Diana Service sets tone for reconciliation
The Memorial Service for Princess Diana, held this morning at the Guards’ Chapel, Wellington Barracks in London, set the tone for reconciliation that her sons so clearly want.
Prince Harry, Prince William and the Queen
Invitations to the two Camillas, the Duchess of Cornwall — who pulled out earlier this week — and Mohamed al Fayed’s daughter, spoke volumes about their wish to draw a line under the enmities that have arisen since Diana’s death ten years ago.
Prince Harry gave a moving address in his own words which totally concentrated on her role as a mother.
By contrast, the Bishop of London’s sermon seemed bullish and a little out of step with the mood in the Chapel, although it too called for a healing of old wounds.
The Queen outside the Guards’ Chapel
Small crowds turned up to watch. They gave the Queen and Prince Philip a loud cheer, but Prince Charles arrived to a stony silence.
The Queen inspecting the Eton Choristers
It was a splendid occasion which will be much appreciated by Diana’s supporters worldwide.
Well it was without airs. Good, short, neutral, and dignifed. I adored the Bishop’s speech. Harry looked melancholic in the end though, and William speaks in public perfectly. May this finally be the end of the Diana frenzy, be a way to remember the good sides only, and let her rest definitely for heaven’s sake .
By Lilyfromfrance on August 31st, 2007 at 12:56 pm
When the Princes greeted attendees on the steps after the service I was struck by how happy everyone seemed. It was more like a wedding than a memorial service. I was thinking that she was their mother and if they can move on so can (and should) we.
By Mary on August 31st, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I read somewhere that Harry’s speech was unexpected and that he was intended to read a passage from the Bible. If so–and if the Bible thing was just a ruse to get his part in the memorial past the police or whatever–my respect for him just grew.
By Marie on August 31st, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Marie, it was William who read a passage from the Bible. Harry did the eulogy, in his own words.
By John on August 31st, 2007 at 3:03 pm
No, I got that. I just meant that I read somewhere that Harry’s speech was unexpected, as in he was expected to do something a little more traditional. But maybe not! Either way, it’s great that he was able to pen something personal. I missed it, but hope it reruns somewhere on the vast resource that is the internet.
By Marie on August 31st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Well Charles was aware of Harry’s speech at least. When he arrived he asked him if he didnt lose it and then Harry touched his pockets on the chest and he brought out the paper. And then you could see that Charles seemed to ask him if he was prepared or had a practice or something like that because Harry seemed to make poses with his paper to him.
By Lilyfromfrance on August 31st, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Marie, if you download the BBC’s iPlayer from bbc.co.uk, you should be able to get the whole of the broadcast on your computer.
By John on August 31st, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Is it me or did anyone else hear “hypocrite” shouted out of the crowd when Charles got out of the car and climbed the steps. Harry’s face seem to suggest something negative was said.
By SuffolkSim on August 31st, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I did hear too SuffolkSim. It was really stupid. The silence that came when Charles appeared was enough and more tasteful at this kind of event than shouting the word “hypocrite”. Some of these folks seem to forget that Charles is Wills and Harry’s only parent alive. They should respect him in front of his boys. If they want to insult him then they can do it anytime, but not in front of his boys, just minutes before the service.
By Lilyfromfrance on August 31st, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Yup, there was a shout when he went in. I didn’t hear what it was, but it was unmistakably hostile.
By John on August 31st, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I watched the whole thing from beginning when the people began arriving for the service to end when all were leaving and speaking to the Princes, but I didn’t hear a shout when Charles walked from the car into the Chapel. It did seem odd that no one clapped for him as the crowd applauded and cheered when the Queen and Prince Philip arrived. In my experience, where there is a crowd for a Royal event, there is applause for the Heir as well as for Queen Elizabeth II. I was watching on FOX and the commentators talked quite a lot so maybe I just didn’t hear it. Trudie, I also got up at 5a.m. and felt it was worth it. Beautiful service and Prince William and Prince Harry spoke splendidly. The future of Britain is in fine hands with these young Princes. Actually, this was a Service of Thanksgiving, and it is supposed to be joyful, so the reaction of the congregation was just right, I felt. I was also very pleased with the tone and content of the sermon. Very appropriate in every way.
By Gigi on August 31st, 2007 at 4:48 pm
This was a beautiful service that Diana truly deserved. My thoughts are with Charles, William, Harry and Diana family at this time. Everyone should follow the tone that the Bishop of London has set, leave the past behind and look to the future. His sermon was great and to the point. Harry really touched us all with his speech and William looked every bit like a future Monarch. Diana & Charles raised them very well. I did hear the shout from the crowd and I have to say that was very distasteful.
May Her Royal Highness rest in peace.
By Claudius on August 31st, 2007 at 4:58 pm
I’ve read the transcripts of the Bishop’s sermon and Prince Harry’s address– both wonderful. I’ve read that Prince William read from Ephesians; does anyone know which verses? And what passage did Diana’s sister read? Thanks for your help.
By Evelyn on August 31st, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I watched the service here in the States, starting at 5 AM and I thought it was very moving and captured Diana’s true spirit. I agree with John that the Bishop of London was all over the place with his remarks. It just proved Diana’s friends were correct when they said he didn’t know Diana and someone better acquainted with the late Princess should have delivered the remarks. One final thought on this sublect, I wish The Queen would show some human warmth on occasions like this. She looked like the Memorial Service was the last place she wanted to be and only smiled when she was on the chapel steps after the service and heading to her car. And Charles couldn’t get to his car fast enough. While the rest of the family milled around and warmly greeted one another after the service, Charles went straight to his car and presumably home to Camilla. The Queen, Prince Philip and Charles couldn’t get out of there fast enough. Just my humble opinion.
By Arthur on September 1st, 2007 at 1:40 am
Hi all . . . I watched from California this morning . . . so I was up at 3:30 a.m. to make sure that I did not miss it! It was a splendid service. We, Anglicans, know how to do liturgy in the right way. I have been humming I Vow to Thee, My Country all day long. William and Harry are fine public speakers and did an admirable job. The homily seemed a bit rough in spots at times, but I, too, think that he underscored the reconciliation theme that the boys were trying to strive for here. It is indeed time to let her rest in peace. That does not mean that we need to ever forget her, nor the wonderful work that she did, nor how she helped in a small way to get the RF to think about living in the 21st century. She lives on in our hearts.
By Jim on September 1st, 2007 at 2:04 am
Jim, I taped the service while watching it live, here in Massachusetts, and have been rewinding tape all day just to hear the congregation sing “I Vow To Thee My Country.” It is a beautiful and rousing hymn and you are correct: you Anglicans can do liturgy and really know how to belt out those hymns!
By Arthur on September 1st, 2007 at 2:35 am
Arthur, sometime when you’re reviewing your video of the service, could you please write down what the scripture passages were? I’m very interested, but can’t find that info in any of the internet reports. I’d be most grateful.
By Evelyn on September 1st, 2007 at 2:44 am
Evelyn, Prince William read from St. Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 3, Verses 14-21. Sarah, Princess Diana’s sister, read from the works of J. S. Hoyven. I just watched this service for the second time today and am on my third box of kleenex. Beautiful, uplifting and powerful! I believe the Queen steels herself to show no expression, no emotion, because she cannot give way. She was trained from childhood to show no anger, shed no tears in public. It doesn’t mean she doesn’t feel mirth, pain, sorrow and anger. She was taught to maintain total self control in public. She is 81 years old and I think we can hardly expect her to change a lifetime of discipline. As for Charles leaving immediately, the newspapers said he was going back to join Camilla, as she was alone. With the stone silence that greeted him in front of the Chapel, he probably did not feel secure or comfortable there.
By Gigi on September 1st, 2007 at 4:29 am
Thank you, Gigi!
By Evelyn on September 1st, 2007 at 4:57 am
You are welcome, Evelyn! I am not sure I got the correct name, or perhaps spelling of the name of the author of the reading Sarah did. I listened twice and also attempted to lipread and it sounds and appears to be Hoyven, but I am unfamiliar with that name as a writer of inspirational literature. Also, Google has failed me. But the Ephesians chapter and verse are correct for sure.
By Gigi on September 1st, 2007 at 5:14 am
Gigi, I’m sure you are correct about Queen Elizabeth being brought up to be reserved with her feelings, especially in public. It’s just that I have seen pictures on other royal websites (sorry John) of Queen Margarethe of Denmark, or Queen Beatrix of the Neatherlands, even Queen Sophia of Spain and they all appear so relaxed in public, especially with their families. Queen Elizabeth always seems so guarded. I watched QEII intently after William gave his reading. Most grandmothers would acknowledge a “good job” with a slight smile or nod to their grandson, but Queen Elizabeth just stared downward at her booklet as William sat down next to her. No emotion whatsoever. Perhaps it’s that kind of indifference with which Diana had such a hard time dealing. Oh well, I suppose one can not change the spots on a leopard, especially if the spots have been there for 81 years! It’s up to the grandchildren, most likely William and Harry, to find the proper balance of royal dignity mixed with the common touch of Princess Diana.
By Arthur on September 1st, 2007 at 5:16 am
Evelyn and Gigi, Lady Sarah’s reading was by J.S. Hoyland from “The Bridge is Love.” It is taken from an Anthology of Hope collected by Lady Elizabeth Bassett who was a Lady-in- Waiting to the late Queen Mother.
By Arthur on September 1st, 2007 at 5:29 am
John, I have a question for you. I read an interview this week with a pallbearer from Princess Diana’s funeral. It was one of those “What Are They Doing Ten Years Later” type interviews. The pallbearer said Diana’s lead lined casket was so heavy, they had to practice using a casket containing two slabs of concrete. The pallbearer said Diana’s casket weighed 50′ s. I’m assuming that means 50 stones? Since we use pounds here in the States, I was wondering if you could convert 50 stones to pounds (and I don’t mean pounds sterling, LOL)? One cable station broadcast Diana’s funeral this morning, after the Memorial Service and you could really see the pallbearers struggling to keep Diana’s casket steady as they walked up the aisle of the Abbey.
By Arthur on September 1st, 2007 at 6:21 am
Well over the years, we have seen The Queen shed a few tears. Even during the service for the victims of 9/11. After the service of course she told them how well they did. As for Prince Charles, his face was full of saddness. I haven’t seen his face like that since The Queen Mother’s funeral. Surely everyone understands that he lost Diana so tragically. No matter what went down with the marriage, you can tell he misses the woman he once called his wife. You can also tell that he realizes that no matter what title you have nor what position you may hold in society, family is what counts. The bitterness of the past is what has to go away for the sake of Charles, Diana, William and Harry. As the Bishop said,
let her rest.
By Claudius on September 1st, 2007 at 6:28 am
I understand all you say, Arthur, but Queen Sophia and Queen Margarethe weren’t trained by Queen Mary, as Queen Elizabeth II was. There was no more regal, self-controlled person than Queen Mary and she took a leading role in preparing Queen Elizabeth II to be a proper monarch. I am convinced that Queen Elizabeth II feels things as deeply as anyone else, she just was raised not to show it in public. No doubt in the privacy of her family gatherings she lets down a bit.
By Gigi on September 1st, 2007 at 7:22 am
Thank you, Arthur, for the correct name of the author and the reading Lady Sarah did at the Memorial Service! I am glad to know the source.
By Gigi on September 1st, 2007 at 7:24 am
Arthur, the conversion table I have says 50 stone equals 700 pounds in weight. That is a tremendous amount for a casket to weigh, I would think. I cannot imagine what would make it that heavy. Even if the casket was bronze with a lead lining, I am at a loss to discover why it weighed 700 lbs.
By Gigi on September 1st, 2007 at 7:31 am
Arthur, there are 14 lbs to a stone so Gigi’s 700 is spot on.
As for the Queen’s public demeanour, Tina Brown has a very good passage in her book. From memory, she writes, the Queen refuses to do anything theatrical, “stunts” as she calls them. She tries to maintain a “museum-like authenticity”, whereas Diana “sought applause”, which is merely “celebrity”.
She’s right, of course. A Monarch may live for 102 years, and you can’t milk applause for that long. But you can earn respect for duty and service. In private she’s a good mimic (I’d love to see her Cherie Blair) and even mimes to a singing fish.
By John on September 1st, 2007 at 9:23 am
There is 14lbs in a stone so Gigi’s conversion table is right.
One query, how come it is always Harry that comes across so naturally in public and puts himself out there, it really should be William as the elder brother, who gave the speech. Perhaps he has more than a little of the Queens reserve.
I know you will all say that as heir to the throne he must be more reserved but as far as i’m concerned that is poppycock.
The truth of it is that Harry is a more relaxed person and even as a child coped with the press intrusion better than William.
In my view it is Harry that has the common touch.
I think it is time William stood up as a man to be reckoned with and not hiding behind his brothers coattails.
The Queen probably did get her training from Queen Mary but you know that woman really did have ice in her veins, only look at how she raised or rather didn’t raise her own children. In fact i would put alot of the dysfunctional qualities of the royal family down to her. She definitely isn’t a role model for anyone. It took Diana to rid the family of her buttoned up attitude. To me Queen Mary reflects the worst of Victorian values.
By Eliza on September 1st, 2007 at 9:33 am
Eliza, it’s often the case that the younger of two siblings is the more outgoing. Look at Princess Margaret, for example.
William did very well, I thought. It was Harry’s idea to do his own thing, so it was hardly William “hiding behind his coat-tails”. Royalty only retains its magic when it’s solid and serious. It’s a long-term thing, an accumulation rather than a series of spontaneous outbursts like children do. Besides, many outgoing types look out of place in serious situations.
By John on September 1st, 2007 at 9:42 am
Well may be hiding behind coat tails was a bit strong but i would like to see more personality from William.
It seems we only get a idea of what he is like when he is giving out.
On another personal note Gigi’s prayers worked a treat. My sisters wedding was a great success, she looked beautiful and the weather was dry, the place looked well and my mother was all chuffed and as proud as a peacock!
By Eliza on September 1st, 2007 at 9:48 am
Arthur, how could you say that the Bishop” was all over the place with his remarks”? I suggest you to re listen to him, or, and it’s better, to read his “remarks” and to try to understand them. There is no need to know Diana personally for having the right to speak about her, otherwise, what are you doing here?
The Bishop has translated what William and Harry want more than anything, leaving their mother’s memory alone. “It’s easy to lose the real person in the image, to insist that all is darkness or all is light”. “Still, 10 years after her tragic death, there are regular reports of “fury” at this or that incident, and the Princess’s memory is used for scoring points”. “Let it end here”: everything is absolutely true and I don’t see whats wrong with that. If you have carefully listen to him then you will see that he was praising Diana. And from what I have understood, he was making clear that this service was not an entertainment, that she is not a product for entertainment, and Im disappointed that it seems no one has understood. It was not a popcorn event. There wasnt another occasion for him to be listened. I am, for the first time, proud to agree with one of these old fashionned as*hole who are the heads of my Church. As for William and Harry, well it’s not a surprise that it is Harry who speaks about his feelings in public, he was mummy’s boy, and William is more reserved and more shy, and it would be great if people stop to be schmaltzy and stop the tendencies for cheap sentimentality. He is not going to force himself just for satisfy strangers who like to insult and blame his father. Thats not because William didnt make a speech for praising his late mother that does mean he doesnt miss her. Boring boring boring.
By Lilyfromfrance on September 1st, 2007 at 10:29 am
And didn’t Harry look puffy and a bit rough, as well as slightly overweight. While William looked leaner and fitter than he’s been for a long time. Maybe Kate’s taken him in hand.
By John on September 1st, 2007 at 10:36 am
John — Wondering if you could play Pickering and dissect Harry’s accent for us. It is most definitely not London. Nor is it the swallowed, strangled Pris Chos accent. Has Chelsy gotten to him? Is he just relaxed? Do young posh kids all sound like this now? I mean, the way that “life” flew out of his mouth sounded western and country.
By Marie on September 1st, 2007 at 1:42 pm
From what I’ve read, Harry has always been more easygoing than William. It’s likely mostly the personality traits thing going on there, but William too has more at stake. I don’t know if I could be as easygoing myself if I knew what my future held for me – being King of Britain someday. Yikes.
I do hope William does keep some humanity about him though even when he becomes King. While the Queen was taught from day one to maintain self control at all costs – it does seem to the rest of us that she is a cold person. To show no emotion at all just isn’t normal. We don’t need a whole lot of drama either – but to show some emotion when its called for isn’t too much to ask. Even Chucky can do that.
By On The Outside on September 1st, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Ha ha, well spotted. Some of the younger Royals, Zara in particular, speak what’s known here as Estuary English, named because it’s largely spoken along the Thames estuary and in Essex.
It involves the dropping of “t”s and”d”s, known as “glottal stops”. So “it” is pronounced i’, with a soft sound on the end. There’s also the short “a”, as in cap, rather than received pronunciation of “ar”, like carp.
Most of these changes have been pushed by the BBC, which was once the repository of best practice in English plus the state school system under New Labour.
Harry is not so bad, but he’s picked up a few bad habits in the Army. He still has the basics of Oxford English, but will never be a “cut glass” speaker, like the actors in the old film, Brief Encounter.
By John on September 1st, 2007 at 1:54 pm
“Yup, there was a shout when he went in. I didn’t hear what it was, but it was unmistakably hostile.”
I didn’t hear anything, but i noticed both he and harry looked upset.
By kit on September 1st, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Marie, it was Zoltan Karpathy, “that marvelous boy!” who was the man in “My Fair Lady who could tell a person’s accent immediately and could pinpoint that person’s origin. Colonel Pickering helped with Eliza’s transformation but was not an expert in dialectics.
Eliza, I am thrilled about the wedding and the perfect weather!! Congratulations and many blessings to the bridal couple!! I agree with you about Queen Mary. I did not admire her, but her demeanor was very in keeping with the ideal of Victorian behavior and she was, after all, a Victorian. Queen Mary was raised, for the Great Granddaughter of King George III, with very little money and her family often had to leave Britain due to serious debts. I think that gave her a feeling of insecurity. As often happens to people with self-doubts that stem from too little money, when she married into the Royal Family, she was known to be “shamelessly acquisitve” and possessed of an overwhelming pride. Unfortunately, these failings greatly hampered her in her role as a mother. We are still seeing vestiges of the collateral damage of her failings in the Royals today.
Kit, my daughter watched the program, too and says the voice that yelled at Charles was hostile, that it was a woman’s voice, and that she hollered “Hypocrite!” Apparently the rest of the crowd maintained a stony silence, which was a rebuke in itself, since Charles is used to cheering and applause from the public.
John, excellent description of Estuary English! Professor Higgins would be proud of you!
Labor day weekend here, my dears, and I am marinating flank steak, making potato salad, and of course baking a chocolate layer cake.
By Gigi on September 1st, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Yeah, I realized that Pickering was the wrong name. It was just what came to mind, and I enjoyed John’s analysis.
I’m quite sure that the woman who shouted “hypocrite” was crumpled.
By Marie on September 1st, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Gigi, thank you for the weight conversion of stones into pounds. That does seem heavy for a casket, 700 pounds, but I remember hearing President Ronald Reagan’s casket weighed 800 pounds! At Pres. Reagan’s funeral, the military pallbearers had to switch off as they came to each landing on the Capitol steps. Another group of pallbearers would take over because the casket was too heavy for one group to carry all the way up to the Capitol Rotunda.
By Arthur on September 1st, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Thanks for the info John. I have heard The Queen has a great sense of humor and if the movie “The Queen” is to be believed, it is a wicked one at times. I suppose we all have a certian public persona thet differs from our private one. Perhaps it’s better that we don’t get to see everthing. It gives Her Majesty a certain mystique which keeps us interested.
By Arthur on September 1st, 2007 at 9:32 pm
The silence with which Charles was greeted seemed a fairly honest depiction of the public’s general mood toward him. I did hear the heckle from the audience member and such behaviour is hardly tasteful in any situation and it certainly was not conducive to the overall tone of the occasion.
I thought the unassuming simplicity of Harry’s speech was rather refreshing and set an informal, uplifting tone to the proceedings. There was something about Harry that day that seemed very gentle and compassionate. He exuded a very humane quality which I feel is often lacking in senior members of the RF.
A lovely ceremony of remembrance – the type of occasion that we should all adopt for those that we have loved and lost.
By BELLA on September 1st, 2007 at 9:40 pm
John, I thought Harry looked very fit with a litttle more meat on his bones. He also looked incredibily like one of his Spencer cousins sitting in the row behind him. That should put to rest all the nasty gossip about James Hewitt being Harry’s father! Just one further comment about “the boys:” with all their money, why can’t they get a descent hair cut?
By Arthur on September 1st, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Prince William and Prince Harry have had much the same royal training, but they bring their own personalities and gifts to their roles in the royal family. I don’t think it’s helpful to say that they wish William were more like Harry, or vice versa. Each has their own role, and each must ascertain how their particular gifts will be an asset to that role. For those of us who have faith that God has created each of us, God created William to be the first-born and Harry to play a supporting role.
I myself was glad to see that Harry isn’t always relegated to the “lesser role.” It’s great to see that when Harry’s gifts are most appropriate to the occasion, William welcomes his brother taking center stage. That shows maturity.
By Evelyn on September 1st, 2007 at 9:49 pm
I agree with you, Evelyn! I thought it was wonderful that Harry was given this role–or that he chose it. So far the relationship between the brothers seems very complimentary, and that’s a testament to their parenting. In years to come, it would be nice if both brothers are able to serve their country, using their skills and talents. If the memorial is any kind of preview of what is to come, then, despite the polls, things look good for the monarchy.
By Marie on September 1st, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Gigi always has the best food in the works!
By Jim on September 1st, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Changing topics… I see that the Mail on Sunday is reporting that Kate Middleton is quitting her job at Jigsaw (now down to 3-workdays each week) to become a professional photographer.
By Evelyn on September 2nd, 2007 at 1:37 am
John that was a cheap shot about Harry looking puffy and a bit rough and slightly over weight personally I think he looks better then his very balding brother who it one looked closely in some shots is balder than his father. It makes me wonder that you dislike Harry because he is most like his mother and a lot of your comments about Diana seem negative while praise is heaped on C&C. Why is that?.
By Trudie on September 2nd, 2007 at 3:08 am
I must say that I love and admire both the young Princes, but Prince Harry has a particular place in my heart. For one thing, he greatly resembles my brother, Josiah, as they have the same coloring and that wonderful red hair. Prince Harry resembles his Royal ancestor, King Henry VIII, as the King looked when he was a young man! Both were red-haired, possessed a ruddly complexion and were well built, robust young men. Prince Harry certainly bears a strong resemblance to his Spencer relatives, as well. I am simply thrilled that both the young Princes are showing such maturity and conscientiousness in mastering the public side of their lives. This bodes very well for Britain. It is an extra blessing that they have Princess Diana’s good looks, good health and compassionate, winning personalities. Every time I see these two handsome young men, I feel happy and grateful to God that they are who and what they are. Let us all feel joy in this–it is a gift!
By Gigi on September 2nd, 2007 at 4:39 am
Marie, I realized you meant Professor Higgins — although I look nothing like Rex Harrison.
As for “crumpled”, I’m afraid that was a poor choice of word. I really meant needy and a bit inadequate. It was pointed out that practically all of Diana’s core supporters standing on the other side of the road for the service were middle-aged women from social classes C and D and gay men. Some of them looked a bit crumpled too.
By John on September 2nd, 2007 at 10:47 am
Arthur, I agree with you about the hair styles of the Princes. Harry’s was … well … crumpled. I’m amazed the Army allows that in an officer.
As for William’s, he’s getting a little thin on the crown (no pun intended) so has adopted the Napoleon look of swirling combover. It’s better than nothing.
By John on September 2nd, 2007 at 10:54 am
Actually, Trudie, you’re taking small comments out of context. If you read what I write about Harry overall, you’ll see I’m a great supporter of his — except for those endless nightclub incidents. To me he did look puffy and rough around the edges — a little bit hungover, while William looked very fit indeed.
In all these matters, I speak as I find. You may disagree, but to call it a “cheap shot” is just wrapping him in cotton wool. Army officers don’t need that.
By John on September 2nd, 2007 at 11:02 am
well you have convinced me, I concede that you are right and i was wrong. I agree wholeheartedly that it is nice that Harry takes centre stage sometimes and isn’t always the spare.
He certainly does have the common touch, I read his speech and it hit every note perfectly, if he wrote it and i understand he did, he is alot brighter than he is given credit for.
By Eliza on September 2nd, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Looking at the recent photos of William, I was very surprised to see that he was balding. At first I wondered who that guy was and whoa! Ok… Poor kid – he’s so young too.
I heard Chuckles got either a hairpiece or a transplant recently. That true?
By On The Outside on September 2nd, 2007 at 2:58 pm
If it is true that Charles got a hairpiece, he was not wearing it at the Memorial Service. There is a photograph of Charles, back to the camera, chatting with Prince William and Prince Harry on the Chapel steps and you can clearly see a very large bald spot at the back of Charles’ head. Not so surprising, since he’ll be 60 years old on November 14th .
By Gigi on September 2nd, 2007 at 7:32 pm
I am not surprised that Diana’s core supporters are middleaged and gay. I found this on another web site. It’s a response to a question as to why Diana is such a big deal.
“You are clearly too young to remember her. She was a hero to many of us. In the age of Reagan she was one of the first people photographed in the aids wards speaking and touching patients She was what was right with the world and we will always remember her.”
By Alicia on September 3rd, 2007 at 12:21 am
She was certainly of her time, Alicia, and I too was quoting what the commentators were saying about the crowds.
It was noticeable that in the broadsheet press almost all the writers were wary of Diana. Only William Rees-Mogg in the Mail on Sunday’s Review section wrote wholly in her favour. He’s one of my favourite writers, so I have to take note of that.
By John on September 3rd, 2007 at 8:38 am
Henry VIII may have had red hair, but he is most certainly not one of Harry’s ancestors.
I thought Harry looked wonderful, and his speech was superb. William did well too. I could actually understand what he was saying for a change. Both of them have very nice voices.
It was interesting to see the hats and outfits the royal ladies wore. I think Gabriella Windsor got it about right. Bea looked frumpy. Princess Michael’s outfit/hat were wonderful, but seemed a tad out of place.
I was also glad we were spared the sight of Camilla and one of her ridiculous hats. It is amusing to hear that she’s furious with the Clarence House courtiers. Acting like a true Royal, blaming others for her own stupidity.
By Jasper on September 4th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Jasper, thanks for the fashion parade. You’ve got sharper eyes than I have.
By John on September 4th, 2007 at 8:23 am
I thought that Camilla al Fayed was very beautifully dressed at the Memorial Service. I also admire her for being able to walk gracefully on such immensely high heels! I am astounded that she did not topple over, as I might have done. Perhaps that is why David Furnish gallantly lent her his arm throughout the event.
By Gigi on September 4th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Gigi, I noticed Camilla al Fayed’s high heels and thought they were left over from another outfit: black leather with chains! LOL!
By Arthur on September 4th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Jasper, I agree Beatrice looked frumpy and Eugenie didn’t look much better. It’s a shame someone doesn’t help them out a little more with their fashion choices. Beatrice is very attractive with the most beautiful eyes and Eugenie is by far the best looking of all the Queen’s grandchildren. With a little help, Eugenie could be drop dead gorgeous. I suppose something good did come from the Queen’s children marrying commoners. It improved the gene pool!
By Arthur on September 4th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I so agree with you about Eugenie. You can tell, though, that she has no idea that she’s a beautiful girl. A haircut, a stylist, something other than the frumpy clothes her mother wears and a smile would really make her shine. She’s much, much better looking than her sister or her mother and has a healthy look about her–not emaciated or overly made up.
But, she’s still young and I have hope that she’ll figure it out.
Speaking of the good looking kids in the next generation, how about the Spencer girls? The twins will be knockouts. Here and there on the other cousins’ faces you can see shades of Diana. I wonder if any of them will sport the Diana-do in the future.
By Marie on September 4th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Marie, your comments are dead on about Eugenie and the Spencer girls. If only Eugenie would smile a little more, she has a beautiful face. Perhaps she doesn’t want to encourage the press by smiling for them. And who knew Charles Spencer had such beautiful daughters? The three of them are knockouts! He had four of his six children at the memorial service, his three daughters and son, Louis. They must be the children from his first marriage to Victoria Lockwood.
By Arthur on September 4th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Arthur, my guess is, given the wealth of the al Fayed family, that Camilla al Fayed’s shoes were fabulously expensive. They certainly are chic! I agree with you and Marie about the nieces of Princess Diana. Gorgeous young ladies, indeed!
By Gigi on September 4th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Gigi, I didn’t know what Camilla Al Fayed looked like until Diana’s memorial. I wondered why the TV camera repeatedly focused on this attractive young woman and now I know why.
I’m sure her entire outfit, from hat to oversized bag, was extremely expensive, but I think that’s great. If you have the money and can afford to wear expensive clothes that make you look terrific, more power to you. I know I would be “dressed to the nines” if I could afford it. No moth eaten tweeds for me! LOL
By Arthur on September 4th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Camilla al Fayed not only has the income to be beautifully dressed, she appears to have marvelous taste in clothes and also knows how to appear to best advantage. Money alone does not make one well-dressed, as we have seen with many wealthy women. Her hat was tasteful and she wore it in a chic way–no small trick with the imaginative millinery that is so popular now in Britain.
By Gigi on September 4th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Gigi, I know this sounds very shallow of me, but I have to confess that I couldn’t wait to see the ladies arrive for Diana’s memorial to see what they were going to have on their heads! As usual, I wasn’t disappointed. It is so much fun to check out the “hat parade” and wonder “what was she thinking?” When I was a kid, my mother use to say: “didn’t he/she look in the mirror before leaving the house” and I wondered the same thing about some of the Royal women. There were more misses than hits at the memorial. Beatrice and Eugenie should just give up on hats altogether. I’ve never seen either one in a hat that looked becoming on them. Royal women should be exempt from wearing hats until they are at least 21 years old.
By Arthur on September 4th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
I agree with you completely, Arthur. However, I’ll take it a step further. I’ve seen very few hats, in the last few years, which flatter the wearers at all. The Queen has had a few, Princess Michael as well. Camilla’s hats do what they’re intended to do, make you look at them, instead of her face. The small pieces of felt, with feathers going every which way, stuck on the sides of heads, look absolutely ridiculous.
Am I the only who sees Queen Victoria when looking at Beatrice? Eugenie reminds me of pictures I’ve seen of the young Queen Mother.
By Jasper on September 5th, 2007 at 4:12 pm