Prince William has invited Camilla al Fayed (pictured), daughter of Mohamed and half-sister to Dodi, to attend the service for Princess Diana on August 31st.

William hopes it will be a gesture of reconciliation to the Al Fayed family, who lost a son in the Paris car accident ten years ago.

A Royal source said, “They [the Princes] lost a mother in very tragic circumstances but Camilla also lost a much-loved brother. Obviously it would have been impossible to invite Mohamed but they thought it appropriate that someone from his family was invited and, as they have met Camilla in the past, the invitation was extended to her.

“They are delighted that she has accepted. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the past is gone and forgotten but William and Harry want to acknowledge their shared grief.”

From the picture, though, it’s easy to see why she was invited.

The Queen and Prince Philip will attend the service, together with the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall and members of Diana’s family.

In the end, after all the fuss, the Channel 4 documentary about the immediate aftermath of the car crash that killed Diana, Princess of Wales, turned into nothing more than a thoughtful, non-invasive essay on the role of the media before, and during, the event.

Like the Camilla film last week, it plumbed unexpected depths and left viewers better informed, especially about motives, than they may have been before.

The much-trailed photographs of the dying Diana were absent, except for one so dark nothing could be seen. All that was visible was the shape of the lone French doctor who happened to be passing and bravely went to the aid of a woman he didn’t recognize.

Confusion reigned for minutes afterwards, when even the first paparazzi arriving at the scene seemed unaware that this was Diana and Dodi. Much of the action in the film was reconstructed and simply showed photographers firing off flashbulbs.

Still shots inside the tunnel were few, but they did illustrate the sense of shock and bewilderment that prevailed. The ambulance arrived 17 minutes after the crash and was confronted with two dead bodies, a badly injured Trevor Rees-Jones, screaming in agony, and Diana, who seemed only to have concussion and superficial injuries. Many still didn’t realize who she was.

It was some minutes before a police officer became aware it was Diana and called in for backup. The criticism of the paramedics in the ambulance seems misplaced, given that they had four people to deal with in the car, not just Diana.

In terms of the “intrusion” into Diana’s privacy, the scenes in the tunnel were undoubtedly graphic and would have caused her sons and close family considerable discomfort. But they did shed much needed light on the reality behind these now almost mythical scenes. What came across was the slow build-up of shock as people gradually realized what had happened. Newsreaders, sharp at first, descended into stunned incoherence. It was as if it all happened in slow motion, surreal and out of sync. The British Ambassador, crying like a baby in the hospital, added to the sense of poignancy.

The aim of the programme was to focus on the actions of the media, and to what extent the press and photographers caused this crash.

The man Diana called “the big red tomato”, James Whitaker, summed up succinctly : “Although a few of the press pack were following,” he said, “there was no need for Henri Paul to drive so fast.” The car swerved into the tunnel at great speed, clipped a white Fiat Uno, and careered into a pillar. It was almost inevitable.

At first everyone blamed the media, even Mohamed al Fayed and memorably, Diana’s brother, Charles Spencer at her funeral. Once her death had been announced, however, the photographs taken at the scene became worthless except as evidence in the police inquiry. Ken Lennox, picture editor of the Sun, explained the process clinically. The first shots coming through, the planned headlines and layout, then nothing. Not one of the first, graphic pictures could be used.

The hysteria that followed, with witch hunt against the media added to witch hunt, showed the “wisdom of crowds” to be as flawed as any other. Whitaker got it right, Henri Paul didn’t need to drive Formula One-style around Paris that night. The paparazzi knew the couple were going to Dodi’s apartment, so what was the rush?

In retrospect it all seems so inevitable once the decision to put an alcoholic behind the wheel of the car had been taken. All that has happened since, including the long delays in the legal process, have been caused by attempts to deflect attention away from that crucial decision.

So, how did the press emerge from this often painful documentary? As a staunch believer in a free press — which often protects us more than parliaments and politicians — I think the press comes out of it better than we were led to believe at the time.

The enormous sums of money on offer to the photographers were driven by the public, not greedy picture editors and press barons. It was the public with its insatiable appetite for anything revealing about this shy, aristocratic girl, plucked from obscurity to play a role in the Royal drama.

Like Icarus, she flew too close to the sun and was burnt up in a tangle of events caused by a single flawed decision.

In an unparalleled act of lese-majeste, Mohamed al Fayed has called the Queen as a witness in the Diana Inquest.

The endless interjections in this case will probably delay it even further and may even see out the new judge taking over from Lady Butler-Sloss, who has resigned in near despair that the case can’t get underway.

The point at issue goes back to 2002, when evidence from the Queen helped clear Paul Burrell of the theft of some of Diana’s personal possessions. HM recalled a conversation they had a few weeks after the crash, in which he confided in her that he had taken some papers for safekeeping.

The Queen mentioned this to Prince Charles, who informed the police. The trial then collapsed. Burrell later claimed that the Queen had told him, “There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge”.

Baroness Butler-Sloss yesterday accused the Fayed legal team of dictating the terms of the inquest.

She complained of “adversarial and quite aggressive letters” she had received from solicitors acting for the Harrods owner, the Ritz hotel in Paris and Henri Paul, the driver of Diana and Dodi’s limousine, who also died in the crash.

She reportedly told QC, Michael Mansfield, “I do feel a little bit as if I am the one in the dock”.

The case drags on interminably, which is probably the intention. It’s very unlikely that the Queen will appear in court, or even be questioned about an alleged remark made by a disgruntled servant.

You couldn’t make it up. Yet another coroner has resigned from the interminable inquest for Diana, Princess of Wales, which has yet to get underway 10 years after the event in question.

Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss has walked away from the case citing lack of experience. Is the obvious cause, though, the constant delaying tactics of Mohamed Al Fayed’s legal team, which would clearly like to whack the inquest into the long grass forever?

Butler-Sloss will be replaced by one of Britain’s most experienced judges, Lord Justice Scott Baker. Already delayed to October, the inquest is now unlikely to get started even then because of the mountain of case notes the new coroner has to master.

Why the delay? Initially, it was the long French inquiry, which found that the car crash that killed Diana and Dodi was caused by the driver, Henri Paul, who was found to be a long-term alcoholic.

A British inquiry was then set up under Lord Stevens which came to the same conclusion after a meticulous investigation lasting three years.

The inquest will finally draw a line under the tragedy, especially for those accused of conspiring to murder the Princess. Once the inquest has delivered its verdict, the facts will be clear and we can all move on.