Well said Libby!

David Foster, Stockholm, Sweden

It was complete rubbish and celebrity motivated mass transfer of some kind of alleged connection through 'grief'.

I would say it was like medieval England trying to claw its way out into the 20th century.

Pete Balchin, Solicitor , Bristol, UK

Spot on analysis, worthy of the famous quote from George Burns:
"The secret of acting is sincerity, if you can fake that, you've got it made." Blair choked on the second syllable of the word "Princess" with the consumate skill and timing of a Dickie Attenborough Oscar/Bafta acceptance speech. The public bought it in buckets. Oleg Gordievski bravely wrote to The Times at the time that the hysterical atmosphere in London reminded him of the atmosphere in Moscow when Stalin died.

Mark Lyndon, London, UK

How many people in public life since 1997 have had the sparkle, charisma, endlessly fascinating, oft-exasperating and mercurial personality and stunning, sexy beauty of Diana? I am absolutely sure that if Bill Clinton were to die, thousands would pour out and line the streets. He is a one-off, as was Diana. Some people have that special, inspiring quality whilst most of us just don't. When Yitzhak Rabin was assasinated event the most hard-hearted Generals wept, and Arab leaders who had vowed never to set fooi in Israel travelled to Jerusalem for his funeral. I was there just afterwards and all of Israel -- including Arab and Druse areas -- was covered in candles and flowers. Little kids congregated for months after to write messages to him in Kikar Rabin. He was a one-off, too, who was trying to change an ugly world into a better place. Yasser Arafat wept as he sat in Leah Rabin's flat. Diana is a special star in heaven that will shine forever like the eternal flame at JFK's grave.

Carol Philips, London, UK

Sorry, I did not agree at the time that there was a form of mashysteria and I still hold by that view today. Many people who had never met the Princess, myself included, experienced a genuine sense of personal loss and as ,at the time it seemed that the Royal Family was doing all it could to effectively ignore her shocking death, I think that some members of the general public felt the need to publicly demonstrate that she was being mourned and once the precedent had been set, thousands of other people felt that it was acceptable to show their emotion in the such a public way.

Please, just because you, Libby Purves, did not apparently share that emotion, don't condemn those who did.

Elaine Robertson, Golf Del Sur, Tenerife

I was completely bemused by the reaction of the media, and indeed the public, at the time of Diana's death. It seems, surely, to go without saying that the feelings of the bereaved family should come first, and that the desire for privacy at such a time is completely natural. It was arrogant beyond belief to suggest that those whose grief was absolutely real and personal had a duty to demonstrate the fact to a wider public luxuriating in cheap emotion. The Royal Family initially behaved exactly as I would have expected in the circumstances, and I felt it was rather a pity they bowed to the media and public pressure.

Isabel, Basingstoke, UK

You are right about the way that grief seems to have become a public commodity - and an artificial one at that. Yesterday it was reported that an actor had tried to commit suicide - then that he, naturally, wanted to "recover in private". So what did Sky News provide? A 5 minute analysis of his career and presumed state of mind, complete with "Hollywood specialist". We are in danger of letting (some peoples') obsession with celebrity deprive us of our common humanity. Journalists, commentators, those who decide what goes on our screens and in our papers, need to stop and put themselves in the position of their subjects or their families. And also to ask themselves: Is this news so important that the intrusion into private grief is justified?

Kitty G, LONDON,

Sarah of London sums it all up. "We the people..." (not in my name Sarah) "resented the people who had mistreated her". The media had a vested interest in the Sarahs of this world taking sides. The unbelievable naivety of a section of the public who still believe all they read in the newspapers, is scary. The media ran the whole Diana 'mourning' show. They also took sides when she was alive in order to sell newspapers. If anyone believes the peddlers of these live soaps care a jot about the people involved, including Diana, then I must also assume they believe in Santa Claus.I am not a monarchist but found the way the grieving family were hounded was embarrasing. The whole Diana worship thing is in the worst possible taste but unfortunately part of a wider trend of mawkish behaviour that people like Boris Johnson are pillaried for if they complain about it. Mass hysteria based on very little and whipped up by a morally bankrupt section of the media, is worrying.

Jess Fitzgerald, Glasgow,

Sorry, I thought that the 'Royals' existed because we are supposed to share their grief etc. If this is a bad thing, then perhaps the 'Royals' should resign and live ordinary lives.

The worship of celebrity and wealth is at the bottom of this, and the article fails entirely to see that; in fact this article merely contributes to it.

harry wolf, vancouver, canada

I wasn't a big fan of the late Princess but I went to Buckingham Palace and laid flowers there after her death. I don't remember any of the "hysteria" that broadsheet journalists go on about - all I saw were people quietly paying their respects to one of the world's foremost public figures.

I think Allan is right in what he says - I get the impression that the chatterati hated the whole "Diana" phenomenon because, for once, ordinary people were in the driving seat.

K John, London, UK

I think the best reaction of rational people to the 10th anniversary of the Princess of Wales' tragic death is to ignore it.

Just because many silly people who never knew her are fascinated by the poor woman doesn't mean that their unhealthy interest should be pandered to by the press and media.

Michael Smith, Southampton, UK

I agree. Grief is a private matter for all of us unless we choose to publicise it.

Mrs. Gail Moore, San Francisco, CA USA 94115

Mackishness and voyeurism are never attractive and neither are spite and malice directed at living people in supposed defence of someone who is dead. Diana is dead. Wallowing in something that happened 10 years ago is unhealthy, to say the very least, and certainly shows more about the wallower, beating their breast, than about the person who is dead.

I and everyone I know are sick and tired of the trashy articles being written in the newspapers, the gluey sentiment, the efforts to sanctify Diana, the sheer emptiness of the lives of the people who apparently have the time and energy to nurture their hate and spite for others for 10 years, while claiming they are doing it to honour Diana. Would she have wanted to be associated with anyone who spits bile at the mention of Charles or Camilla's name? I don't know, maybe she would, but even though I was not a fan of hers I think better of her than that.

We should stop all this nonsense and wailing over the past and look to the future.

Tansy, Reading, UK

Your absolutely right Libbby, could it have been the start of the "media frenzy" style of reporting news items?

In my humble opinion the way the media went on and on and on, was/is absolutley disgraceful with no thought for the feelings of her immediate family.

JD, Sheepford, UK

The only chasm pointed out by Diana’s death and the media coverage there of was the awful, sickening gulf between the dignity of the Royal Family and the mawkish sentimentality and drivel driven media of modern Britain. Indeed, watching a terrible and exploitative BBC interview with Rhys Jones’ family last night, I had to turn it off, thinking about Diana and our warped news stations as I did so.

Dr G Fincham, Norwich,

Ten years after the death of Diana, the People's Princess, the soap opera continues to run and judging by this week's media coverage will run as long as the Archers, albeit with far superior and intriguing story lines, appealing to an international audience.
This week we saw the humiliation of Camilla, the other woman in the equation, revenge may be sweet when served cold, even sweeter when served from the grave.
The Firm has taken a battering, perhaps the wounds will never heal, but in Her Majesty, Diana has met more than her match. The monarchy lives on in the names of her sons, her posterity is guaranteed, not only through them, but through Mohammed Fayed, who will never rest until the real truth of her death is revealed.
This may be soap opera at its very best, but the characters and the situations are real, culminating in the Hollywood inspired car chase which resulted in Diana's demise, thus guaranteeing innumerous column inches and TV time for future generations.

M. Fishman, London,

I'm disappointed that the papers ended up in the skip - surely they should have been recycled?

Jim, Manchester, UK

Once again Libby has articulated, as only she can, the views of Middle Britain. Well done girl!

Sandy, Riding Mill, Northumberland

Libby,

This is revolting - are you toadying in the hope of getting a gong?

David, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea

I think the grief was very real, all around the world. Diana Princess of Wales was a real person married to a real liar who lied to her from the very beginning of their relationship. Bearing in mind that he was in his thirties, a mature man, and she a girl of 19, she can hardly be blamed for not seeing through his duplicity and his adulterous relationship with a woman who was and is not fit to lick Diana's boots. That is one of the most important aspects of the public grief. Diana really was a wronged woman, and the public recognized that and never bought into the official whitewash of Charles's relationship with another man's wife.

Secondly, Diana really did bring the power of her position to effect some good for the helpless and voiceless. She wasn't just grandstanding; she really cared about her charities and causes and that too was not a mistaken impression by the public. Ttrue goodness can't be hidden or assumed, and ordinary people can recognize it.

M. Hoeber, Miami, Florida, USA

The memorial service is totally unnecessary and an embarassment to many.
The two Princes should go and pray quietly somewhere...why remember a death ten years on publicly. There is no reason to it, except to disrupt relationships once again.

Barbara Steward, Corbridge, UK

When Diana died, I think it was the first time I realised how the media can blatantly neglect to represent the views of a large part of the country (I personally think the vast majority). It was sad that a woman died in a car crash. But she wasn't a close relative and most people don't tend to mourn people who they have never met or with whom they had had no personal relationship. Now, ten years on, I have this feeling that Diana is going down in the history books as the beloved Princess of the British people. 100 years from now children will be learning that the entire population broke down in to tears when she died. And this is not true. I clearly remember at the funeral procession, people being more interested in getting a photo of the coffin than mourning Diana.

James , Milan,

Diana was the model for Paris Hilton. Her family, especially do not need to be reminded of her death. However, the Media will never let a scab go unpicked. I only hope Elton John will not write another dirge. This time sung by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Desmond Taylor, Houston, USA Tx

Well yes Libby BUT there was an outcry of public protest when Diana died. No-one thought that Prince Charles and the Firm had behaved well to Diana. Whatever you think about Diana - manipulative or ingenue - she did not deserve the way she was treated. The grief became ugly because we the people resented the people who had mistreated her during her life.

Sarah, London,

As to the parading before television or any other cameras, of newly bereaved families, or those whose children have disappeared, it is the families themselves who must stop allowing the media to continue this horrible practice. They should refuse to be treated as actors in a media event, no matter how persuasive media types are about the 'benefits' of such a public display (in reality, its sole purpose is to sell papers/bump up viewing figures). Nor should desperate parents allow the police to display them in what presumably they are told are vital press conferences. Anything they have to say to help catch perpetrators can be said in private. Voyeristic readers or viewers should not be encouraged in their despicable need to get off on other people's grief.

anne, bournemouth,

I have neither the time nor the inclination to thoroughly research Libby's part in adding to the general media-inspired mass outpouring of "grief" at the time or since. I am inclined to her view that her contribution - although openly regretted here - was indeed minor. But her wider point is well-made. The media though has been "hoist by its own petard". Unfortunately in certain instances personal grief is now used to hijack the newsprint and the airwaves to the point where we are routinely invited to share the pain of others - frequently against our wishes. Michael Moorhuise may believe the tabloid media reflects genuine feeling in this country. He has been too long away. We are growing rather weary of it - and no good can come of it.

Tim, Kingston,

When people who didn't know Princess Diana write or talk about her; I suspect they end up revealing a lot about themselves.

Angela, Esher, U.K.

As so often, Libby is absolutey right - and I also agree with Maz in nearby Carshalton. What do the media hope to gain from putting bereaved relatives in front of the cameras, as if we can't imagine their grief otherwise? What is the point of sending high-profile presenters, as opposed to local reporters who know the area, to the scene of whatever terrible incident has occurred?

Barry, Wallington, UK

As usual, an excellent piece. Libby knows her market and what will resonate with her readers. It must be a middle class thing.

The media attention given to this anniversary made me realise that during the past ten years I have turned from being something of a republican to a monarchist. The Blair years showed us the alternative. The Queen or Tony & Cherry Blair? No contest.

Ray Warren, Dartmouth,

Great article, I was trully sickened by the way the Media tried to manipulate the Royal Family. They wanted THEM to show their grief to completely unkwon people. If my children's father had died, I would not put them on display, just to comfort unkown people in the crowd. God, give it a rest. I'm really, really, really tired of stories about that woman. I feel sick every time I read her name in the headlines. And the most unfortunate bit - my name is also Diana, so there is no escape.

Diana, Birmingham, UK

So it may be, but I won't forget the coldness we did witness from the royals, that being the church service the morning of the accident.
Not only did they go to church, but they sat listening to a vicar who NEVER mentioned Diana's name nor did he mention the happenings of the tumultous night.
It was a show of icy cold unity & I still have the strongest feeling , that relief equalled any grief the adults felt.
This is what the papers saw & what Diana had been living with.

magie millington, Brittany , France

I am very sorry, but I am thoroughly sick of Diana. I would be happy never to read another word about her, and never see another photo of her smirking face.

Pete, Birmingham, UK

I read this last night and agreed with it. However, I am not so sure now. The royal family get to live in palaces in return for being figure-heads. What good are figure-heads if they shy away from the spotlight when everybody wants to see them.

Obviously it would have been unreasonable to expect Diana's young sons to do anything for the rest of the country and nobody asked them to. But I do think the Queen and Prince Charles could have made a short statement before cameras, expressing the shock and grief the rest of the country was feeling. I am sure they didn't feel like doing it and would rather have spent all their time with the princes. But it need not have taken more than an hour of their time and is part of the job of being a figurehead.

Michael Lamb, Miami, Florida

Perhaps this is why the film, 'The Queen' was such a phenomenal success - this public reaction (ten years on) an apology, as it were, to the Royal Family for what was done to them by their people. I remember at the time, feeling shock at the death, but mostly horror at the public insensitivity towards the Princes and their family.

By keeping the course as always, Her Majesty has once again triumphed, and this is why we love her in America. God save the Queen and her progeny.

Cindy Weaver, Elberton, GA / USA

While Ms. Purves is entitled to her opinion, I strongly disagree with her premise that the media directed the anger towards the senior Royals and that the public had no sense of its own. After ten years, I still feel that Diana was victimized by the Royal family from the get-go and treated as a distasteful mess to be ignored. I think they got the treatment they deserved.

Kerry Allen, Ottawa, Canada

This is a well-expressed article, but comes close to another media cliche, namely the 'we are all to blame' fallacy. I remember feeling utterly alienated by the Diana hysteria, and getting very cross at people who crassly demanded approved 'grief' reactions from Diana's sons or insisted that everywhere and everything be closed for the funeral, and although I didn't watch the funeral on tv I was appalled by the reports of Diana's brother's totally inappropriate and arrogant behaviour. So I don't feel any share in the shameful behaviour that Libby so eloquently recalls.

Anna Carter, Birmingham, UK

Please dont try to rewrite history. It was the working classes who loved Diana, and their grief was so strong the media HAD to go along with it even though they didnt want to. People felt disillusioned with the Royal Family for good reasons. All those Christmas broadcasts they'd seen on TV full of platitudes about being nice to each other when underneath it there was nothing. Rightly or wrongly many people loved Diana. Is that what you journalists hated then and hate now? That you cannot control us?

Allan, West Midlands, England

For once, I disagree with the general drift of Libby Purvis' comments. Both then and now there appears to be a huge gap between the perspective of the royal family and their entourage and that of the general public. If the monarchy has a place in the 21st Century it should be able to serve as a model and to provide a symbolic lead - it didn't do this 10 years ago and the debacle concerning this week's anniversary service suggests little has been learnt in the meantime.

Duncan Timms, Enköping, Sweden

I was in the City of London Police in the '70s and '80s and was often on duty for visits by royalty. I saw Diana's entry into Goldsmith's Hall in 'that' dress, but only just.
There was an obvious change in the manner of the Queen on such visits around that time. She would smile more and chat to the public in a friendly way that was new. This was commented on by the religious stalkers. She came to Fenchurch St on the day Di's first confinement was announced. She was obviously very happy.
I had never heard cheers like those for the wedding. Or since, come to that. Di might well have 'only' been a catalyst but there was a great atmosphere at all royal occasions I went to and this changed when the marriage problems came to public notice.
The national sorrow at her death was genuine. What would have been better? Cynicism? Don't forget, Churchill's death and funeral generated similar public emotion, only more so. They were both, it seems, loved by the public.

Derek Smith, Brighton, UK

I very much agree with Mr. Haws above. I would like to add, as a British subject in New York, that the Americans seem to be just as obsessed, if not more, with her death. The day before yesterday the 1995 interview the Princess gave to Martin Bashir was shown in full, followed by a programme called, 'the Murder of Princess Diana'. I couldn't believe what I was reading in the programming. Yet there it is, the media is still obsessed, because there are so many in the public somehow relish going over every detail of Diana's death, and every possible motive behind it (however ludicrous). 10 years on the media have not changed, and not enough people treat a tragedy as it should, as Ms Purves has rightly said, have been treated.

Eric Sukumaran, New York, NY, United States

Despite her charm and lovliness, Diana was clearly an unbalanced person.

And there is a history of unbalanced behavior in her family going back to the 18th century.

She used her charm to attract the public, but then when she had their ears, her talked in ways no normal person would.

There current royal family was terribly abused by this accident of history.

Her awful brother used his special position at her funeral to add abuse.

I think Charles will make a fine King, but after that, the nation faces the possibility that Diana's instability will inherit the throne.

JOHN CHUCKMAN, Toronto, Canada

Well thought out and well said.

tbw, Maine, USA

Libby Purves is spot on when she says grief is a very private matter. Who are we to pass judgement on the behaviour of the Royal Family or even the incomprehensible mass outpourings of grief of the general public who did not really know Diana. Only when you are affected by grief do you realise how difficult a problem it is for yourself, your family and everyone around you. Iwas very suddenly widowed at 37 years of age and was taught a lot about people in the way they reacted to me as well as about myself.

Julia Shmueli

Julia Shmueli, London,

I was deeply shocked when I heard of Diana's death. But then the country seemed to be split deeply into 2 halves: one half was overcome with grief, Diana meant everything to them & their lives were empty without her (a line taken by all the media). The rest of us were not in grief - why should we be? - she was not family. For over a week we felt we were on an alien planet & dissent was not permited, we would have been lynched. It was like living in a totalitarian state.
The Queen was doubtless deeply shocked by the death, but thought it right to stay at Balmoral & comfort her grandsons & protect them from the media - though her advisors should probably have persuaded her to come to London more quickly; it was her duty to represent the nation & acknowledge what so many felt so deeply. But she is of a generation that looks on in bewilderment at those whose whose lives are so impoverished that they must live vicariously through the lives of 'celebrities'.

Dave, Wrexham,

Well said! I could not agree more!

Kevin Dunn, Nedlands, Western Australia

Prince Harry and Prince Willaim would have been better advised to have had a quiet family service to remember their mother. Sadly, elements of the media have now taken over and are turning it into another spectacle of crocodile tears and hypocrisy. I feel paricularly sorry for Camila who is damned if she does and damned if she does not. What family these days does not have its share of weaknesses and regrets? However, certain elements seem to take great delight in tearing the Queen and her family to bits. Diana is sadly dead, let her rest in peace.

Pete, Waddington, UK

Could'nt agree more.Sad as Iwas that a beautiful young woman had died,on a personal level she meant absolutely nothing to me.
I could not understand why the press hounded the Royal family,insisting that they return to London.I thought that they were in the best place possible for the young Princes to grieve with their family and not to have to endure the mawkish crowds.
I know that funerals take on previous losses and people can indulge in grief,as yet unexpressed,but I found the whole display disturbing and very un British.
The Princess has been dead for ten long years yet she appears in the media on a weekly basis.Can you please let her rest in peace and let her boys and the family get on with their lives??

Disgusted Dorothy, Glasgow, Scotland

Libby Purves has it right - and especially the last paragraph referring to recent child tragedies. Families should be allowed privacy and the media should refrain from dashing in to make personal tragedy into televised drama. This undermines and shows a lack of respect to victims. All families, Royal, or otherwise need their quiet space.

Kate Drake, London,

Thank You Libby Purves for such a good piece. What a pity more people in the media are not like you. I for one throught there was to much fuss made about that women.

Paul Egbunike, London, England

Thank MS Purves For such a good and well written piece. This what a lot of people have been thinking. As for me I couldn^t understand what all fuss was for that women

Paul Egbunike, London, England

Well done Ms Purves. A refreshing antidote to the mawkish twaddle spouted by the gullible and stupid who believe the nonsense in the gutter press about the late 'living saint'. It is a pity the lady from the 'Diana preservation society' can't be a little more balanced in her outpouring of bile towards the Royal family.

Riley, Kiev, Ukraine

Sorry! It can't all be brushed aside so conveniently for the protection of the Monarchy. The Royal Family has been exposed as the archetypal dysfunctional family who marry for convenience and divorce as readily as did Henry VIII and philander as did Edward VII. Their loyalty is to themselves and concern for the future of the country or the Monarchy does not seem to exist in their thinking. What a role model the future King and potential head of the Church of England represents for the youth of today!
Princes Diana may have been no saint but she was treated very badly and with blatant contempt by the Royal family even in death. I have always been a Monarchist but no longer believe that the accident of birth gives anyone the right to flout the moral code and heirs to the throne should be expected to live up to that privilege, justify their suitability and not selfishly bring dishonour to their country.

David Cotterell, Cheltenham, UK

Let us not forget the series of events after the death of Diana that showed the chasm between the public and the Royal Family.
I saw the 4 foot high wall of bunches of flowers outside Kensington Palace and the genuine grief of all the visitors.
In contrast the Queen was eventually 'shamed' by public opinion into lowering the flag at Buckingham Palace to half mast some days after the accident.

G J BUNTON, SLOUGH, BERKSHIRE

Get a life all this money spent on Diana and the Royals could find a better home we need less publicity for this farce not more.

mick, preston, englland

Libby Purves is completely right. The horrific thing about the post Diana death climate was not only the bizarre hysterical 'grief' for Diana by those who had never even met her, but the way in which her young sons were paraded to appease the baying crowds. I am no monarchist, but they were children first and foremost, and the sight of them being forced to appear to look at flowers when their mother had been killed only a few days before, or to publicly walk behind her coffin was distressing indeed. None of the 'mourners' however seemed to care about how they felt, so caught up were they in the soap opera.

emma, london, england

Libby Purves is entitled to her view but, ye Gods! ,such a view exhibits an excess of traditionalist bile and cockeyed conservatism.
The media have much to answer for , often. The fourth estate is imperfect but valuable.
Those subscribing to these views of hers are a minority who merit little but sympathy and contempt . They should stay in their mummified state and know that they are regarded only as
illogical relics.

michael moorhouise, Bazauges, France

Diana was a manipulative fool promoted to absurd heights by the gutter press and the thick thugs of the British Public. They persecuted a bereaved family and wallowed in self pity and the whole country went mad for four weeks. Why does this sound so familiar? Because it exposed the true nature of the British national character: that of a hysterical, conformist and shallow bully. 1997 was the year I lost all faith in this country.

Alexander , Winchester,

I am an American with English blood...and I am happy to read what is, I think , the truth..what brilliant perceptions..
Diana came into the world, like all of us..to live and learn lessons..and do some good, if one can..and she did..and all her goods and bads, and ups and downs, are shared with the world, who have all of this in their lives...let us all allow her soul to rest in peace..and allow the Princes to have a life of their own making.

susan mills, st.pete beach, USA/florida

Spot on as usual, Libby. I don't feel any particular retrospective guilt since I was only a remote spectator. I do remember howver thinking that "the people's princess" bit (with the usual studied pauses for effect) was pretty nauseating. I also remember the Queen on television and thinking "is she going to be able to avoid giving the impression that this rather suits the Firm?". She did. I had mixed feelings about that. As a republican I wanted the monarchy swept away (and it looked for a few days as if it just might happen); as a human being I did not want to see an elderly woman publicly humiliated. Neither occurred. So, now that the whole ghastly orgy of public sentimentality is 10 years behind us please let's, like Libby, recycle the yellowing newspapers and move on.

J.Fletcher, Canterbury, UK

I agree, the voyuerism displayed by the media is repulsive; thrusting microphones and saking the bereaved, How they feel?
But we get the press we deserve, I guess, or we would all refuse to buy those papers. I reluctantly saw the film, The Queen, because a cousin wanted to see it. She said, afterwards, she was disappointed as she didn't realise it was all going to be about Diana's death, which had been covered by the media at the time. However, she thought it was interesting to hear what the Royal family had thought and said! I said, but nobody knows what they said in private - it is all made up! And so the legend goes on!

Maz, carshalton,

I am a British subject who lives in Washington, DC, USA - and I have become sensitive to the different uses of various English words on both sides of the pond.

One such word is 'quite'. In English English it means 'rather' or 'fairly' or 'acceptably' - as in 'this Yorkshire Pudding is, well, quite good'.

In American English, the word means something very different. It means 'very' or 'exceptionally'.

So let me congratulate Ms Purves in the vernacular of my current homeland....

"Quite right".

Chris Haws, Washington, DC, USA