It's a relief to see sanity on this thread, when we're once more being shown footage of people gathering around the gates of Kensington palace to cry ostentatiously.
I note that today, a BBC journalist has been condemned by a newspaper for noting, on his personal social media account, that he finds the Diana anniversary antics mawkish and that he's bored of hearing about her. How dare he express his own opinions, eh? Mind you, that newspaper (The Express) has been using pictures of Diana to sell copies ever since she died, so allowing somebody to dismiss her as an irrelevance isn't good business sense. Far better for journalists to behave like that awful lickspittle Jennie Bond, who is still churning out Diana-related titbits, right?
Somebody noted upthread that 20 years ago, only 25% of people professed themselves unaffected by Diana's death. Well, I don't remember being surveyed, but I was affected by her death in 1997 all right, just not in the way I was supposed to be.
I was annoyed at being co-opted into the ludicrous, and imaginary, 'national mood' that had supposedly gripped the nation. I was sick of wall to wall Diana coverage. I was angry that shops etc. closed on the day of the funeral because of some spurious notion of 'people power'. I was astonished that anybody would spend even ten seconds listening to that arse of a brother, let alone allowing him to make that excruciating speech at the funeral and suggesting that we, the rabble, might be roused to revolt by it. As if!
More than anything, I was chilled by the way in which any dissenting voices challenging the "you WILL cry over our queen of hearts, and the real queen WILL do as we say!" doctrine were ruthlessly shouted down and censored (including Private Eye being removed from sale). I found it scary: I couldn't understand the behaviour of those people at all, as if they had been taken over by aliens!
I have some idiots in my family (sorry to be blunt, but, you know, they are). In particular, in 1997 one aunt and cousin started lobbying for one of the ridiculous 'books of condolence' to be opened in the cathedral of the northern city they lived in, and as soon as it happened, gaily skipped down to join the queue to sign it, crying for hours with strangers with whom they struck up conversations. They had a marvellous time, leeching off the grief of the family and friends of a woman they had never met or even seen in the flesh. It was bizarre. My theory is, they wanted to feel part of something and wanted an excuse to cry about their own woes. Pair of bloody ghouls.
I had my own views on Diana when she was alive, and they weren't positive. I particularly remember her, post divorce, going to a glamorous dinner and humanitarian awards event in the US, where Henry Kissinger (who was accused of committing war crimes, amongst other things, but let's not mention that, shall we?), gave a speech in Diana's honour in front of a fawning crowd, saying that she had "allied herself with the poor and sick", whilst Diana sat there in her couture dress and diamonds, simpering. It was in every newspaper and it was shown on the TV news. Something about that doesn't sit right with me, I'm afraid. What about the people who were out there doing the real work with the poor and sick? And, why did Diana's rather limited charitable efforts require such ostentatious recognition? It was sickening.