Prince William, Harry & Kate will re-dedicate Princess Diana’s grave on her birthday

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge on the opening day of Royal Ascot

I still don’t know how I feel about the fact that Princess Diana was buried at her ancestral home at Althorp, the seat of the Earl Spencer (Charles, Diana’s brother). Charles Spencer apparently insisted that Diana be buried at Althorp, and the royal family didn’t feel like they had much of a say in the matter. I feel like William and Harry probably regret that a little bit, now that they’re older. But what other options were there? To bury Diana at Windsor Castle, or Highgrove (Prince Charles’ country estate)? Maybe Althorp was the best choice. This weekend, William, Harry and Kate will be going to Althorp on what would have been Diana’s 56th birthday. They will take part in a rededication of her grave:

The Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry will rededicate their mother’s grave on what would have been her birthday this weekend, as they include Prince George and Princess Charlotte in a special service to remember her. The Duke, Duchess and Prince Harry and the children will attend a private service at Althorp House, as the Archbishop of Canterbury helps them commemorate Diana, Princess of Wales in the 20th anniversary year of her death.

The rededication, understood to comprise words of reflection and prayer at the graveside, will take place after the memorial underwent extensive redesign following an accusation that the burial site had been neglected. The Spencer family last year began the first major programme of works to the estate gardens in 350 years, saying they would “honour” the memory of Diana in time for the anniversary.

This Saturday, on what would have been Diana’s 56th birthday, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry, Prince George and two-year-old Princess Charlotte will gather at Althorp in a private ceremony. The Prince of Wales will be absent, performing Royal duties in Ottawa to mark Canada Day with the Duchess of Cornwall. Earl Spencer, Diana’s brother, and her sisters Lady Sarah McCorquodale and Baroness Fellowes will also attend. Earl Spencer’s third wife, Lady Karen, whom he married in 2011, has overseen the renovation project.

Kensington Palace said in a brief statement: “The service, which will fall on what would have been the Princess’s birthday, will be conducted by The Archbishop of Canterbury and attended by her family.”

The service will be private, with aides declining to give details on any readings or prayers to be delivered.

[From The Telegraph]

I would assume that William and Harry have insisted that there be no photographers, although you never know what the Earl Spencer might have up his sleeve. It’s my understanding that William and Harry don’t have much to do with their uncle, although I think they’re close to Lady Sarah and Baroness Fellowes, their aunts. It’s also interesting to me that William is okay with bringing Charlotte and George. That actually pinged a little at my heartstrings. I know I’m being manipulated, of course, and Will and Harry both have a vested interest in reminding people about their grief over their beloved mother. But still, this summer is going to be really hard on them, because it’s the 20th anniversary and all of that.

Meanwhile, after Kate returns from Althorp, she’ll be attending Day 1 of Wimbledon as the new patron/honorary president of All-England club on Monday. She’ll be meeting some of the ball boys and ball girls and staffers. And presumably she’ll stick around for some Day 1 action. I can’t wait to see the draw! I’m sure Kate has her fingers crossed for family friend Roger Federer. What if we get another Federer-Nadal final, you guys?

Duchess of Cambridge holding Princess Charlotte of Cambridge

Royal start for the London Marathon 2017

Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News, WENN.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

120 Responses to “Prince William, Harry & Kate will re-dedicate Princess Diana’s grave on her birthday”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Pumpkin Pie says:

    She was a divorced woman when she died. Althorp is OK for her burial place.

    • Alix says:

      Pretty sure they didn’t want her resting place to become an overrun tourist spot. But it always seemed such a lonely spot, isolated on that island and all. I’ve always had the feeling that even family and friends don’t visit it much.

      • Pumpkin Pie says:

        I thought her divorce cut all connections to his side of the family, so her burial in her family’s estate is normal.

        I never wondered who had Bill’s and Harry’s custody after the divorce? Does anyone here have some details?

      • perplexed says:

        I thought her brother did try to turn it into a tourist site. I think he’s closed it now, but I could have sworn it was open for tourism at some point.

      • Carrie says:

        Yeah this was her brother using Diana and her death for personal gain. He makes me ill. He did operate a tourist type of racket with it for a while. I assumed he used the money from that to prop up the estate and do repairs etc.

        Was a story a couple of years back about Diana’s former chef visiting and publicly criticizing state of the island http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/601680/Princess-Diana-island-grave-18th-anniversary-of-her-death

        Her resting place is sad and lonely. Ostracized and abused in life, as in death. It’s terrible but par for the course with all involved (except her kids) in how they treated Diana.

      • notasugarhere says:

        1) If she was buried on the island and not in the church as suspected and 2) if he isn’t maintaining it, then it needs to be rehabbed.

        Honestly? I think it would be better if she was on the island, unreachable by the hysterical masses. Let them visit the Estate, fork over money to her disgusting brother, visit a monument to her, and not get anywhere near her actual remains. Leave access to her real grave site for only her family and loved-ones.

      • Sarah says:

        She isnt there anyway. No matter what your belief, she is either somewhere else, or nowhere at all.
        We fetishize burial places quite a lot for people who believe the dead one’s essence is elsewhere.
        Just an observstion..

  2. Nyawira says:

    Is anyone else reading Camillas bio serialisation in Daily Fail? My God its a disaster. Its best summarised as “Camilla was a stunning, engaging sensitive angel who married the world’s most awful man who was so terrible he even dated Princess Ann before he met Camila but Gods angel overcame”. ” Charles was a smart, thoughtful sensitive soul cursed with a cold mother who cared more about the crown than poor baby”. “Princess Anne is to be avoided as she is to quote the book ‘notoriously abrasive’”. “Diana was an evil crazy manipulative cow and God’s best angel aka Camila and the world’s most thoughtful man Charles, were at her mercy from the moment she at 19 connived to enter their lives”.

    I dont usually pay attention to these people but I just had to look up the author. And one quick image search turned up pics of her with Camilla in Montegro last year. What kind of woman puts out a hit piece on another woman on the 20th anniversary of her death? I have renewed sympathy for William and Harry after going down that rabbit hole.

    • frisbee says:

      Methinks there are some battles going on behind the scenes between Bill and Chuck over this. Putting a book out like that in a major anniversary year was, in my view at least, deliberate to attract attention away from the anniversay of Diana’s death, especially as it paints Diana in a very bad light (although she was no saint as we know). Meanwhile, back at the ranch Bill and Harry are deliberately drawing attention to the anniversary in anyway they can. I can imagine a deep, frozen silence interspersed with Bill throwing a hissy fit is going in in the background right now.

    • LAK says:

      Penny Junor has always hated Diana and has never missed a chance to bash her. FYI.

      Any piece she writes should always be read through that lens.

      • Odette says:

        Yes! Penny Junor is laughably pro-Charles / anti-Diana. Her obvious, messy bias is so over-the-top I sometimes wonder: Is PJ playing us all!? Is her shtick actually a long running performance art piece meant to satirize hyper-materialistic, upper-middle-class women who get off on snobbery? Admittedly, there have been times I’ve wondered, “Hmmmmm, could Penny Junor and Charles be hitting the sack!?” I’m sure they’re not, but that’s the level of dedication she wafts when commenting on Chaaaaaaarles.

        And I’m not one of those Diana fans.

      • Maria says:

        And she is definately pro Charles.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I put it down to Penny wanting to be Mrs. Charles Windsor.

      • Carrie says:

        Yes. This, all day. Also this IS what these people are like at their core – this is Charles and Camilla especially.

    • SoulSPA says:

      I’ve read the first chapter I think last Saturday. Used to be an avid DM reader, now that I’ve found Celebitchy I get most of my info from here, and try to avoid DM.

      IMHO it’s all spins and tricks and major manipulations with this sort of books. I think they should try not getting any books out whatsoever. For me it was just a bit of mindless reading while waiting for laundry to be done. Can’t even remember much of it with the exception of Camilla’s relationship dynamics with her husband, and an apparent love and dedication to her children. If any of that is to be believed. Taking everything with a huge pinch of pink salt.

    • Sharon Lea says:

      Very good synopsis Nyawira! ha How about where Chuck totally threw the Queen under the bus the night Diana died?! Apparently when news came during the night, they were only a ‘few feet away with paper thin walls (what does that even mean?!)’ and the Queen and Charles didn’t even discuss the accident. But he was on the phone with sainted Camilla all night. Ugh! The book makes it clear the Queen was not supportive of his relationship with Camilla, so at least Penny is telling us the truth there.

    • Mamunia says:

      I’ve been reading it as well. It’s re-writing history and trying to sell us Camilla. She’s fine, but let’s face it, she’s no Diana. No amount of re-writing is going to change that.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I’m glad she’s not another Diana. The world doesn’t need another one of those.

      • Sarah says:

        I like Camilla. She seems a lot more grounded and sane than Diana. I liked Diana for the work she did, but she was no saint. She was a wildly loose cannon.

    • PrincessK says:

      Very well said Nyawira!

    • msthang says:

      Cammie has been and always will be homely as the dickens, Okay, sometimes she looks Okay, but most of the time due to sun, booze and ciggys, she looks older than HM. Even a good face lift wouldn’t help her!!

  3. Lucy says:

    There was no need for this to be announced. Clearly a ploy for sympathy.

    • Pumpkin Pie says:

      ITA

    • Megan says:

      Since there were press reports that her grave had been neglected it makes sense that they would announce that it has been restored and will be rededicated.

      • Pumpkin Pie says:

        Why was it neglected though? Don’t Bill and Harry have a say in this? Plus now that they are all grown-up, as in not under-age !!!!!!!, at least in theory they could argue to relocate the remains, if there is a more suitable place.

      • martina says:

        The grave is on the estate of Diana’s brother not on a royal estate. He made plenty of money out of people visiting Althorp after she was buried there.

      • Megan says:

        Since she is buried on a private estate owned by their uncle, I don’t think they have any say.

      • Addie says:

        Have Harry and William not noticed it was being neglected? Have they visited the grave, even annually? Could they not have asked the uncle to clean it up, or offered to pay to restore it themselves? Seems like Diana is still being used by all the men in her life, sons included, even in death. This didn’t a press release at all; it’s a private event.

    • Karen says:

      This is one event that should be kept private. It is closed on that day, so no one would be around. Plus visiting a gravesite in memorial is normal (i imagine they’d go every year), but why are they calling it a rededication? Will they do this every 20 years? Or just a one off?

      • Addie says:

        But do they go every year? I thought re-dedication of graves was for mass neglected grave sites and so on. This smacks of yet another attempt to get sympathy, distract from their own foolishness and laziness, and flick the bird to their Windsor family. Sick, useless bastards; still using mummy.

      • Carrie says:

        It wouldn’t surprise me if all the press and talk of Diana by her sons lately is their attempt to make everyone else involved squirm. Some hard resentment there to be this much talk and press after 20 years.

        Have a feeling that’s it for the history books – this will never heal fully or be resolved. I can’t say I blame them though. This was their mother, she loved her kids and is beloved by the public.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She’s beloved by some members of the public, reviled by plenty of others, and many are neutral about her. If her gravesite wasn’t kept up? Her sons are as much to blame as her brother. It isn’t like Charles Spencer would let Prince Charles have any say in the matter. Spencer makes money and PR off “the feud”. He abandoned his sister in life, but he’s happy to make money off her for the rest of his.

    • Clare says:

      Right? Fubbed an interview? Getting bad press? Being called out for your entitlement and insensitivity? You laziness is showing?
      Trot out the dead mommy card.

      Diana was incredibly beloved by many in this country, and I think its sick that her sons consistently use her memory to soften their own images/combat much deserved bad press.

    • frisbee says:

      While I agree that they invoke Diana’s memory as a ‘Get out of Jail Free Card’ when things are going tit’s up for them, it’s worth pointing out that this would have been planned months, if not years ago. It took about three years to renovate the Althorp garden and would have been planned then, they may have been invited then and agreed. The timing is convenient given Harry’s disaster of an Interview but I think the two probably converged for them in a way that was advantageous rather than pre-planned if you see what I mean.

      • LAK says:

        This is an event that could have been kept private even with the months of planning because the grave is in a private space. Unless invited, no media can enter the Althorp estate therefore announcing it publicly smacks of PR.

        Further, in the bigger picture scheme of things, no one except their family is clamouring to know that the grave is being re-dedicated.

        When HM had a service for her mother and sister, it wasn’t turned into the circus that KP are doing for Diana.

        KP can’t keep calling for privacy and then inviting the media to witness this private ceremony on a private estate.

      • Nic919 says:

        There was no need to announce this private event days before and then specifically announce the kids are attending too. They are waving a red flag to the paps and they know it. It could easily have been announced the day of as it was happening so that the media couldn’t get organized. This is pure PR.

      • frisbee says:

        It’s certainly self interested but I don’t think it’s just over one bad interview from Harry. They are spending the year commemorating Diana’s death and this is just a part of it. They may well have publicised it on that basis alone so deflection wouldn’t be the only reason for this announcement.

      • Sharon Lea says:

        I agree with you Frisbee, this was planned a long time ago, Harry and William wanted to make this whole year about Diana.

      • notasugarhere says:

        They could easily have kept it private. They could even arrive via their favorite taxi (ie. helicopter), so no one could photograph them arriving on the Estate. They choose to have KP announce this “private” event.

    • Merritt says:

      Even if they hadn’t announced it, I have a feeling Earl Spencer would done so himself. Despite the impassioned speech at her funeral, he had not treated Diana very well himself. He has always been willing to use her and her memory for his own benefit.

      • Addie says:

        Seems they all are willing to use Diana’s memory for their own benefit. I agree that the year has been full of cranking up the memory of Diana, all led by her sons.

      • Zondie says:

        The Earl’s speech at Diana’s funeral was inappropriate, IMO. It was obvious that he was seeking some publicity out of her death and the paparazzi angle, but he wasn’t smart enough or literate enough to pull it off. Plus, it was known to everyone that he hadn’t been particularly supportive to Diana.

  4. Alix says:

    Never heard of a grave re-dedication before. You can bet that, if Willnot ever does come to the throne, he’ll reinstate his mother’s HRH immediately.

    Twenty years later, and I *still* can’t believe Diana is dead. Remember vividly coming home to see everyone riveted to the TV to watch the breaking news. And I got up at 4am to watch her funeral, same as I did for her wedding. (I’m old, okay?) It’s hard to explain, to those who don’t remember her, the sheer mega-wattage of her celebrity. No one today (certainly not Kannot) can compare.

    • RBC says:

      I remember watching her wedding with my mother and years later doing the same for her funeral. Hard to believe twenty years have passed

    • Mermaid says:

      @Alix
      I can’t believe she’s gone either (still). I still miss Princess Diana and JFK Jr. Those two were fun to follow as celebrities and it’s hard to think of anyone who compares.

    • Josie says:

      This is Charles Spencer’s idea; I’m a little surprised the boys are going, but how they feel about Althorp is a bit of a mystery so maybe it makes sense and the public are just out of the loop. Anyway, the site got pretty overrun and neglected and Althorp announced they were updating it out of respect. TBH respectfulness hasn’t really been the Althorp attitude toward Diana though. More like “let’s cash in.”

    • Megan says:

      I watched her wedding and her funeral, too. It was so shocking when she died because she was such a huge celebrity we somehow forgot that she was a mere mortal.

      • Zondie says:

        Diana was such a big part of life in the 80ies. Michael Jackson was too. Hard to believe they are both gone.

    • Sushi says:

      Same with me. I still remembered shopping with my son and everyone crowded around TV set. That when I learned of her death. Really shocked and sad. Her life since married was not fairy tale. Her sons should be allowed to honour her in any way without being accused of PR or sympathy seeking.

    • LAK says:

      In theory as monarch, he can do what he wants, but the bestowing of HRHs is govt business that requires parliament to sign off.

      HM made sure to add a caveat in the legal document that governs HRHs ie who can have one, to say that if you divorce, you lose the HRH. Done because of Diana’s *shenanigans regarding the HRH.

      *she wasn’t required to give it up nor was it asked. She volunteered it up in exchange for better divorce settlement. The family accepted. She then realised the loss of status inherent in not being HRH anymore and ran crying to the media to try and force the family to give it back.

      If William restores Diana’s HRH, he’ll restore Fergie’s HRH because the caveat that removed Diana’s HRH also took away Fergie’s HRH which was an unintended consequence because Fergie remained an HRH post divorce until that caveat was written into the law due to the much later Diana divorce.

      • Carrie says:

        About Fergie… sorry to ask as I know you’re an expert on all royal things but I’ve followed them too. I recall Fergie being ostracized publicly and privately by the Queen and family at her direction. That Fergie retained HRH surprises me… I remember Fergie taking quite a hit and losing everything due to how she behaved (photos of public toe sucking by another man etc.) Have you got a source to share on this HRH business for Fergie (dates etc) ?

      • notasugarhere says:

        She wasn’t ostracized privately by the Queen. She was invited to Sandringham for Christmas every year, tucked away at Wood Farm so the girls could see her on Christmas without Philip getting hacked off. She was also allowed to live with Andrew in Royal Lodge Windsor for 2 decades after the divorce before finally moving out (to Switzerland) a couple years ago.

        “The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, nonjudgmental person I know.” – Sarah Ferguson, 2011

      • LAK says:

        Fergie was publicly known as *HRH Sarah, duchess of York post divorce which came through in early 1996.

        You can still find places from that year that refer to her that way. Also, her wikipage gives the exact post divorce period where she was HRH Sarah, Duchess of York.

        From Wiki page:
        Titles and styles

        Royal monogram
        15 October 1959 – 23 July 1986: Miss Sarah Margaret Ferguson
        23 July 1986 – 30 May 1996: Her Royal Highness The Duchess of York
        30 May 1996 – 21 August 1996: Her Royal Highness Sarah, Duchess of York
        21 August 1996 – present: Sarah, Duchess of York

        The Queen issued the new rule in August 1996 and HRH Sarah, duchess of York became plain Sarah, duchess of York.

        Further, She was not ostracized privately. It served the family to remove her from public life, but privately she wasn’t ostracized except by Philip. The Queen managed the relationship by putting her in places or situations that didn’t include Philip, and life went on.

    • Pumpkin Pie says:

      “he’ll reinstate his mother’s HRH immediately”.

      What does that practically mean?

      • Alix says:

        That his mother would once again be referred to as Her Royal Highness Diana, Princess of Wales.

    • Sharon Lea says:

      So relate to your post Alix! I also think Diana’s HRH will be reinstated.

    • I’m old too😏I remember being 5 when she married Charles and thought I’d never seen such a mesmerizing person in my life.I remember waking up alone that Sunday morning when I turned on the news and heard she was dead I was stunned and so sad -She had “it”unlike anyone before and probably anyone after.

    • Sarah says:

      To get a comparison to the level of celebrity she had, I think you have to look at Jolie and Pitt or Clooney. I cant think of anyone else who excites that level of interest.

  5. The Original Mia says:

    There are rumors she was not buried on the island, but in the family crypt next to her father. Who knows. I’ve heard of rededication and it’s usually has to do with a new grave marker or relocation of the body.

  6. Torontoe says:

    It is quite sad to think of G and C not meeting their grandmother who clearly would have adored them. And would have been 56, that is still so young.

    On a side note if this ceremony is why MM went to England a few days ago I would say they are soon to be engaged for sure.

    • seesittellsit says:

      @Torontoe – never thought of that, but if she does attend I’d say you’re right.

    • Marr says:

      I’m quite curious about that myself. Her presence or absence from this will be a far more precise relationship barometer than anything the tabloids have spun so far. In my opinion, come this Saturday, we’ll know for sure if there’s a wedding on the horizon or not. :D

      • seesittellsit says:

        @Marr – that could cut two ways, of course. Having someone there who isn’t YET a member of the family could also backfire. MM could of course be there to “support” Harry at a deeply emotional time, the 20-year anniversary, etc.

        My guess is that all these interviews, all these displays of inner pain and turmoil, the not too veiled bids for understanding and sympathy, the 20th anniversary of the loss of his mother. . . are all intended to pave the road for announcement of engagement to a 36 year-old American biracial C-List actress of uncertain religious affiliation – which Harry knows will not go down well in certain sectors. I am not making a judgment myself here, you understand, just pointing out the obvious.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Right, nothing judgemental in that synopsis.

        The 20th anniversary year was always going to be filled with something, whether interviews or monuments or ceremonies. It was almost unavoidable.

        There is nothing wrong with her career. She’s been on a successful tv show for 7 seasons, a career many struggling actors-working-as-waitstaff would love to have. She’s educated, professional, knows how to give a speech, knows how to work for a living. What a nice change to have someone like that on the royal dole.

        Harry’s divorced-and-remarried father flirts with religions, from Catholicism to Buddhism to Islam. I doubt he’d have a problem with a daughter in law who has been divorced and isn’t CoE. Westminster Abbey has already come out and said they would have no impediment to marrying Harry and Meghan in a religious ceremony. Kate Middleton wasn’t confirmed until right before the wedding, so being overtly religious isn’t a requirement.

        Are you under the impression that people who are 36 years old are elderly? That they are forbidden to fall in love and get married? In England and Wales in 2013, the mean age at marriage was 36.7 years for men and 34.3 years for women.

        40 percent of the UK population have been divorced. 20 percent are not “white”. 60 percent are some form of Christian, 26 percent have no religion. Divorced, agnostic, Republican Letizia seems to be doing okay as Queen of conservative “Catholic” Spain.

        Most people aren’t going to object to whomever Harry marries. They’d object to the cost of the wedding and having another person on the royal dole; the bride herself will be an afterthought in many ways.

      • Marr says:

        @seesittellsit
        “Having someone there who isn’t YET a member of the family could also backfire.”

        Maaaybe… I really don’t know what to say to that. But from my peasant pov, if I were super serious with a guy and he told me I couldn’t join him for something like this simply because I’m not family YET and it wouldn’t look good, I’d take it personally, royalty or not. That’s why I said we’ll know for sure how serious he is about her. If he wants her there I say he’ll bring her there. It’s not an official or even public event, so I don’t see why anyone would have a bone to pick if she were invited to tag along for moral support. That’s just me tho’.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Honestly, it is likely the nanny will be there to keep the young kids distracted from something they don’t understand. Why shouldn’t Harry bring someone who matters to him?

      • seesittellsit says:

        @nota – is it really impossible to bring up issues without assumptions that you share those views? MM will be a first in many ways – previous royals weren’t perfect? You don’t say? Reading about the Regency era, the stories about Prince Edward, George V’s elder brother, never mind the dalliances of God knows how many over hundreds of years and brothers and cousins slaughtering each other through the Wars of the Roses . . . well, who would have guessed?!

        The fact remains that in more than one circle, MM will be considered totally unsuitable. If this were William instead of Harry, it would never fly. Her career may or may not be successful, but the fact remains it isn’t as if that career is distinguished – she isn’t Cate Blanchett or Rachel Weisz – she’s a forgettable D-List actress in a low-grade series on the shady side of 35, biracial, and divorced, and American – with a somewhat dodgy family. I don’t lie awake worrying about who Harry will marry – but I’m betting more than a few on the other side will be disappointed and some downright angry. Personally, I think she’s a smart cookie on the make who knows exactly how undistinguished her acting career is, how fast time is passing, and that landing Harry represents a social and economic coup of several magnitudes greater than any role she’s likely to be offered ever.

        If that makes me a wretched judgmental creep, so be it. But do we really have to refrain from pointing out there are people who will hate this, and why, just to prove we aren’t Bad People?!

      • Sarah says:

        Nota, pointing out that some British will see Meghan that way isnt being judgmental – it is just fact. Are we disallowed from discussing unpleasant facts now? It certainly doesnt mean the commenter agrees with the ignorance!! But sticking one’s head in the sand and pretending it isn’t there at all – who and what does that serve? It’s like sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, “nah, nah, nah, there is no racism/sexism here, not at all – move along!”

    • grumpy says:

      If she had lived G & C wouldn’t even be here, Diana would have seen off the Middletons a long time ago.

      • Melly says:

        This, so much this

      • seesittellsit says:

        @grumpy – if Diana had lived, William wouldn’t have been vulnerable to motherly Carole and the cozy family life of the Middletons, and Diana wouldn’t have had to see them off. Carole took the poor motherless boy in – and how.

      • msthang says:

        grumpy, ditto, that wedding would never have happened!!

    • PrincessK says:

      I am pretty sure Meghan will go, why should Harry leave the future mother of his children out of something like this?

      • seesittellsit says:

        Actually, I’m betting she won’t. It would be another of those “virtual announcement” gestures. But then, I’ve lost all my bets since BREXIT.

  7. frisbee says:

    It will be interested to see how ‘private’ this remains, as Kaiser said Earl Spencer may well have something up his sleeve (a small film of the service leaking perhaps) after all, he’s been making money out of Diana since the day she died. I can’t stand the man, the way he refused to let her stay at Althorpe, her family home after the divorce because he didn’t want the ‘intrusion’ on his family or some other such nonsense was a crap thing to do. That estate is plenty big enough to have shielded someone who was clearly in considerable mental distress – and his bloody sister to boot.

    • LAK says:

      Not to mention that Althorp is a private estate. Any paps would have required an invitation onto the estate, so his protestations of privacy don’t hold water.

    • Nic919 says:

      We only know about this event because KP announced it, so at this point Charles Spencer can’t be blamed for playing any publicity games. He has been sketchy in other aspects of this, but if there is a media circus, it is because of KP giving them tons of lead time to set up knowing the kids will be there.

      • frisbee says:

        That’s true to a degree but it’s also his estate so he would have been in on it from the off, they wouldn’t do this without his say so surely?

      • Imqrious2 says:

        @Frisbee, the KP announcement could give time for paps to wait on/ny the roads the cars will travel to get to the estate. While the grounds are private, the roads are public, and if someone snaps them on the way there, or going out, it’s fair game. Still, wouldn’t put it past Charles to get a private photographer to snap pics to be put in the exhibit….for posterity, of course (sarcasm intended)

    • graymatters says:

      Actually, I’ve read that Diana wanted to live in a particular home on the estate because it was a favorite place of her childhood. Charles S. at first agreed, then realized how close it was to the road and how intrusive the paps would be (to protect his own children) and so offered her the pick of any other home on the estate — several were the same size or larger. But she wanted that particular one and wouldn’t settle. I’m giving her brother a pass on this one. But the eulogy was awful.

    • PrincessK says:

      There are many versions to this particular story, so who knows.

  8. PettyRiperton says:

    Regardless of how we view her or feel about her she was their mother. They can honor her how ever, whenever they want.
    I look at this as a kill two birds with one stone deal, honor mommy and get good PR. Diana’s brother is such a douchebag.
    I doubt she’s actually buried there its more of a memorial spot. I would guess she’s buried near her father if she’s even buried at all she could’ve been cremated.
    What Meghan isn’t invited? I thought they were on the cusp of getting married? Oh nevermind she probably has to work.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Wasn’t there a spotting of her arriving in London on Sunday or Monday? She may end up at this service or she might not. Since she is not a member of the royal family, KP doesn’t make statements about her attending events. The KP statement about the “private” event that was Pippa’s wedding didn’t include MM, but she was part of the festivities.

    • Marr says:

      “Oh nevermind she probably has to work.”

      Sarcasm about someone actually having a job? How classy of you…

    • Zardi123 says:

      Yep they good at contriving the details that are true ..
      we think Dear Diana is buried in crypt of family not on island
      They are using this as PR stunt …
      Dearest Diana was the peoples princess of hearts we loved her
      they will never ever come up to her … she was so special and treatednso dreadfully by the BRF and she had noone to turn to ..if this happened to waity the outcry would be unimaginable. . Her mother would crucify them all as they are frightened of her .. why . as she has things she knows about them

  9. Lainey says:

    I still fail to see why they announced it while insisting the whole thing is private. If they wanted people to know they did something why not release something after. This has just ensured there will be photographers stationed at Althorp’s entrances to try and get pics of them.

  10. Hashtagwhat says:

    Wait, this weekend? Isn’t Meghan in town? Is she going?

  11. Joannie says:

    I find some of the comments appalling. Who would use their dead mother as PR? I lost my mother at a young age and would never consider using her death for sympathy or attention. It’s the thought of a sick cynical mind.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Nice try at shaming folks again. Not a sign of sick cynical mind to recognize when chains are being yanked deliberately for one PR purpose or another. Sign of people who decide for themselves instead of swallowing the pablum.

      Fact is, Diana and her death have been used for PR for years, by Charles Spencer and William in particular. Diana’s image has benefited the most from her young passing. She’s beloved and sainted unquestioningly by some; she died before her bad choices and bad PR took over fully and turned her in to Fergie 2.0

      • Joannie says:

        I partially agree with you nota when it comes to Diana making bad choices. But Wiiliam using her death for PR never! Obviously you have not lost your Mother. If some feel ashamed by my comment too bad.

      • notasugarhere says:

        William has played the Diana card since he was a teenager. Used it to get out of being photographed, to get out of working as a royal for a decade. Used it whenever he got in trouble, like the helicopter stunt in the Middleton yard followed the next day by inserting his mother into a speech last minute. Uses it to harass the press about photographs legally taken in public places.

        All you have to do is connect the dots, when and if you’re willing to see them. The one who should be ashamed is William, but he may lack the willingness to view his actions logically.

      • Joannie says:

        I find your point of view so sour and cynical. I feel sorry for you that you feel that way. I dont intend for that to be mean towards you as you have a right to your feelings. I will add this….if the RF were to be abolished how do you think you would benefit? More money being funded towards healthcare and education? More for you? I dont think that would happen. However I do think the monarchy needs to be modernized.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Not cynical, merely able to connect the dots unemotionally. No need to feel sorry for me, just as I have no need to pity someone who cannot see the forest for the trees. This is real life, not Disney.

        I think the people of the UK would be far better off with 600 million more being spent on services than on royals. Whether that stays in taxpayers pockets or goes in to collective services. Please don’t start with the “what do you want, president May?” business. There are many ways to have a government that functions without resting all power in one elected official.

      • Joannie says:

        You’re a tough one nota!

    • PrincessK says:

      They are not like us and so don’t judge them like us. You have no idea how the royal machinery works, and the people in the shadows who really pull the strings and devise the strategies.

      • Nic919 says:

        Except they constantly say they are normal and “just like us” so they need to make up their mind. The problem I have is that it is bizarre for KP to publicly announce a private ceremony days in advance and confirm the kids will be there. This comes on the heels of very bad PR from Harry’s recent interviews. Nothing is a coincidence. They have a perfect right to have a private ceremony, but maybe they should have actually kept it private. Why didn’t KP announce what Will and Kate did from the time they were as Ascot to the MI 6 visit? I mean it is private just like this visit to Diana’s memorial.

    • Sarah says:

      William and Harry would. And Kate.

  12. Wren says:

    I think both William and Harry use the Diana card frequently. Yes, it was tragic that they lost their mom at such a young age, but it was 20 years ago. Yes, I understand they will miss her all their lives but they are grown ass men now and need to stop invoking the ” poor us our mom died when we were kids. ” I think that is part of the reason Wills gave kAte the huge gaudy sapphire his mom wore and that Harry is supposedly giving Meghan a ring made from Diana’s bracelet. Because it reminds everyone, every time they see it. ” awww… Diana’s ring…”

    • notasugarhere says:

      Handing her his mother’s ring strikes me as equally cheap and creepy. Why give someone a symbol of the world’s most recognized unhappy marriage?

      • Wren says:

        I agree, as I have stated on other posts. It’s like he plans to remind everyone of Diana every time they see Kate. He could have bought her something new and untainted.

  13. A says:

    I am glad that the younger generation of royals are more open about discussing their grief. I think that’s needed. But it doesn’t help for one to vacillate solely on their grief at the expense of learning how to live their lives. I understand the damage that was done over the course of their upbringing, and I really appreciated the poignancy with which both of them discussed their mother and their process of coming to terms with her passing and the pitfalls that it involved.

    But this is a narrative that’s monopolising their lives and their public image. And at some point, people are going to ask what else/more there is to them aside from just this. And that won’t be a sympathetic public in any sense of the word, it’s going to be a group of people who are angry about the fact that their royals are using what is literally just Phoebe Bouffay’s excuse for getting the last muffin.

    • notasugarhere says:

      It is an interesting shift in perspective. Charles was publicly lambasted for being sensitive, for wanting a closer emotional relationship with his parents. He still managed to create The Prince’s Trust and get his job done.

    • LAK says:

      Can you imagine if Philip had sat about lamenting the fact that he was practically an orphan who was shunted from relative to relative and had to raise himself before he finally married the Queen?

      Would his Mountbatten relatives be so welcoming if they hadn’t realised that the 13yr old future Queen of the UK had an almighty crush on Philip and nurtured and engineered the situation so he could end up married to her?

    • msthang says:

      Wren, I don’t think he loved her that much, if he loves her at all. 10 years from now I wager he will say he never loved her just like his dad!

  14. Maria says:

    I think it’s very sad that Charles doesn’t seem to be getting any credit from his sons for taking over as a single parent and from doing his level best to make sure they were ok. He was their parent longer than Diana was, and I think it would be nice if they showed some gratitude towards him. All we’ve heard this year is how awful their lives have been without the saintly Diana. I’m not even sure he has much access to his grandkids the way those awful Middletons do.

    • LAK says:

      I agree. It’s also sad the way the narrative has been allowed to take hold that he was an awful, cold, emotionally withdrawn father. By his sons no less. The same BS Diana used to spin to make herself be seen as mother of the year.

      Then again, apart from HM and her father, all the Hanoverians have had terrible relationships with their parents, so these same sons currently saying terrible things about Charles will face the same in due course.

      • Apple says:

        @lak Do you think William and harry are lying? Maybe charles was a horrible father too them. Don’t you think William and harry knows charles best than anyone on here. maybe they were told to say he was a good father. I am not saying diana perfect but i can tell before she got with charles she loves kids Her jobs. And before charles got with diana he was selfish that’ s why he married her for kids.

  15. What's Inside says:

    Remembering their mother on her birthday is lovely.

  16. Aurelia says:

    They announced this private memorial so they could use it against their ‘official work’ tally. Duh, we know how they roll.