Diana, 7 days and the walk behind the coffin

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.

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 !

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.

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

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!

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.

I should imagine 6 years is quite easily forgotten!

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 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.

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.

Good post nightowl

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.

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 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.

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

I doubt any of us are privy to the truth.

We just have to really listen to her claims without predjudice , so much cannot be true

What struck me from all the various programmes is how at the time of her death the British public were blaming and extremely angry at the media. As the week wore on it was fascinating to see how the media succeeded to influence the public so that they ensured the blame was gradually directed to the Royal family by their headlines

It is astounding the power the media has.

The British Public were vehemently blaming the media for Diana's death, but who was buying the magazines and newspapers and watching the television programmes? If there was no market for this sort of intrusion it wouldn't happen.

Exactly, Deedaa.

I am comparatively late to this thread but just wanted to throw in my tuppence-worth. My father was killed in a car smash when I was 15. I attended his funeral but my mother sent my younger sister to stay with relatives. Many years later sister attended the funeral of his brother and told me she finally felt she'd said goodbye to our father. IMO the only difference between our experience and that of W & H is that their 'walk behind the coffin' had the eyes of the world on them, as they experienced for the first time the full might of 'Pomp and Circumstance' on the death of their mother. Nothing prepares you for the death of a parent at such a young age.

Good point whitewave and it's still happening today. The mail has published photographs of PC, the queen and DofE holidaying at balmoral with very negative connotations - I'm sure other papers have done the same so I'm not singling the mail out - and it makes me angry. Why have William and Harry chosen to separate themselves in this way? Surely they could have shown their respects to their mother in a different way. They either hate the rest of their family or they're not at all media savvy.

And I'm finding the growing hysteria at Kensington Palace even more strange now.

Interesting how this post has meandered and evidence to the breadth and depth of sympathy and antipathy about the royal family. I'm not a royalist, but am not anti either and I feel that there is a lot of good charitable work done by the royals.

The only thing that puzzles me is why / how people think they can have any say in who the next king might be. I think the 'machine' that is tradition will just wind on and it will be PC. I suspect the apparent 'argument' about this is simply more media speculation and manipulation.

I started the thread at a poignant time for me - this past week has coincided with the anniversary of losing my DD2 and I am interested to learn about how others process grief. I didn't see any other documentaries, but did watch the '7 days' programme. I think its tone was respectful and not anti- PC. It did highlight the 'odd' out-pouring of grief and - not surprisingly - it would seem that this was difficult for the young princes to encounter and subsequently process.

What the programme brought home to me was how selfishly and inappropriately a lot of people behaved - screaming as the coffin passed, crying over those two boys and trying to grab them for their own comfort. Very sad.

When I lost my DD, I was very affected by some people coming to see me who barely knew her, but who broke down and sobbed upon me - the full works, holding me, shaking, wiping their tears on my shoulder ... I found that I had to comfort them. These things stay with you - they can add to the trauma.

I have concluded that grief does strange things to people. And an unknown grief can trigger other griefs that are not dealt with. Grief can also sadly bring out misplaced anger and uncover all sorts of neediness. It is often a subsequent, more 'minor' grief that triggers the grieving of someone significant.

I think it was a good thing that the queen protected the children at Balmoral.

I will probably be in the minority, but I am heartily sick of Diana mania and frankly, couldn't stand her. She was an over-privileged, thick (as in education, not manipulation - had several degrees in that!) Sloane, who saw her chance and grabbed it with both hands. From the first picture of her in the see-through dress, the demure look used to make me heave. I did not think her publicity stunts disguised as fund raising were in any way laudable and I wonder how many poor sods were killed emptying that minefield so she could trot daintily along it? I doubt she missed one single chance for publicity, though was always made up/dolled up to the nines at other's expense. Maybe she was a good mother, maybe not - she was certainly off on enough holidays 'alone' after her divorce; even before it if I remember correctly (I'm sure someone will jump in here). I was living in France when the news of her death came through and just thought 'Thank God, maybe the newspapers will find somebody more interesting to write about now'. I lost my mother at age 11 and had to step up to the plate, learning how to run a house for my busy father in a foreign country, luckily enough with no siblings to worry about too. I definitely did not have all the advantages the young princes had - ok, they lost their mother, so did I, but she died of cancer in Africa, where there was fuck all medical care, not because she was too stupid to wear a seat belt and I had to suck it up and carry on. I didn't even really know my father up until that point, he worked very hard and was frequently home after my bedtime, so had that to cope with too. The French were upset at the time; they quite liked 'Lady Dee' but after a week or so they moved on to other things. Now, 20 years on, we have all this crap again. Enough is enough.

Miepl Actually, you are not in the minority on here, but your post probably takes prime position with regard to its nastiness.