VERITY LUSH: Princes’ grief compounded by public hysteria over Diana

Verity says the paparazzi wouldn't have been able to sell their photos if the public hadn't lapped them up     Picture:PA
Verity says the paparazzi wouldn't have been able to sell their photos if the public hadn't lapped them up Picture:PA
Have your say

It is nearly 20 years since the death of Diana and blame is still being bandied about.

Having watched the documentary, Diana, 7 Days, it became apparent that this will probably continue forever.

What did the grief of the public have to do with William and Harry?

Members of the public were featured who spoke to the press, blaming the media for her death.

Ironically, many of these were also the ones baying for the royal family to return to London, pronto.

There was a true sense that the royals were shameful by grieving in private, with no true regard for the young princes who had lost their mother.

The hypocrisy of this was missed by all who pointed the finger.

Yes, the Queen should have addressed the nation sooner, but the boys should have been allowed to grieve in total privacy, or whatever it was they felt like doing.

According to William, that entailed hiding in a room and having a jolly good sob, or several.

Hear, hear.

Having lost my dad when I was 12, I can’t comprehend the horror of having to come out to appease a manic public.

To face the open hysteria of those who never knew the deceased, and who claim to give a hoot about you and your grief, but were really thinking only of themselves, and a woman they’d never even met.

What did the grief of the public have to do with William and Harry?

It’s all well and good, and a source of comfort once the shock begins to ease, to know that people loved your dead parent, but what on earth were some people thinking?

Blaming the media and the paparazzi – who wouldn’t be able to charge a fortune for photos if the public hadn’t been willing to pay for the newspapers – and saying Diana deserved her privacy, but then denying the grieving family their privacy in order to have the tears and snot of strangers smeared on their young hands.

It is no good looking for blame, blame lies everywhere in a million tiny beats of a butterfly’s wing.

It was true empathy that was amiss two decades ago, and probably still is.


Iwonder how many people, looking back now to 1997, are shocked by the way in which our mourning as a nation gained rapid momentum and nearly, in the opinions of many, toppled a monarchy?

Was it really all for Diana, or did it give some an outlet for pent-up grief or other emotions that they had, until then, repressed?

Some people claimed to have grieved more for Diana than their own parents or partners.

This can’t possibly be ‘true’ grief. Perhaps, instead, the public acceptance of all genders, ages and demographics of human, weeping in public,

allowed those who had not allowed themselves to fully mourn a loved one, to do so now, tapping into feelings that lay buried.


Isaw the headline for the new series of Doctor Foster, which claimed if we thought she was ‘crazy before’, that was nothing compared to what this series would bring.

Unless I am remembering it wrongly, the character was anything but crazy. She was suspicious, and each suspicion was proved correct.

Females have always been thought to be bonkers because we have wombs and hormones, men have painted strong women as ‘insane’, or ‘unstable’.

The ‘hysteria’ in ‘hysterectomy’ is not accidental. Challenge the alpha-male and that can’t be ‘normal’ – you must be unhinged.

What some people seem unable to take responsibility for, is a legitimate and strong reaction to a wrong-doing they have committed.