them as much harm as the media interest.

I don't believe he is too old, but scoring points between by who (we believe) has worked longer, harder, or anything else doesn't gain anything. They're all human: all of them have 'enjoyed' a privileged lifestyle compared to the rest of us. None of them are perfect, just like the rest of us, and they all have their faults.
I happen to think Charles would make a good king, regardless of the fact that I liked Diana.

As does nearly five years flying helicopters ?

I think it both sad and cruel than a person who has lived their life as Charles has can be dismissed as too,old at 68 .

I should imagine 6 years is quite easily forgotten!

William worked part time for air ambulance when he became a father.

Harry cannot be credited with two tours of Afghanistan, yes he went there twice but tours? No.

I think it a pity he didn't stay in the army, obvious it was what he wanted .

By claiming the army service and air ambulance service ? they both retired by the age of thirty.

Harry has a choice, he can give up his fifth in line to the throne position , he will still have the wealth

And Charles did six years in the navy but this is forgotten, he then took on royal duties and formed The Princes's Trust which has helped so many.

Without our Royals we wouldn't have the rich history that I, for one, am very proud of. Stately homes, palaces etc to visit. Seems a bit unfair to say ok, times have changed, you're now redundant. Even as someone who is more left of centre politically, I'd hate to be living in the sort of world that Oliver Cromwell wanted [although didn't he start to embrace a more royal way of life; power corrupts and all that?]. The young royals [well, some of them] have tried really hard to do 'normal' things and contribute to society in some way. You wouldn't get me in a helicopter, for a start; not ever!

Well said Devongirl, they do actually all try to do something useful. People are often quick to criticise but not so quick to give praise when it is due. I will say it again no one gets to choose who they are or who they are born to , but those that realise that they have been born into comforts that others may never have should be praised for their efforts to help in some way not be undeservedly belittled

I'd like to put in a word for the young princes here:

William was doing a 'real job' with the air ambulance service for nearly 5 years, and I suspect he would have preferred to continue, were it not for his status as heir.

Harry spent 10 years in the army including 2 tours in Afghanistan and wanted to stay on.

Doesn't matter who we'back' or don't 'back' we are a sovereign state,with an elected government. Some might feel that we don't 'need' a royal family , if we didn't we would probably have a President who would have to have a house, bodyguards , etcetc . Ohh & how would you feel if you were told you & your family weren't wanted , needed , liked etc , or that you had no right to be who you are, I am not particularly a Royalist but there are many advantages for the country (just in terms of sightseers alone) love them or hate them it won't alter the fact that we would still have the haves & the have nots !

William and Harry are trying to command fellow-feeling when they speak about their own painful experiences, such as the loss of their mother, their struggles with their feelings etc. I think they are trying to promote a feeling of empathy with the general public, and those who are less discerning probably fall for the displays of compassion like they did with Diana. Whether this will be the case 20 years from now remains to be seen.

sack them all,total waste of space,those"boys" are behaving in exactly the same way their mother did manipulating the emotions of the public and using the media for their own gain...enough.Let them get REAL jobs and keep their own families instead of squirreling away the cash provided by the taxpayers..AND BEFORE anyone says it again The Crown Estates DONT belong to the crown so any money the royals get from them is legally the taxpayers

Just the obsession with everyone must be young. tv presenters , more so female presenters.

What humility did they show Lillie? They spoke about their mother who died when they were children, memories of children are so different to memories of adults.

No matter what any poll shows, the next king will be Charles unless he stands down or dies before his mother.

^An exclusive poll for by ICM reveals 51 per cent of Brits want William to be the next King — skipping the Queen’s eldest son.
Just 22 per cent back Charles — with the bulk of his support coming from the over-75s.

Camilla’s biographer Penny Junor said last night: “Gosh that’s got to hurt — after all the preparation he’s put into this. I think Charles will be devastated.”^

Hmm. It seems GNs probably would back Charles because we have been on the journey with him. The next generations, however, are being persuaded against him by these current broadcasts about his behaviour towards Diana and also by his sons' openness and humility in their interviews.

I don't think Charles comes across as pompous at all and he's not completely 'old school' monarchy.

Remember, he fought hard to get the Princes Trust scheme off the ground when palace advisers thought it might be seen as something to steal the Queen's thunder.

He has made himself accessible to the public via interviews and documentaries which always show his warmth and humour. He cares passionately about his causes and Highgrove is his pride and joy.

He and Camilla are happy. His first marriage was a disaster and we should all move on from it as he has tried to do.

There is a media blackout in this house today. It is absolutely ridiculous.

We have become obsessed with charm and attractiveness ,
Charles is not thirty, but when aged thirty he was doing more work in a month than his sons do in a year Still is.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the hardworking royals with a sense of duty - Princess Anne actually handed me my degree in The Royal Albert Hall!
What I meant was, in this day and age, where charm and attractiveness do count, Charles might find it doubly difficult to exhibit those qualities he did not extol in his first wife even though these are what the public really wants to see. I did not suggest he was a bad person or a bad father, just a bit behind the times.

Anne and Charles have always worked for charities , they are not obsessed with getting the attention of cameras , seem to have much respect for their parents . Spend the summer at balmoral out of sight of cameras , thankfully.

Many years ago Anne said - the public wanted a princess but they got me.

No way does William and Harry have the sense of duty older Windsors have. Harry lives a life which is one long holiday.

Lillie you are not entirely right about Charles , he has run his Princes trust for years & years giving young disadvantaged people a start in life in training for their chosen careers , also managing the Ducy of Cornwall which provides jobs , homes , etc . His disadvantage is that he doesn't come across well to the public,& he sounds pompous . Doesn't make him a bad person, father etc . I think the public are a bit pathetic how they fawn over a person because of their looks or style Princess Anne also has done much for charities but likewise won't play to the press who then criticise her because she won't play ball & earn them lots of money by peddling their intrusive photos etc .