204 thoughts on “William & Harry remember their mum in ‘Diana, Our Mother: Her Life and Legacy’”

1. Great documentary! Some scenes made me cry.

   1. +1 I agree. I cried in many scenes..

   2. Me too. Very emocional documentary. I saw many times Harry saying Diana was the best mother in the world, but I’ve never seen William saying this. It is sad she is not here to ser her grandchildren.

2. Diana was a very big part of my life. From the moment she and Charles became engaged (I was 12 at the time), I was a huge fan of hers – warts and all. As a mother myself, I thought it was very touching to see William and Harry talk about their life with her and also highlight the work she did for causes like homelessness, AIDS/HIV, and landmines. I’m going to sound like an old person here, but Diana shaking someone’s hand who had AIDS, that skin to skin contact, was remarkable at that time. I was in college when the AIDS epidemic was hitting hard and there was so much confusion and misinformation going around, that it was a “gay” disease that straight people couldn’t get, that you could get it by just being around someone who had it – forget about shaking their hand or giving a hug. But there were people like Diana and Elizabeth Taylor and others who took a stand and people noticed. Anyway, I digress. Diana’s influence stretched far and wide and she’s one of those rare personalities who really, really shined and struck a chord with people and I’m glad William and Harry focused on that. It was also nice to see a documentary on her that didn’t dwell in conspiracy theory and divorce drama, which I knew this one wouldn’t contain anyway. I thought it was very well done, very touching, and a great chance for Diana’s sons to take back the control of Diana’s persona and how she will be remembered. I did wonder about Earl Spencer having such a small role and nothing at all from her sisters, but whatever – it was overall a very sweet tribute!

   1. Vegas,

      We must be very close in age. As a young teen I do remember the weeding and I think I watched it as I remember bits of it but other than that I had no clue about the royal family whilst growing up in the States.

      But once i moved to the UK you cannot make it past a week without Diana being in the news. At no point do I believe that this documentary will take back control of the Diana image. All it does is really annoy people because just when you think she will no longer be mentioned another story and/or another documentary is done.

      I know this is going to sound really awful and it is not meant to so please try to understand my line of argument is not to hurt but a point of view. Diana, in many ways, died at just the right time. (I know it was a tragedy and I am in no way saying she deserved to die.) She will forever be young, no one knows how she might behave now, and above all there has been enough gap of when she was alive that large portions of negative press has passed. I was not living in the UK whilst she was alive but my H has told me number of times that before she dies the press started to really turn on her and started to really shine a light on her antics. i have seen archived footage of stuff that Diana put out and then the press would reveal what really happened; such as Diana would phone the press and inform her where she was. They outlined that she was very adapt at PR stunts and manipulating the story to her own end. And lets be honest if she was really bothered by Charles affair why destroy other people’s marriages?

      The British belief is that William and Harry tout out their mother when they know their popularity is waning. The problem with this tactic is that people are sick of it and soon those who are rabid Diana fans will no longer be around who take the bait all the time. Most of the young people have no real clue who she is or what the constant news articles are for.

      There are a lot of us who grew up with seriously dysfunctional family dynamics and have no choice but to get on with life. The poor me routine is getting really thin. They have resources that I could only dream about. Lets face it that when Kate gave birth in the private hospital it was in the news that approximately 120+ people attended to her. I have an ongoing condition and have to go to he hospital for testament and trust me I am lucky if three people attend to me and two of them are receptionists. Therefore, I doubt very much they would not have been offered the help they needed. Charles is many things but an uncaring father is not one of them. Husband has met Charles and says he is a nice guy.

      I just want this narrative to stop. Plus I really do not wish to pay anymore for them. Our entire social service framework is crashing and burning and the political elite and royal family do nothing but demand more and more. Cameron’s political slogan “we are all in it together” is just fantasy or unless you are the 1%.

      1. We both seen them use their mother as a PR joker to get out of criticism and work. And they will continue to do so because both of them seem to want out of this gilded life and be left on their own devices.

         Somehow, I get the impression that they are feeling guilty, especially William, who we know now, was fed up with her antics with the press. Rumor has it they had a spat/argument about it before her death. And that this is the way for them to de-guilty themselves (I couldn’t find a word to express what I meant).

         And I hope that you get better and that your medical condition disappear and doesn’t bother you anymore.

         1. Ellana,

            Thank you very much for the well wishes. Sad but my condition is for life and it does not really bother me except during a flair up and now I just take care of it myself instead of going to the hospital.

            You might be right about the guilt. There was an article in the newspapers that William and Diana had a fight during the last phone call. From what i understand, and again i am not a member of the family so looking in from outside, Diana treated William as her little confidant and would revile to him everything and cry on his shoulder. What mother does that?

            1. I think Diana just didn’t know whom to confide in. William must have picked up on Diana’s reactions etc to the whole business. Crying in the bathroom and him handing her tissues through the door.

            2. I join Ellana in sending best wishes to you and I am sorry for your medical issues. I can certainly understand how hard it must be to realize how many, many medical people attended Kate during her deliveries of her children. She wasn’t even high-risk and I just cannot imagine! I wish you well and hope you are spared ongoing probllems.

            3. TC-P, I agree with what you are saying. As much as I loved and followed Diana, her inappropriate confiding in William is called “parentification.” It is done by narcissistic or alcoholic mothers, or mothers with some other similar problem. The child is inappropriately burdened with adult responsibilities, knowledge and/or emotions. Although children seem to cope well at the time, it leads to anxiety and depression in adulthood. I am speaking from experience and not from a professional standing. My mother, who is narcissistic, constantly involved me in her arguments with my father.

            4. Sadly, many mothers do this. Its not fair, or right, but they do.

3. As someone who has lost a parent at a similar age, I do feel a lot of sympathy for W & H in many respects. That said, I don’t feel comfortable by how much Charles and the rest of the RF get airbrushed out of the narrative. All signs point to Charles being a caring father. The RF protected and continue to protect both W and H as a result of the press attention Diana got in her last few years, and allowing them to live their lives as they want (jobs, privacy, the army, the wedding, the air ambulance gig, the homes…). If Diana introduced them to normalcy (questionable), the RF have allowed them to continue it.

   That said normalcy is not the same as ‘not royal’. It was great that as children they could break away from royal family pomp and stuffiness, but normal it wasn’t.

   1. I think that’s it exactly– that they had access to experiences that other generations of royals, or maybe even their cousins, did not. But sneaking in to movie theaters and going out to McDonalds and to Disneyland does not mean that you had a childhood similar to that of the average British person. It means you had snippets of life outside of the specter.

      I am genuinely glad that they had memorable and lovely moments with their mom. That’s true in particular in that they have all of those memories to share with their children. Keeping your parent’s memory alive when they pass while you’re young and before your spouse and children come along does feel critically important. My husband and I both were attached to the moniker Papa for our dads and my father-in-law is very involved in our girls’ lives. Officially they are Papa Bill and Papa Steve and sometimes I find myself emphasizing that, sort of pointing it out as if to say, “Don’t forget, you have *two* papas.” Thankfully my husband is aware and supportive and helps underscore that for them. I really hope that Kate isn’t so wrapped up in her family’s fabulousness that she forgets how important it is, both for her husband and for the benefit of her children, to keep her memory alive.

   2. Dear Bamalynn,
      The term you are looking for is not “parentification”, it’s called “enmeshment.” When I was 13 my therapist told me that my mother and I were enmeshed. Enmeshment is when the parent takes the child as a surrogate spouse. Parentification is a whole other ball of yarn. A parentified child is a child who looks after their siblings while the parent is either out with friends, or passed out drunk, etc. etc

      1. Thanks for the clarification. I’ll look up enmeshment tomorrow. It will be interesting reading.

      2. Ashley, I looked up enmeshment and parentification on Wiki and found this. We are both correct.

         Two distinct modes of parentification have been identified technically: instrumental parentification and emotional parentification. Instrumental parentification involves the child completing physical tasks for the family, such as looking after a sick relative, paying bills, or providing assistance to younger siblings that would normally be provided by a parent. Emotional parentification occurs when a child or adolescent must take on the role of a confidant or mediator for (or between) parents or family members. – Gregory J. Jurkovic, ‘Destructive Parentification in Families’ in Luciano L’Abate ed., Family Psychopathology (New York 1998) pp. 237–255

         1. That’s interesting, I’ve never heard the term being used in that one. I still got the feeling Diana thought of her sons as more of surrogate spouses

4. I’m going to watch it today!

   However, “Aw, Harry got choked up saying: “She was our mum; she still is our mum. You know, and I of course, as a son I would say that she’s the best mum in the world.”, made a red flag go up for me. My mother passed away when I was a little bit older than W + H (but still a teenager). I love her, I miss her intensely, but in no way do I believe she was the best mother in the world. She had her flaws and now, as a mother myself, I see her with clear eyes, appreciating the wonderful things she did and the great love she had for me, but recognizing where I think she took a wrong step. She was human, afterall. Harry saying that makes me judge him. There, I said it. I don’t think he’s acting like a mature grown-up about that.

   1. It made me think both men are ripe for the picking for women who will mother them. Or have mothers who will mother them! I think both, in order to grow, needed women who challenge them. I don’t see that in William’s choice but am optimistic about Meghan, if they end up marrying.

      1. Carole Middleton was the pseudo mother. Not Kate. An it was part of the deal that attracted him on top of Kate being available to him whenever he was in the mood. Not a healthy relationship in any form.

         1. I don’t understand. Basically Carole would cook, provide motherly care and Kate would provide the physiology needs. No wonder it is an unbalance of power.

         2. It’s always struck me as odd that any recollections of the courtship of William and Kate, Carole always looms large in the telling.

            Diana said there were 3 in her relationship, William has the same except in his case, he isn’t hostile to the 3rd party and it’s questionable whether the relationship would survive removal of Carole.

            1. Well, Camilla didn’t make cheese on toast did she? 😉

5. Watching it right now, and Harry talking about missing his mother’s hugs made me cry. Ugly cry, too. I understand that so, so much. Missing your mother’s hugs is emotionally devastating.

   1. I am so sorry for your loss and I hope that you are in a good place now. I know it isn’t much, but I’m sending a big hug to you.

      1. Thank you, Ellana!

         1. LizB, I also send you a huge hug.
            I cannot imagine losing my mother and I hope that you feel the spirit of yours often. I lost my brother when I was young. Not the same thing, for sure, but I often feel his support and presence around me. I wish you the same type of loving comfort.

6. Hmm… my take is closer to Future Crayon’s though my overall takeaways are mixed: the first is that these men need ongoing psychological counselling as they are still ‘stuck’, particularly with regard to the last phone call. By all accounts William had had a row with Diana in that call; the guilt must be enormous and reeks out from them both. Harry probably blew her off. But goodness, they were just teenage boys. I felt the tone of the doco was kind of mawkish with the elephant in the room being the lack of warmth from their father’s side of the family in comparison with Diana’s free wheeling style; I’m not sure therapy should be conducted in public.

   The second takeaway is that while they revered their mother’s work, neither son has embraced solid work. There are bursts of activity, lots of rhetoric about carrying on their mother’s work, but sustained work? No. But this may just be the nature of royal work – a few things here and there punctuating a lot of private time. For William to claim that Child Bereavement is close to his heart but made only two visits doesn’t bear out that statement and smacks of opportunism fro some much-needed good PR. Once again I feel this documentary is part reclaiming of the Diana narrative and part PR opportunity for W+H.

   The third takeaway is curiosity. Diana clearly loved her sons, was fun etc but she and Charles certainly did not discipline them adequately, or teach them humility given both men’s petulance and sense of entitlement. I don’t think anything new came from this program; the editing must have been like walking a tightrope.

   1. +1

   2. Solid work is normality for the majority of people, but not for most royals. Still, the idea that both have been able to defer settling into any kind of professional or ceremonial role until well into their thirties (and counting) is not especially royal, and smacks of the sort of self indulgence which can often take the place of proper support, care and guidance (entirely my opinion and projection). I do feel that H and W have been indulged, rather than given boundaries, and that this shows in their behaviour.

      Perhaps one legacy would be to reinvest their support in Heads Together and look at ways of providing support for young people experiencing the death of a parent or sibling. This can have emotional, behavioural and mental consequences and there are a few small charities working hard in this area. Often one of the best ways of finding some resolution following a personal tragedy is to support others who may go through the same.

      1. Your projection is pretty spot on. It would be great if they could channel their experiences of trauma into truly assisting other organisations tasked with helping others through their grief. But they appear still in need themselves, that much was clear from the program.

         1. Do you recall that PW is royal patron of Child Bereavement UK founded by Diana’s friend Julia Samuel. Though the Royal Foundation doesn’t grant funds to CBUk, W, K do attend fundraising galas for them. 100 Women in Finance has raised funds for CBUk.

      2. There were runners in the London Marathon on behalf of Heads Together. Which royal reporter will have the temerity to ask either the London Marathon Trust or the Head Together Project how much was raised? And then ask HT how much was distributed to their mental health partners? There is no mention of it on either’s web site.

         1. Well, the royal reporters seem to be a timid bunch, all things considered. Their job security seems to depend on their not being real journalists but merely rearranging palace press releases. Not exactly Woodward and Bernstein calibre minds… Which royal reporter will trawl through the RF accounts to investigate what exactly what has been donated and whether it’s worth all the hoopla involved?

            1. The same reporters that will forego the outfit descriptions during D&D engagements in favor of reporting what exactly they did and said – and how long they were there? Or the ones that can regularly write a coherent report on another subject? Never gonna happen, I know. 🙂

            2. I loathe Murdoch with the heat of a nova, but I’d rejoice if he cut coverage of all things royal from his media outlets. Give them no air. Or at the very least colour the narrative. I’d re-deploy the royal reporters to other areas. I don’t know how you end up being allocated the royal beat but, man oh man, I’d want something more from a career and journalism training than that.

7. “I find it interesting how many of 2017’s engagements have shown up in this documentary. Like, I’m now really wondering if William and Kate’s visit to Child Bereavement UK in January, William’s visit to The Passage, and Harry’s landmine engagement were all scheduled just so they could film for this documentary, especially since the footage shown is not normal news footage, it was clearly filmed specifically for this.”

   Great point!

8. Off topic, but why do I have a feeling William is going to give Kate all of Diana’s jewels or her most famous one’s and not leave none to Harry’s future wife?

   1. Let us not to forget that the engagement ring was actually Harry’s when they both were allowed to pick one item each. William chose a watch. It would not surprise me if William wants everything in the way of jewellery etc. But I think that is not a bad thing. i would hate to have the pressure of not only marrying into the royal family but then thrust with the ghost of Diana following me every time I wore a piece of jewellery.

      1. I would have all the gems reset into another piece of jewelry that looks nothing like the original.

      2. Rather than recycle, I’d have stones rest into something more contemporary that would suit the wearer. Asking your partner to wear as is your dead mother’s jewellery that clearly has unhappy baggage attached is just thoughtless, let alone insensitive to the new partner.

         1. Unless that new partner and her mother view that ring as the pinnacle of all their hard work =)

      3. Unless your aim was to be recorded wearing the jewelry. Wear once, be in a photo or video, that instance gets archived. No need to wear it again.Then, reset it all.

9. I was a child when Diana died. She was just a feature in glossy magazine that I used to see at the doctor’s office and learned about her when I started royal watching.

   It is the cynical in me, but I think that this documentary is just another way for them to make her relevant, not to be forgotten by the public. The anti-monarchy feelings are bigger than ever and they are being criticized. Also, I do think this is a way to counter the articles published, revealing the various sides of Diana and those praising Camilla.

   Two questions :
   1/ What is their relationship with their father ?
   2/ Ditto with Camilla ?

   This also makes me wonder when they got counseling and help. Harry admitted to get it at 28. But did William did ?
   I hope for both that they did and are getting better and hopefully, that involves family therapy with Charles.

   1. “I hope for both that they did and are getting better and hopefully, that involves family therapy with Charles.”

      +1

   2. I wonder if these two will ever acknowledge their father like this. On his next big birthday, will they talk about how Charles was there for them after their mom died, and praise the creation of the Prince’s Trust and his decades of work? I doubt it.

      1. Last year (i think) there was a celebration documentary about The Princes Trust. William struggled to articulate any thought about Charles, his work or what the trust did. All he kept saying was that Charles had a strong sense of duty.

         Harry was much better. Had several cute stories to tell about Charles.

      2. It makes me sad for Charles since this plays into Diana’s media narrative of her being the perfect mother, airbrushing their father who loved them to the point of Diana getting very jealous of him bathing them, playing with them, etcetera. It feeds into the Charles = evil, William must be king over him thinking.

         It is very sad William isn’t close to his father. It must break Charles’s heart.

         My parents had a similar situation, although I was much younger and it was not in the media, but it was really ugly. You need to grow up and forgive your parents, because they do love you, even if they made very bad decisions or even used you as a weapon as mine did in their divorce (then we have cheating, substance abuse on top of it for my parents). I have sympathy for W&H but it wears thin about Diana because they act like they only had one parent, when the entire family has protected them,coddled them, paid their way.

         Praising Charles isn’t good for their PR.

   3. I’ve stated before they clearly need to do some family counseling becuase William definhas some issues. I used to think Harry had a good relationship with him but this last year he seems to be toeing the William line.
      I did notice when the Spanish Royals visited, there was a nice big pic of Harry =) I didn’t catch a blatant William one
      I think Charles had his own issues but Diana was by no means the Saint mother everyone wants to portray her. I think they both loved them. It all we ever hear about is Diana

   4. As someone who comes from a “blended” family (remarried parents, step siblings) william mentions that the kids have two grandmothers. I kept thinking, well no, they have three. Even if they are that accepting of Camilla, Charles is sorely forgotten and that makes me sad. We all have such little time with loved ones.

      1. Spot on, Colleen.

         I was also a tad upset by his comment that Diana would breeze in and out when it came to seeing the kids. There for bath time — creating a lot of bubbles and splashing and then heading out! Really? That surprised me. Whereas, Carole just seems (imo) to have commandeered William and his offspring and taken the reins on so many things.

         Nice though, that he speaks of Diana to his children. Kate never met her, so didn’t know her, and thus, if I read his comment right, does not speak of her?? Look, look, none of us (I believe), who were alive when Diana was actually knew her, did we? Yet, we have memories. Strange that Kate, according to Wills, doesn’t supposedly speak of what she remembers of Diana’s image to the kids. (Look, Kids, I am wearing Granny Di’s engagement ring)!

         I’ve said it before, I don’t think there would have been a Middleton bride if Diana were alive, but oh, how I wonder what Diana would have thought of Carole — if she ever met her!Or, what she would think of William’s anger and laziness when it comes to his Royal responsibilities.

10. I will be honest I did not watch the documentary and have no plans to; but as bits and pieces of it have been aired for about two weeks now in the press I have a good sense of what is in it.

    All I can say is that seriously they need to grow up and learn to deal with life. In fact it would be nice if they actually got real jobs. The air ambulance job and the military are not jobs but made up jobs to protect the image of the royal family and their low very low public engagements. William never finished his pilot training in the Royal Air force, hence, there is no way he could be a pilot for the air ambulance. The Royal family had to pay to modify the helicopter so that William could sit with the pilot. As for him donating his salary there is no proof that he did just his word.

    Harry’s military career rumour has it was cut short because he did not like being ordered around by his commanding officer. I have also heard on the grape vine that when Camp Bastion was invaded by the Taliban Harry was wished away and protected by SAS soldiers. Plus lets look at Invictus. I believe it was Harry’s idea that he had when he visited the USA’s military support for wounded soldiers but I doubt very much he has the skills needed to organise and operate the entire event.

    Regarding both they are rumours so take them at what ever value you wish to put on them. My point is that both have yet to ever really face life and if they cannot handle even most normal events. They play act their way through life and pick up and drop causes like it is no big thing such as William and his cause du jour in homelessness. I remember the stunt where he slept on the street for a night. Really? How is that helping as he was surrounded by body guards and at the end of the night he knew he could go home have a nice hot breakfast, bath/shower, get into clean cloths and climb into a nice warm bed. At least Harry is constant with his support of the military.

    It is stuff like this documentary that is increasing the republican cause. It would be nice for once not to have a whitewashed documentary trying to fool the public into thinking the royal family is the bee’s knees.

    1. I am agreeing with you on everything today! I think Diana cast herself as the “fun” parent. To encourage your children to be as naughty as they can be, just don’t get caught, is being the fun parent, IMO. Both of these young men have had terrible parenting, most of it stemming from the incompatibility of C&D and the household chaos. It is obvious the sons are/were loved very much by their parents, but they were not disciplined properly.

       1. Where whenever my sister and I left the house or dropped off somewhere my Mother would say “remember who you are” i.e. Make good decisions and don’t act a fool.
          Her first role was that of Mother then friend. luckily we are great friends to this day =) and I still try to remember who I am when I’m out and about

       2. It’s so unfair to the other parent for one to position themselves as the fun parent, doubly so in cases where the parents are separated. Because for the sake of balance, if one is being “good cop,” the other has to take a “bad cop” role to keep the kids from going completely off the rails.

11. William is trolling us with his ‘normal life’ statements. He knows he’s not normal and he jolly well expects us to appreciate it! He’s not trying to level down, he’s drawing a comparison between himself and other people to highlight his special status, he’s an entitled aristocratic butt-hole. IMO. Was it the French monarchy that delighted in dressing up as peasants and play-acting? We all know what happened to them..

    1. Bwahahahahahahah!! +1!

    2. Such a brilliant insight, ABC, in comparing William’s play with ‘normalcy’ to Marie Antoinette’s, distilling all we’ve talked about in a couple of sentences. People tend to think he has been deprived of a normal life and feel sorry for him, whereas he wants to *play* at being a pleb, just like MA, a very important distinction. She was just more transparent about it.

       This is why he does not give up his royal status- he wants to have his cake and eat it too and likes to remind us ad nauseam of how truly special he is in his position, a brilliant observation. Which makes his demands for sympathy even more laughable and toweringly arrogant. I am the future king- see how special my plight is and how special I am because I am future king. Never forget I will be king, and my occupation is “Prince” which makes my suffering so unique and worse than anyone’s.

    3. Aren’t there reports (unofficial of course) that he is extremely strict on protocols with his household staff? He doesn’t want to be normal. He wants to be worshipped, but also given complete freedom over his life.

12. I just watched it on youtube. When Harry. Choked up,i did too. It was. A very moving tribute to their mother. I wonder if William will restore Dianas HRH when he is king. I hope so.

    1. Why would William do that ?

       1. Because he can. Its my opinion.

          1. I’ve heard that he did promise her that he would at the time of the divorce.

             Lots of thoughts on this blog post. I’ll have to come back later and add them to the conversation.

    2. “In his book, A Royal Duty, Burrell writes: ‘She told me how he had sat with her one night when she was upset over the loss of HRH, put his arms around her and said, ‘Don’t worry, Mummy. I will give it back to you one day when I am King.”

       Read more at http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/celebrity-news/prince-william-promise-diana-title-507191#cm2AVtLThazAq5LZ.99

       1. It’s hard to know if this was true because that little story was told by Diana publicly during her ongoing media campaign to force the royal family to give back the HRH that SHE had voluntarily given up for a better divorce settlement.

          Diana was very good at dissembling and telling lies that positioned her in a better public way and the story of her HRH’s removal is one of the many lies she told in order to have greater public sympathy to force the Queen’s hand.

          It can’t be said enough that the HRH was not on the divorce table. The family never asked her to give it up. They’d let Fergie, who’d embarrased them beyond measure, to divorce with her HRH intact.

          Diana thought thst she was being clever or co-operative if she volunteered her HRH as part of a better divorce settlement.

          Sadly for her, the royals were so fed up that they accepted her sacrifice.

          A few weeks later, she realised what the loss of the HRH truly meant. The loss of status. Having to curtsey to HRH Fergie. So she tried to walk it back. And when that failed, she ran to the newspapers saying that the mean royals had taken away her HRH. She also told that story about William telling her that he would restore it to her and that he was fine with her not having it.

          Pull at the public’s collective heartstrings at the tableau of little William comforying and protecting his mother and wanting to restore all that she lost when he was able to do so.

          As for Paul Burrell repeating that story, i can believe that she told him that story. She often believed the lies she told and repeated them to others as the truth.

       2. I know Diana loved her kids but she was looking to young children for emotional support; that is really unhealthy for both parent and child. A child isn’t supposed to be an emotional support system for an adult; quite frankly it’s unfair to the child. It looks like that is why William is so controlling and almost authoritarian when it comes to his family.

          1. As much as i dislike adult William, i also recognise that he has lots of issues that can be traced to how Diana used him as an emotional crutch and involved him in issues that no young child should be privy to.

             At tye end of the day, most parents do their utmost not to harm their children or try not to, but for someone who apparently adored her children, this was an aspevt of parenting that Diana was oblivious to.

             1. Exactly. I understand she was a young wife and mother and was thrown into the shark’s den so I won’t be overly critical but some people don’t realize some of the emotional harm they do. It sounds like the emotional tug of war went on for years. It also looks like Diana relished in being the fun, nice mom while Charles was maybe the boring, strict parent (a good cop/bad cop situation). I don’t think that’s fair; a lot men use that tactic in divorce (let the kids stay up late, eat junk food all day while mom is usually the strict, rule-following parent).

             2. Lord knows neither she or Charles had examples of good parenting though they tried.

          2. Diana’s death is very sad, so I’m not trying to be cruel. But from all accounts, she seems to have been somewhat of an emotional vampire. She certainly seems to have sucked a lot of the life out of her children.

    3. William can not restore the HRH. This is a fantasy wish that has no basis in the reality of how these things work.

       A piece of legislation was created to remove it, with the agreement of parliament, and it’s a piece of legislation that would restore it, with the agreement of parliament.

       Further, he can’t restore Diana’s HRH without also restoring Fergie’s HRH because unlike Diana, Fergie never volunteered to give up her HRH and was divorced with it intact.

       Reversing the legislation that removed Diana’s HRH means Fergie’s is restored.

       That is not something the public wants.

       1. If Fergie didnt lose the HRH in divorce, when/how did she lose it?

          1. It looks like Fergie was originally allowed to keep it but then Parliament passed a resolution taking away HRH from divorced members of the royal family.

          2. What Jassica said.

             For a few months, fergie’s full title and name was HRH Sarah, Duchess of York.

             After Diana’s shenanigans annoyed HM enough to add caveat removing HRH from ALL divorced in-laws who weren’t HRH in their own right, Fergie became Sarah, Duchess of York.

       2. Herezeus,

          You might know something I do not but I am not aware of a statute of Parliament which has removed the HRH for both Sarah and Diana. I understand that it was a Letter Patent that removed the HRH. A Letter Paten is a open proclamation from the head of state i.e. currently the Queen and is seen as legally binding but not from the power of Parliament but prerogative powers from the head of state. Hence, it could be argued that yes William could restore the HRH if he becomes king but I would think he would have to tread very carefully because of the political implications.

          1. TCP: You are right, BUT the letters patent require parliamentary sign off. Without that sign off, any caveat changes / declaration by the Sovereign is meaningless.

             Eg Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester.

             No parliament sign off, therefore not a princess.

             1. Herazeus,

                Thank you for the information. Constitutional and Administrative law is not my field.

                All the best.

          2. TC-P: +1

    4. Um why. She is dead.

       Diana lost her HRH because of the divorce. That is what happens. She was no longer a royal.

       1. Diana has no title at all, not even Lady?

          At book meeting, there was talk about her burial site. A few entertainment show mavens think that PW will have her remains moved to London once he attains the throne. No one could agree on where in London that might be.

          1. She would have just been ‘Diana, Princess of Wales,’ I assume. Or revert to Lady Diana Spencer.

             William moving her remains is creepy.

             1. If he did that then he’d be even more psychologically unwell than he already appears to be.

          2. He probably wants to be buried next to her (and Harry as well) when he passes. I think that’s ok.

             1. Do you think that will be possible? He will be King of Great Britain someday.For Harry, it would perhaps be possible. But it’s an intersting question.

13. My overwhelming impression from this documentary is that Diana’s love for sons was unconditional.
    She loved them dearly, and they, her.

    1. +1

    2. But isn’t that true of almost all parents? I would hope that is true!

       I haven’t seen it yet, and I do look forward to doing so. But she was their mother and it would be odd if they didn’t see her through an idealized lens. I had a conversation with my mom about my dad last weekend, and even now I still see him through the “dad” lens and she through the “man” lens. It makes for different recollections to be sure!

       1. I don’t think it would be odd not to see a parent through an idealized lens. Some people do, others don’t. Neither is odd.

          1. I guess I was lucky in that I grew up in an intact family with a dad I adored. So I see him through that lens, and now he’s gone I find my mother and I do much better than we used to as well. But I don’t see either as a man or woman in their own right, though. They’re mom and dad and they present a totally different side to me and my sister than they do elsewhere I think. Or we view them differently. Don’t really know, and not really sure if I’m making myself clear!

             1. We have subjective views of our parents. They have always been with us, unlike spouses who we choose. It is hard to be objective about the parental relationships.

          2. There is another reason for the “idealized lens” comment KMR. My own experience as I said, but also I have indirect personal experience of how something like this can affect people. My husband’s parents were both killed in a traffic accident when his youngest siblings were almost exactly the same age as William and Harry. The youngest in particular most definitely sees her parents through that lens. The family has had no end of trauma as a result of the accident, but one thing just about everyone has is that view of their parents now. They never got to grow old with them.

             1. How sad, bluhare. I am sorry for the family!

             2. Doesn’t time just stop when a loved one dies? Their memory is cast in stone from that point. The survivor can only know a particular facet of the deceased parent (ie as parent rather than as a man, woman) through the narrow lens of whatever age they were when the parent died.

             3. Thanks you guys. And, Jen, that seems to have happened with my husband’s family. The youngest had the same issues with getting therapy that Harry talked about. Unfortunately, we don’t have contact with her now, so I’ve no idea how she’s doing. She could be very manipulative, and my husband got tired of dealing with it (and so did I if I’m honest), so we haven’t been in contact. It’s terrible what happens when parents die before children are adults.

             4. Jen, Anne Morrow Lindbergh writes that she finds that as she grows older her dear departed also “grow” in her memories. I find this is true. She was speaking of her sister.

                If anyone wants to see an example of how to deal with horrific loss, I highly reccommend her diaries. It’s all there: the despair and depression,the anger, the denial, and gradually the acceptance with a true grace. The diary written at the time of the kidnapping, Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead, is painfully honest and beautifully written. The Lindberghs, too, had to deal with the white-hot glare of publicity as they mourned. William might well find lessons if he read.

             5. @bluhare – it’s completely unpredictable how family members react in such circumstances. In your sister-in-law’s case, I wonder if she manipulated her parents and simply transferred that behaviour to her siblings, wittingly or unwittingly? No excuse, of course, but her grief had to go somewhere.
                @Fifi – thanks for that reference. I have just found it and it looks very good indeed. I’ll look forward to reading her work.

             6. Jen I think that’s exactly what she did. She was the youngest and the only girl. So yes, she was definitely the apple of her parents’ eyes.

14. The visit to Passage not only made it on the CC, it was also only 30 minutes long. Someone (Jason?) called PA to tell them that William mad a visit there on the day. It is interesting because you can also see Harry visiting the London Lighthouse with Elton John and two AIDS patients that Diana met before, but this visit is not in the CC.

15. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4731620/Princess-Diana-s-brother-speaks-attempted-break-ins.html

    I had a heated conversation with some of you about whether this was the right place to bury Diana. In retrospect I think I wasn’t right in all my assertions because as always emotion guides my rationale. Emotionally it still feels wrong but practically…..what else could they have done? She is safer there than anywhere else and that has to be of paramount importance.

    1. Thank for the link Mrs BBV.

       Better to be safe in the family crypt, let it be known that that is the case to end further attempts. I can’t fathom the mind that would even contemplate such an act.

       This article adds to the many contradictory accounts of walking behind Diana’s coffin. It is clear there is acrimony, still, between the parties.

       1. Jen: +1

    2. I guess I missed that because I think I would have agreed with you!

    3. Thank you for that link.

       The article also makes it sound as though Charles Spencer is denying any responsibility for William and Harry walking behind their mother’s coffin in the funeral procession:

       “….it was a ‘very bizarre and cruel thing’ for Diana’s two sons to be asked to walk behind her body. Earl Spencer said his sister would not have wanted it and told officials of his objection, adding: ‘Eventually I was lied to and told they wanted to do it, which of course they didn’t but I didn’t realise that.'”

       But, according to an article written in 2011, the idea of having the princes ride in cars, rather than walk, was suggested by palace officials but Charles Spencer was opposed to that suggestion. It sounds as though C. Spencer’s determination to put Charles in an awkward position meant that the boys’ feelings were not considered…not by the palace intent on protecting Charles’s image and also not by the boys’ uncle, intent on hurting Charles.

       Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4731620/Princess-Diana-s-brother-speaks-attempted-break-ins.html#ixzz4nxKp6JtP
       Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

       eta: Forgot to put in the link to that older article, not sure why the other link automatically appeared: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347820/Royals-wanted-William-Harry-Princess-Diana-funeral-cortege-protect-Charles.html

       1. A friend of my parents was in Admiralty Arch when the coffin passed through below them. (At that point DoE puts his arm around William’s shoulder and asks him if he’s ok?) She says to this day she feels physically ill when she thinks about the boys doing that walk behind their mother’s coffin…..she says the emotion and sense of ill will on the streets of London was palpable before the service. Apparently some of the more hysterical crowds did shout abuse at PoW but the TV cameras muffled it out and out of respect to the boys it was not reported on. But people shouted things like ‘happy now are you’ at Prince Charles. That has got to have added to the trauma. They should never ever have been asked or made to do that walk. It stunk then and it stinks now. I have always wondered whether a Dr. gave them something to blunt the edges because still to this day I don’t know how they even managed to put one foot in front of another.

          1. “Happy now, are you?”

             That is horrific. Charles was clearly upset. But that seems to encapsulate public opinion of him still. I know many who believe Charles deliberately had her killed. Somehow.

             I wonder what they feel about having them walk behind the coffin. It’s royal protocol, isn’t it, to have stuff like that, and the world DEMANDED a huge massive funeral instead of what it should have been, a private family affair. They were forced to mourn in public but not too much because the world mourned like hysterical lunatics.

             1. Well I admit to mourning and being terribly upset. I also wanted her to have an appropriate public funeral that those that wanted to could take part in. I didn’t want to see her pushed away in death but some of it was as hysterial and unbalanced as Diana herself could be.

             2. I get people grieving and caring about her, I mean, I was only 10 when she died so I don’t get all the vast public hysteria that surrounded her death! I remember watching it going, “Why are people sobbing hysterically as if their own mom died?” I think a lto of the things she did were wonderful and I find it shameful W&H, especially W who uses her even more as a shield, does nothing to follow in her footsteps. I guess he does with the petulant behavior…but Diana had more good sides than William I think.

             3. She had charisma, and the ability to make you feel like you knew her, that is why the reaction was what it was. I remember it very well; I wasn’t hysterical or anything like that, but I was very sad when she died.

             4. Ellie: ‘Happy now, are you?’

                You can actually hear someone yell that at Charles in the video of the funeral procession. It is such an ugly thing to say.

             5. I actually think the boys should be proud now that they honored their mother by walking, even though it must have been terribly difficult. Unfortunately, mourning in public is something royals do; think of Charles reading at Miuntbatten’s funeral.

             6. That’s awful. No-one has the right to say that. My understanding was that Charles went against his mother’s wishes to collect Diana’s body from Paris, honoured her with the royal flag etc. I’m guessing that people did not know that at the time? I thought W+H would have known their father had done all this, either at the time or later? Such fraught relationships…

                From 12,000 miles away, we were astounded at the outpouring of grief which seemed hysterical. The funeral and journey to Althorp was carried live here (very early hours of the morning). At the time it was suggested that it fed upon itself. I mean no disrespect here but it seemed the grief represented not only Diana’s passing but other things too. But those of you there at the time would know best.

          2. Mrs BBV: +1

          3. TBH Jen is was pretty unedifying looking back on it but there were so many factors at play. The media did whip the nation up like nothing you’ve ever seen. The relief of the media that she was killed by a drunk driver and not a paparazzo combined with blaming the Palace did turn the mood from shock into anger and hysteria pretty quickly.

             The govt. of the day also played on people’s emotions pretty heavily too. But I have to say it affected people who I never would have expected to be affected. And not to forget Earl Spencer set the tone of anger and blame very early on, only a few hours after her death with his first statement.

             Both my ex-husband and my step father had no great love of her but I’ll never forget their reactions. When the plane taking her coffin from Paris took took off there was a service televised from St Paul’s Cathedral running it the background and my ex broke down in tears and sobbed his heart out. Until then I had only seen him cry once before when his dog died. My stepfather cried his eyes out when they sang the aria in Verdi’s Requiem at the funeral. What on earth happened to them both I will never understand but both stoic, stiff upper lip men inconsolable over the death of a woman they’d never met and didn’t much like? It was a very odd time. Something really unsettled the national psyche for around three weeks. I do wonder what History will make of it all.

             1. Mrs BBV,

                My husband was the opposite of yours. He had no emotion about it at the time and even now he gets fed up with the constant news. I was here for the enquiries into her death and saw a few documentaries in respect of that time.

                I tend to agree with my husband that Diana was not as special as a number of people are saying. I think even now we have had to endure the yearly news articles marking her death, William and Harry organised the concert, the monument in Hyde Park (I think it is Hyde Park) and now we are getting a statute that will be in Kensington Palace. This is going to sound disrespectful but her real claim to fame is marrying well and having two children. As soon as she was divorced she dropped a large number of her charities and went on loads of really nice vacations. Overall she did as she pleased and still had large trappings of her formal royal life as she still lived in Kensington Palace, did loads of drop in visits to places and had loads of admirers when Tony Blaire nicknamed her the “Peoples’ Princess”.

                I cannot feel sorry for her in her life choices as she choose to marry Charles. I say this because it is well reported that she wanted to back out and her sister told her “too late she is on the tea towels”. Unfortunately for her; her family were pushing for the union just as much as Charles’ family were. No one wins in these type of arrangements most of the time.

16. It is so easy to forget that Diana was a mother. I cannot imagine sharing my grief with the world.

    1. Hi, rhiannon. I hope you are well.

       I agree with you with all my heart. To have endured what they did at such an early age and to have to share it with the world must have been brutal.

       My heart still aches for the loss of the beautiful, caring, amazing Princess Diana. I guess I will always be ruled by emotions, but to me, as a little girl, she was a major role model. I remember one of my uncles being aghast that her funeral got world-wide coverage. “For God’s sake, what did she do to deserve this?” he asked. My mother snapped back: “She did more for the poor, the sick, the uncared for than you will ever do.” That was one of the first times I ever saw my mother get so angry and voice it in such an intense way.

       I don’t know if I am up to watching the documentary. I must say the picture of naughty Harry sticking his tongue out is priceless. I remember seeing a documentary in which he did a similar thing at the window of the limo in which he and his Mum were being driven . She realized what he was up to and snatched him away from public view.

       Have a good day, all.

    2. “It is so easy to forget that Diana was a mother. I cannot imagine sharing my grief with the world.” +1 Rhiannon

17. Just to let you all know I will send the photos my hubby took of the Diana Garden at KP to KMR by this weekend. I will leave it to her better judgement as to how she wants to use them on the site as she may have ‘memorial’ plans for the coming weeks that they can fit into. It is the garden that was featured in the Diana Legacy documentary.

    1. I can’t wait to see them!!

    2. Ahh that is where the garden is. I have no idea why I thought Hyde Park. I have taken friends there by accident when they come to visit i.e. see England on the cheap by using hotel TC-P. To be honest it is lovely.

       1. To be fair, Kensington Palace is in Hyde Park. On the Nottinghill side of the park as opposed to the Marble Arch/ Lancaster Gate/ Knightsbridge sides of the park.

          1. Thank you Herazeus for the information about Diana’s memorial in the park. To be honest we do not go up to London unless it is our turn to visit friends there. And then we are with friends or playing tour guide so always in known spots.

18. Kudos to you for watching it! I couldn’t be bothered maybe when I’m over the nonstop Diana stories. I made the mistake of clicking over to the DM and I think they had 8 stories of her up!
    I think t’s an interesting take in their work activities tho so for that reason 8 might watch it.
    I’m tired if the she was great at normalizing us. 1-I don’t want my royals normal! Yes, we want them some what relatable but not normal. Seeing Victoria and fam in the park and what not but really how often to we see William & family out and about? 2. Normal is all relative 3. I actually think he uses we’re just. Normal family to get out of work and events and as someone who works full time and yet still makes time for family, traveling, volunteering etc makes me mad. We want our politicians to be normal and relatable not our royals. At least it’s not high on my list. I want the jewels, the pomp and circumstance because without, I wouldn’t be bothered as I am not a fan of hereditary HOS

    1. I think it’s so telling that they believe their mother, who grew up on a 13,000 acre estate in a home with 90 rooms and a dining room that can seat 200, had any idea what “normal” was. Sneaking out to do things didn’t give them a taste of “normal,” it gave them a taste of what it’s like to be a non-royal aristocrat. Big difference. They don’t want to be normal. They want to be normal spoiled rich kids instead of spoiled rich kids who are held to some kind of public scrutiny and accountability. And I’m not saying all rich kids are spoiled, only that William wants to be like the spoiled ones, otherwise he’d use his immense privilege to do some good work.

       1. I think PW’s ‘normal’ should be parsed to ‘unobserved’ or ‘unnoticeable’ at times when he or his family or not fulfilling any royal obligations or tasks.

          OK to watch at Trooping, Ascot, Garter walk. Not OK to watch in any location when shopping, running, on holiday, biking etc. when not fulfilling royal obligations or tasks. The gray areas are situations where he is present at a function (polo for example) but their as a guest or player. If the public is allowed admittance is it normal to expect you would be photographed at all? My answer is yes. You’re in public, expect to be photographed. There are plenty of CCTVs that record your every move within vicinity. It is the current expectation in public.

          1. Even at polo he’s had security threaten to confiscate phones of people because they could potentially take pictures. It’s ridiculous. You are in public, and famous, and the people pay for you; expect to be photographed, deal with it.

       2. Diana did come from a very privileged background, but she was fairly down-to-earth before marriage. Having roommates, working various child care and cleaning jobs. It wasn’t my everyday life, but far more “normal” than the royals, or Kate for that matter.

       3. Whenever they’re lamenting their life behind palace walls and wax poetic about a normal life. I wish someone would tell them there is a solution to give them what they want. They would have to pay for their own house and bills themselves, their friends would probably no longer them the use of their private jet and homes in exotic locales tho.
          See how they feel about that normalcy thing

    2. William, and Harry want normal when it suits them. They use IPSO to pull stories they do not like about them and lets face it the press in the UK are already cow towing to the royal family as there is loads they could and should report that is not making it into the main stream media. They want the money, houses, jewels etc. without having to do any work. They would never in a million years give up the title and money that come with it as they would not survive.

       When William was given Amer Hall the road was changes so people going to the church would not be allowed to drive past his house. The people living in the home were given large sums of cash to move out. Then they received planning permission to make alteration to the grounds to give even more privacy; which if it was a normal person would not necessarily receive. Next he had legislation passed so drones could not be flown near his house all for protection. Lets not forget that Carol use to get slated in the press for being a helicopter mom and basically living with William and Kate in the early days of George’s life. That was stopped very soon by my guess William. At Kensington Palace William planted about £20,000 worth of trees for privacy in an area that is no where near his apartment. During the phone tapping days by the News of the World and other news papers the only people who were tapped and received justice at the time was Prince William. All the normal people were left stranded as the police service did nothing for them. Harry drives his motorcycle through London at very high rates of speed and has never been issues with a ticket because of who he is. It has been reported he sents one of his protection offices to speak to the police officer stopping them to strong arm into no ticket. Normal people do not have any possible way of doing that. When Harry’s friend was mugged he used his protection officers to find out which police station he was in to then see him. Normal people do not have that option. When William went to the wedding in Africa to get the tax papers to pay for a private event he visits a state dignitary for 30 minutes, thus, making it a state visit. No normal person would be able to get his boss to pay for a holiday but we are expected to stump up and pay.

       oh and then we have their charities. You would be hard press to know where all the money goes. i have tried on several occasions the reports are very light in information. A normal charity has to have more rigours reports. The same goes for where public funds allotted to the royal family are not truly reported. As a tax paying citizen I am only allowed access to what they tell us. All gifts they receive they get to keep which a normal person serving the government i.e. politicians and civil servants are not and thet have to report it.

       I as a normal citizen who fund them want them to step down and renounce their claim to the title if it is so awful for them because trust me that money could be put to better use. As they have no intention to do so please shut up and suck it up buttercup. i know I sound harsh but when people who earn a decent wage cannot afford to live and have to visit food banks just to have food there is something seriously wrong with society. Then you have two petulant brats complaining that life is so hard when everything is provided for them there is a major character flaw within them.

       1. + 10000000

       2. Bravo TC-P! Well said and spoken! It is disgusting the privilege that they get to live with. I would venture to say, that a regular rich person, one who has earned their own money do not get half off the privilege that these self-anointed royals receive.

       3. +1 million.

       4. Terrific rundown, TC-P. This should be a stickie to remind us all of their appalling entitlement and privilege any time we weaken. I would never want to have anything to do with people like that either,

       5. +1. The sooner it’s over, the better, if only to see the smug smiles wiped off their faces when they see the public meal ticket and ridiculous, utterly undeserved privileges disappear. Forever.

19. I am not sure I will ever watch this documentary. I loved Diana but I do realize she had a lot of faults and was not the most stable person. She was radiant and oozed life, and was so warm with people when she was doing her engagements, but at the same time I think she was very immature, petty and could be cruel to people. There is no doubt that her relationship with the press was totally insane-she hated them, yet craved their attention and at times even tipped them off. I know she loved W & H with all her heart and wanted to give them a loving childhood because I do not think her childhood was so great. I think a big mistake she made was to treat her children (William in particular) as her best friends and IMO, this is not always a good idea. Just so many factors at play that made her who she was and some of her attitudes have definitely stayed with her sons. I have read that Harry mentions she told him it is okay to be naughty, just do not get caught, to me that is not a great message a parent should send to a child.
    Anyway, she is gone, never to be forgotten and I am sure after 20 years this is a big milestone for W & H in terms of where they are in life today, given the fact that they are in the same age group that their mother was when she died. Maybe they will reflect on that and have some personal growth or maybe they will just continue to be those 2 naughty boys.

    1. How was she cruel to some people?

       1. She dropped her friends and family for no reason whatsoever. A perceived slight, a perceived disloyalty or just bored with them. Refused to take their phone calls…..no explanation just went from loving and wanting to spend every minute with them to just cutting them dead the next day. She sacked staff with impunity and was taken to tribunal a couple of times. She spread rumours about people’s private lives, she sent hate mail and poisonous pager messages to staff she was angry or irritated with. Her list of personal misdemeanours against those she knew loved or liked was nor for pretty reading but because she has such charm and force of personality and of course her Royal position she had huge forgivabilty. She could be pretty horrible some of the time and she hurt a great many friends, family and employees through her life.

          1. Spot on, Mrs. BBV!

          2. MrsBBV: +1

          3. I am reading an old book, The Housekeeper’s Diary, by a woman who was housekeeper at Highgrove after Harry was born. I think it was banned in Britain because of spilling royal secrets. Diana comes off as hot/cold, and really awful to the staff. No one fares well in the book, and the incredible waste of money is horrifying. It is a good antidote to all the “saintly” articles appearing, but I’m almost sorry to read it. One thing the royals should stop is trying to control any narrative. Leave the job to historians in the future.

             1. That book was the first book I read that made me question behind the saintly image. It’s very, very enlightening. Yes….banned in U.K. I got my copy from Amazon Marketplace.

             2. I should read it. I’ve been wanting to read Ken Wharfe’s book too.

             3. Ken Wharfe’s book has just been updated and rereleased to coincide with the 20 years. It is as fair and balanced an account as you are likely to read. Burrell is too emotional and Patrick Jepheson (Private Secretary) is still angry and resentful in his tone. Mr Arbiter doesn’t really say anything that isn’t already in the public domain and is very careful not to offend BP. So I would recommend Ken Wharfe’s book out of most of them although I have to say there is some quite interesting material in Simone Simmonds books, imbetween some real self serving nonsense.

             4. Oooh just remembered. Stephen Barry who was PoW valet and rumoured to be the first scalp Diana took wrote two books about his life in Royal Service. The second one details about life with PoW including the courtship, engagement and marriage. There are a few throwaway comments in that book that make you realise that Diana was becoming quite a handful to contain. He tactfully turns them into ‘Diana behaving royally’ anecdotes but the actions behind the anecdote show she was no compliant teenage girl but was very much someone who was used to getting her own way. Once she had managed to get him to resign she became ‘lovely, charming Diana’ again.

             5. And just to totally finish me off……

                http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4733994/How-Charles-failed-Diana-closest-Palace-aide.html

                http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4734052/Is-guilt-reason-Earl-Spencer-reopening-old-wounds.html

                The b*stards are all at it. Getting their last pound of flesh out of her memory. Look what this documentary unleashed and now I applaud the PoW for saying absolutely nothing. He at least has given her dignity in death that he perhaps didn’t always give her in life.

             6. So awful. This is why documentaries like this are a bad idea; they just eat and eat at her even though she’s been dead 20 years, encouraged by her own kids. :/

             7. I found the Housekeeper’s Diary book on the Open Library so anyone can read it. Quite fascinating how awful Diana could be to people and how Charles was puzzled by her behavior and how Charles really needed to be more loving and affectionate.

             8. I read Sally Bedel’s Smith’s version of the story on the Open Library. It’s called “Diana in Search of Herself”, I think. She’s American and started writing this when Diana died. She wanted to get everyone’s opinions of her before the post-death revision got started. She writes convincingly, but relies heavily on tabloid journalism to flesh out her story.

             9. I just finished her book on Charles. I thought she did a good balance of both sides of Diana

             10. Sounds like borderline behaviour – probably not surprising given her well documented childhood issues around her parents divorce.

       2. Diana cut off Fergie a few months before her passing simply because she had mentioned in her book that she had gotten Diana’s bunions after sharing shoes! That’s an incredibly childish and petty reason to cut someone out of your life–especially for one who was in her mid-30s according to the calendar.

          1. Diana was part and parcel of the Diana vs Fergie stories in the media, spurring them because it made her look good and superior and Fergie look bad.

             Diana said in public about Tiggy, wasn’t it, who she suspected of sleeping with Charles, “It’s so sad about the baby, isn’t it?” and suggested to people she had aborted Charles’s baby. Really nasty stuff.

             1. I remember reading about that and thought it was one of those ‘below-the-belt’ comments from Diana.

             2. Tiggy, The nanny?Perhaps it was a miscarriage. Why would Tiggy put herself in the position with her employer?

             3. Laura: it was a malicious lie that Diana made up and then commented loudly to Tiggy at a party.

                Tiggy was upset enough to call lawyers to get Diana to retract the comment.

                I can’t remember if Diana apologised. However the damage was done because the story surfaced in the media and was thought serious enough to warrant examination during Diana’s inquest due to a letter Diana had written to someone in which she’d said that Camilla was a decoy to cover for Tiggy and Charles who were the true l9vers and destined to marry.

                Btw, Tiggy’s family were and remain powerful enough to be able to defend her from Diana’s malice, but as with all things Diana, people tend to assume everything she said was true even the debunked ones.

          2. Kimothy it was plantar warts not bunions.

             1. I knew it was something like that. **yawns** I’m feeling absolutely exhausted!

             2. Hi Kimothy, reading your yawning comment, i’m imagining you sitting in the sun, lazy like a cheshire cat!!?

                Hope you are well.

             3. Herazeus: guuuurl I wish I was hahaha! Yesterday, I woke up wiped out for some reason, feeling like lead had implanted inside of my body but I was up and went to work. I’m feeling a bit better today.

                TGIF!! Also, pay day is on Monday!!

    2. Boston Brahmin:+1

20. I have so many thoughts about this. First, why is Camilla not considered a grandmother to the children? That doesn’t make sense to me. I come from a family with a lot of divorce, so maybe I see things differently, but Camilla has been married to Charles for the entirety of George and Charlotte’s lives. It seems weird to not consider her a grandmother.

    Which kind of segues into another thought I’ve actually had for quite awhile. I get the feeling that part of the reason William is doing all of this now is because the queen is getting older and can’t hang on too much longer and it seems like William doesn’t want Camilla to be queen and is eager to remind the public about his mother so that won’t happen. It just seems so, so weird to me. “We’re private, but let’s open up to introduce our mother to a new generation!” Why? Why does a new generation need to know about their mother?

    And why were there photos that were just found this year? Could it be for the same reason that they suddenly had all these engagement at the beginning of this year? How do you go 20 years without finding these photos? It just seems like all they care about is putting on a show. They care about this stuff so much that they couldn’t be bothered to find photos except for when they needed to in order to put on a better TV show? I’m starting to appreciate the queen more and more. I used to wish she did interviews and stuff, but now I totally understand why she doesn’t.

    It’s just all lip service. I don’t think Diana was the saint people make her out to be. I actually don’t have a very high opinion of her at all, but the woman did work when she wanted to, and when she got passionate about something, the public knew about it. William and Kate seem to think they can just say they’re passionate about something and that makes it so.

    William talks about putting up barriers with the press, and it’s kind of hinted at that he gets that his mother let them in, maybe too much, but what he doesn’t seem to get is that letting them in is what gave her the power she had. Diana saying she was passionate about the fight against AIDS didn’t matter at all. What mattered was the pictures of her touching an AIDS victim in a time when everyone was scared to. Her saying she was against land mines didn’t matter to the world. The footage of her walking across a cleared path in full gear is what mattered. That was all done by the press because she brought/let them into her engagements. And everyone cared because she kept herself in the spotlight when she wasn’t doing engagements. She was a master at using the press. She got them/the public to care and then she took that spotlight and shined it on causes. No one cared what she said, they cared about what she did, and people could only care about that because she let them see what she was doing.

    1. Agreed. I was 17 years old when she died but I wasn’t really paying attention to the whole “War of the Wales” throughout the early-mid 1990s. I remember (like many other teenage girls) developing a crush on William during this time, watching clips of the funeral (no way could I wake up that early) and saving the Tampa Tribune’s articles about her and whatnot.

       She was clearly loved her sons but she did do some things that were wrong IMO. Mainly: becoming the boys “BFF” instead of their parent and having them become as her confidants instead of talking to actual adults her age. Also, she convinced the press that she was the good/better parent and Charles was the mean daddy/bad cop.

       I’m not sure if I’m going to watch it. I’ll try to watch some snippets. Everyone else has expressed themselves much better than I ever could.

       When Diana was good, she was very very good but when she was bad well…..

       1. Kimothy, I was born and raised in Sarasota, but I have lived in Tampa since 96 when I got out of the Army. (Sarasota was/is too “small town” for me, after living in Europe for 6.5 years!) 🙂

          1. No way! I grew up in Lutz/Tampa and have been living in Tallahassee since December, 2007. Tally is smaller than Tampa Hahaha!

             1. I had just turned 14 years old at the time of Diana’s death and thought William was a handsome guy. Yes a little crush I admit it. I had no idea of the “War of the Wales and it was deeply sad her death.

21. I have a lot of mixed emotions reading all of this page today. Next year it will be 30 years that I lost my Mom to breast cancer when she was 38. I don’t grieve the way W & H have, so I guess I see this as an opportunity for them to gather sympathy for themselves. “Oh, poor us.” We are the only two boys on the planet who lost our Mom, and now we are going to use our resources to anything we want, and we are going to take our grieving to the public in an attempt to gather world-wide sympathy, in the hopes that the world will leave us alone so we can be normal. Call me unsympathetic, but I have lost my Mother, and I don’t talk about it with anybody. I don’t need to. There isn’t an eff-ing thing I can do about it but go on with my life. My Mother was no saint, neither was theirs, oh well. There’s STILL not an eff-ing thing that can be done. She’s gone, and I have to live with it. Life goes on.

    1. +1

       As the saying goes, “everyone’s got a story that will break your heart” and that’s so true. Every single one of us has gone through some sort of hardship but instead of using it as a crutch (like W+H do) we either go on with our lives or use it to motivate us to better the world in some own way.

       1. Amen Kimothy, Amen!

22. If the title of this video was changed from ‘‘Diana, Our Mother: Her Life and Legacy’ to ‘Diana, Our Mother: A Remembrance’ would it change the way you (all of us) view the collection of memories expressed by her sons and a few by a sibling and family friend? It is a reminiscence of the woman that was their mother. A few posters here have expressed that Charles has been left out — this film was not about him. It is a memoir of their mother from two young teenage boys. Nothing more, nothing less. IMO.

    1. “A few posters here have expressed that Charles has been left out — this film was not about him. It is a memoir of their mother from two young teenage boys. Nothing more, nothing less.”

       Grace: +1 I thought the same as you.

    2. I agree that this documentary is not about Charles so it makes sense that he wouldn’t be talked about in it. However, I personally didn’t pay much attention to the title of the doc at all, so while the suggested title change would be more accurately descriptive, it wouldn’t have made a difference to my opinion on the doc.

    3. GraceH, I’d say it was a memoir of their mother from two men (rather than teenage boys). I imagine everyone in the BRF tread gingerly around W+H’s resolve to make this program and thought it best to let them do it their way. Shame, though, that W+H could not or did not choose to mention in even a sentence that their father helped them through it etc. But maybe Charles did not want to be mentioned and let the focus remain on Diana.

       1. I think Diana and Charles made some very serious mistakes as parents, and so did I. But the difference is that they did it in a public, magnified situation. I can see W’s desire to shield his children absolutely. But the problem is that the family is royalty, and in some sense, belong to the public—certainly as long as the public is lavishly supporting their obscenely privileged lives. The desire to see the children regularly, to feel that they are being schooled and prepared for the royal roles are the public’s business. And if there are public acts that will have a predictably undermining effect on royal children, the public should criticize. It was really awful of Diana to do that interview, really awful. They were both awful. Her children would be better off with a more balanced view of their mother, including the ways she failed them.

          1. Charles also did the big tv reveal of his infidelity. He also briefed his friends to go on Tv claiming she was mad/unstable. Let’s not forget his part in this, and he was the real adult when they married , he was the royal who should have helped her adjust but preferred going off for a bit of ‘tampon time’ with Camilla.

             1. Judging by stories Diana was indeed unstable and really needed professional help. (I think Charles probably does too, I believe they both really would have been good having therapists and professional help both together and apart, they both seem like troubled people to me with various issues.)

                It is so sad they aired all this awful stuff in public to get back at each other or rehabilitate their image. My parents and their lawyers used me as a weapon in divorce; I can’t imagine how much worse it would have been to have it all public but I hear W&H were quite sheltered from it all.

23. Perhaps someone else has already commented on this on an earlier post, but the royal trio have put out an ad for a senior communications secretary to support their royal foundation “work.”

    I have all sorts of questions about this new position. Because the position will be based at KP, I’m assuming the new secretary will report to Jason Knauf and not Lorraine Heggessey? What a nightmare that would be, having in effect two bosses. If the royal trio is going to be increasing their “work” within the BRF, as they have announced, why do they need a fulltime secretary for the royal foundation? Shouldn’t this new position and any royal foundation position….especially involving finances….be kept as separate as possible from the KP office? And, who’s paying for this position, Charles/the duchy or the royal foundation itself? Is this where a chunk of the funds raised by their Heads Together campaign is going?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/40725026/12500-consider-royal-job-advertised-on-linkedin

    1. As of 27 Jul 2017, Royal Foundation has a CEO, Dir of Development, Dir of Programmes, Dir of Finance & Ops.

       In 2016 the avg number of employed staff was 20 FT, 6 PT.
       5 employees were hired specifically for the Heads Together campaign.
       There is no mention of a position title ‘senior communications secretary’ for the Royal Foundation in the 2016 Accounts or on their web site.
       ”Shouldn’t this new position and any royal foundation position….especially involving finances….be kept as separate as possible from the KP office?” It is. RF is a separate corporation and charity.
       ”And, who’s paying for this position, Charles/the duchy or the royal foundation itself?” The RF is not funded by Charles. It has its own income and pays its expenses.

       1. Thanks, I get that the royal foundation is an entirely separate entity but my questions are regarding this newly created position, not existing staff. Here’s the main part of the linkedin job description from “The Households” of the royal trio:

          “The successful candidate will play a key role in the development and implementation of the communications strategy for The Royal Foundation and producing and delivering creative communications campaigns. They will take the lead on The Royal Foundation communications plans and the delivery of engagements as necessary and will work closely with both TRH’s Communications Secretary and the CEO of the Foundation. Drafting and circulating Press Lines will also be a key part of the role, as well as organising and giving press briefings and responding to out of hour’s media enquiries.”

          Now, doesn’t it sound as though this position should be within and paid for by the royal foundation itself and not by the households of the royal trio? Or is this how it always has worked, that the duchy/state funds everything surrounding the royals’ charity work, even if it is for a separate entity?

          1. Someone was tweeting for HT last year and this — someone without the title communications secretary. My guess an admin asst or other untitled office staff. There are now 2 projects connected to the RF: IG & HT. IG has a communications director. RF does not. There should be someone who is the comm secy coordinating the RF message between RF, KP, IG, HT and public media.

             All charities have some form of communications/press secy. And, it is a cost of running the charity. As is rent, utilities, office supplies, wage taxes, and all the other expenses of running a corp. This is why organizations that evaluate charities, such as GuideStar in the UK, will review annual accounts and report how much of income (mostly donations) are used for the stated purpose of the charity. IMO, PC is careful about ‘his’ accounts, any seconding of employees will have wages billed and collected.

             Retweeting by KP of RF or IG announcements is an expense of KP if TRHs ask for it to be done. Their comm staff does it. Coordinating press releases, press materials, engagements with KP is a usual practice. RF pays their staff to pass info to KP. KP staff is paid to receive it.

             1. I did a quick look at the financials of The Royal Foundation’s last year report. Wow. There are three high earner staff members one of them making up to 160,000 a year. There are a lot of staffing expenses and the like. Though in several places it says that 80% of funds go on charitable expenditures my gut says that is not necessarily the case but I just do not have the will to do all the math involved and flipping between parts of the report. Plus when I took accounting I remember Jesus was still a child. My poor accounting professor would be so sad to know I forgot most of it. At least I can still read reports. At least it is not as bad as Sentebale when I last looked. I guess it is on par with most other charities running now day.

             2. TC-P, if you look just a bit more closely, that 80% that they say goes to charitable expenses–only about half of that reaches the charities. The remainder of their “charitable expenses” funds go to “raise awareness and convene”–in other words, PR for the foundation and the royal trio themselves.

24. I’ve watched the documentary and I really feel like absolutely nothing new was revealed. What do we learn? Diana was a wonderful mother who loved her children. Diana was a charismatic woman who felt deeply and wanted to change the world for the better. Diana was unhappily married to Charles. Diana died tragically and everyone is sad.

    Did we not know these things before??

    1. I just watched it too and, like you, felt nothing. We didn’t learn anything new except some of the personal photos that were released. Harry seemed more open than William in regards to talking in general.

       1. I watched it yesterday and kept looking at my watch. Dull and soporific. This is just an indulgence of W+H dressed up as looking as if they deigning to speak about their mother ‘for the first time’. We’ve had them playing the mummy card for ages. This is just another version of it.

    2. I actually fell asleep about 1/3 through so it wasn’t intriguing at all.

25. I think it’s a given that Diana was a flawed individual. Many people resent her status as a saint that has lingered long after her passing. However, I find it strange that so many leap to the defense of Charles so often, as if he had nothing to do with the horrific marriage the two had.

    He was no saint, either. His actions after her death may have been spurred on by his own guilt. I hope he acted to support her memory to help his sons, but we can’t get inside of his head, can we? Something appears to be wrong between William and Charles. Again, we are not able to know what Charles does to try to bring his son and his grandchildren into his life, but there’s something wrong. Very wrong. Harry appears to be closer to his father. But, you don’t see them hanging out together often. Or, hear about.

    I refuse to give Charles the “Get out of Jail Free Card.” He was guilty for many things. So, was Diana. But, suddenly people seem to be throwing poison darts at Diana’s memory and making Charles out to be a victim. Some people, anyway.

    I have many friends who come from divorced parents and some have good relationships with both their moms and dads. Others resent one parent more than the other and there is usually a solid reason for that. One, that some of them are trying to work out. As for Camilla? She has gained my respect in many ways for the work she is doing. Still, she is no saint, either. Complicated stuff. Family relations usually are.

    1. I think it suddenly looks like positions have reversed in terms of Diana vs Charles because of the passage of time.

       20yrs ago, the pro-diana lobby was so emortively attached to their idea of Diana that the simple mention of Charles’s name might have brought out the pitchforks. To extent that even though she is enyitled to it, Camilla can not use POW title due to those diehard Diana fans.

       Passage of time, people have either matured or they’ve had more time to consider the facts as they thought they knew them.

       They also see a visibly more relaxed Charles and and a Camilla who isn’t the she-devil painted by Diana.

       Then the books by people who purpote to know both parties. Whether pro or against.

       The picture starts to fill with factoids either unknown or not so easily dismissed.

       Suddenly, Charles doesn’t look as bad as he was painted nor is Diana as saintly as she was painted.

       And as more people discuss Diana’s negative qualities, not helped by re-issuing of tapes in which she tells the world her story thus allowing people to see her more clearly, it begins to feel as if people are throwing darts at her and or exonerating Charles.

       It’s like the revellation that Jack Kennedy wasn’t the paragon of virtue he was purported to be. He was human, a rascal, a philanderer, but who tried his best at public service.

       And i think that’s the best way to look at Diana too.

       Knowing or admitting her faults doesn’t automatically mean Charles gets a pass for his indiscretions because the world and their situation wasn’t as black and white as it was painted 20yrs ago.

26. Must be so difficult to accept that as soon as Diana was out the door of their country home, Camilla would be in the back door, arranging furniture and fluffing up pillow, and Charles was quite conscious of the pain he was causing his wife and children. But as ‘future king’ grants himself his indulgences with no further thought for his family. He followed his heart, and betrayed his family as well as the country. His arrogance, and Camilla’s indulgence and contempt of his young family is signature of someone only interested in having a good time, as she ‘feathered’ her own nest, and gloats now in the biggest tiara’s and hats – it’s all gone to her head. It’s quite chilling to think that he thinks himself above and beyond mere mortals, he can use and abuse the woman he married in church and in front of the eyes of the world – he is self-obsessed and deserves not to be king for his lack of family values. Camilla married another man, she made her bed, whilst belittling and ridiculing a young girl, stepping onto the world stage, she was stealing away behind closed doors, indulging Charles his self pity. The worst is the way the royals treated Diana after the divorce, stripped of HRH, left unprotected, she worked so hard at causes that meant so much to people. Charles isn’t big enough in himself, feeling jealous and ‘upstaged’ by his young wife and Camilla there fueling his fire, endearing herself – they are both guilty as hell for Diana’s death and causing untold pain for two young children. Charles would never in a million years admit to failing his duty to his own family and guilty of humane errors. If Charles takes the throne, Camilla should be given the title ‘mistress lying in wait’, by public demand – lest the senior royals try to airbrush the past away and try to dazzle their subjects with their glittering might.

    1. I’m sorry but neither Charles nor Camilla “are guilty has hell” for Diana’s death. She was an adult who made poor decisions that ultimately resulted in her death. She shouldn’t have gotten in car with someone who had been drinking. Not wearing a seatbelt. A car crash is what caused her death.
       And if we’re taking people out of the running to be crowned because of “lack of family values” pretty sure the monarchy would’ve ended before it’s conception.

       1. Sarah: +1

       2. +1. Sad, but true. Diana chose not to buckle up that evening: a salutary lesson. She was responsible for her own life choices, as Charles and Camilla are for theirs. I see the latter two as having made decent choices re. commitment to work (Charles) and being sensitive to public feeling and also seeing to royal duties with warmth and skill (Camilla).

    2. +1
       This whole scenario with Charles and Camilla marrying,Camilla taking Diana’s place is totally absurd when you see what they both did to Diana.It’s not fair.

    3. I think the Charles shouldn’t be king because of his ‘lack of family values’ argument falls apart when one looks back at the founder of the Church of England, Henry VIII, and how he had 6 wives, all of whom he cheated on with numerous mistresses (fathering multiple children out of wedlock), and 2 of which he beheaded. Additionally, almost all of the monarchs of England/the UK have had affairs. I’m not saying that cheating is okay, but deeming Charles as unworthy of the crown because of his affairs is not logical when almost all former monarchs had affairs.

       Also, re Diana, she chose to give up her HRH title, and she chose not to use RPOs after the divorce. Those were decisions she made.

       1. Yes. The royals wanted her to keep RPOs. She didn’t want it.

          Diana is no victim of evil mean Charles as much as he was no victim either. They made their decisions, for good and bad, like we all do. And Diana controlled the narrative of the wronged, innocent woman; in death she controls it still and the media make bank off the poor woman. They were both at fault for many things in their messed up marriage. And before she died they seemed to get on well, and parented their kids together quite well to the best of their ability.

          If Charles doesn’t deserve to be king what do you say then about William who openly cheated on Kate through-out their dating relationship? Bringing girls back to his barracks at Sandhurst? They weren’t gonna play video games…

          Philip has probably been unfaithful too, despite all the whitewashing about it.

          And let’s not forget Diana’s many affairs that destroyed other people’s marriages.

          Let the poor woman rest in peace and let Charles live his life. The man’s done great, great things for charity and others, but people forget as much as they focus on Diana’s wonderful charity work and ignore anything bad about her because she wasn’t human but a saint. Everybody’s human. Even William and Kate who everyone knows I am not overfond of to say the least.

       2. KMR: +1

    4. There is a line in a movie I loved where the guy replied to the question about his assistance to rebuild the building that burned down being about his conscious and the guy replied “no one above the age of 12 has a clear conscious”.

       Both sides made poor decisions and to make one the saint and the other the devil is not being constructive and not being honest. There is person A’s truth, then person B’s truth and the real truth in the middle.

       Once the divorce happened Diana was completely in charge of her own life and destiny. She was of an age to know that being in a car without a seatbelt could kill when in an accident. There is no plot to kill Diana just like it was her poor judgement that help bring about her demise. The body guard who was in the car was the only person who wore his seatbelt and he lived. In the immortal words of my ex there is a lesson there.

       As for Camilla making herself at home with Charles as his second wife she has every right to. If Diana was alive today she probably would still be living at Kensington Palace with some guy. Who knows though. In life there is no right or wrong just various shades of grey…and I am not talking about the 50 shades kind. 🙂

       I appreciate your view but I think we would have to agree to disagree.

       Now if we are going on to family values as the sole job description to become the monarch might I point out that Elizabeth does not have it either. She protected Anthony Blunt, KVCO for years with regards to his role within the Cambridge Five. Due to his spying activities against the UK and USA several people lost their lives at the hands of the KGB. I would think one key cornerstone of family values is to actually protect families. But because Blunt as the Surveyor of the Queens Pictures he was privy to a lot of Royal Family secrets. In fact he undertook a few “jobs” on behalf of the Queen regarding her Uncle who due to abdicating was living abroad. It was exposed by Margaret Thatcher in Parliament when the issue was being investigated by a newspaper. As far as affairs undertaken by the Queen I know of none; but Prince Phillip has been dogged by innuendoes and gossip for ages.

       Family values have nothing to do with it. Cheating does not make you the devil either just someone who makes very poor life choices. Diana had loads of affairs and is even named in a divorce. She would introduce her affair partners to her children. From what I understand Charles did not flaunt his affair in front of William and Harry. Does that make him a better parent…not really. They both are human.

    5. Nevermind family values, Charles has been the best POW ever. He has given meaning to his title to extent that we judge William poorly in comparison.

       If we knew nothing about his private life, we’d be out holding parades for him. Just like we do for the Queen.

       And on the question of his private life, as others have pointed out, it’s only a handful of previous monarchs that have led an examplery, moral private life.

       By their standards Charles has been positively restrained.

       Finally, the church of England can’t pull moral rank given it was set up to facilitate a King’s divorce.

       1. Herazeus: +1

       2. + 1,000,000,000! Hera, I don’t comment often, but I seem always to agree with you. This comment is tops. I have to admit I always search for your responses. Thanks KMR and all you regulars, I look forward to these posts so much.

27. In other news – William had his last shift at EAA; and Harry went to Grenfell Towers and spent time with the Red Cross and such and helped sort donations and whatnot. Wonder if the latter will be on the CC. Glad SOMEONE went.

    1. Thank you for the heads up. I am glad Harry went, too.
       The fire was criminal, if you ask me. Just so awful

28. ”Speaking before a press screening of the 90-minute documentary at London’s Kensington Palace, …William, 35, said he and Harry, 32, felt it was the “right time” to share “very personal” memories as the world prepares to mark the 20th anniversary of Diana’s death on August 31. Warning “we won’t be doing this again”, he said it was important to reach out to younger generations who might not remember the Princess.’ Jul 25, 2017 Camilla Tominey, Express Online

    This ‘documentary’ has done what its authors intended — creating conversation about their mother among viewers who already knew of her. I watched it; it revealed nothing new to me. It is a remembrance video about their mother. Let’s move on.

    But, I found two phrases a bit off-putting: “as the world prepares to mark the 20th anniversary” and that ”it was important to reach out to the younger generation who might not remember…” their mother.

    The world (at least not in my vicinity) is not marking the anniversary and the assumption that a younger generation would find it necessary to know about their mother seems a stretch. Use of a search engine will find more than anyone wants to know about her if there was a need. They flatter themselves as sons, thinking that she remains important in the public memory. If their father ascends the throne, all of their mother’s life will be resurrected for good or ill purpose.

    It has given an opportunity to any and all that tangentially knew her the opportunity to make one last attempt to profit from that connection before the market decreases with the age of those who were alive when she was. It would have been better to be less grandiose about the viewing public interested in the video. It reflects on the self-importance that the two sons ascribe to their ‘project’ because it is authored by them. It seems arrogant at times.

    I watched the video in 10-min increments as I was working on a project. I understand their desire to commemorate their mother’s life 20 yrs after a tragic sudden death. Two sons were suddenly deprived of her companionship forever. They don’t want her to be forgotten.

    She lived on your island W&H, not the world, and it’s your actions that will spur ‘younger generations who might not remember the Princess’ to learn more about her. Step up. Advance her causes. Add your own. Be active in those that stir your conscience. Encourage your family to give back to your village, country, country and humanity. Talk about your involvement. Be the example. Be the leader.

    William and Harry — don’t make another documentary about your mother. Once was enough. Let others do that. And then hold your tongue and do not comment on it. It will serve no purpose.

    1. +100000000
       I think keeping Diana in the public psyche serves for their PR as well as William’s paranoia and hatred of the media. So if people remember the poor abused saint Diana trope they’ll be more likely to cut W&H a lot of slack and whine about how they’re poor motherless boys. It is using their mother’s memory in a way that really puts a bad taste in my mouth. They can remember her by walking in her charitable footsteps and using both their parents as an example of what their positions can do.

29. Ellie, you are so right!

Comments are closed.