I've read the discussion and thought about everyone's views a great deal, but I still do not resile from my original position, i.e. that I do not believe that the Duchess of Cornwall should attend. From all that I've read, here and in the UK, she, wise woman that she is, forsaw the difficulties and problems for her own self, but she's capitulated to her husband's 'demands'. If this is indeed so, then my sympathy for Camilla knows no bounds.
I will never not believe that the memorial service is an attempt to re-position the history books. I do not accuse Diana's sons of any untoward purpose at all, but I do think that they are being used for what I think are spurious purposes by those with an agenda. Indeed, the whole exercise seems more than spurious to me. My reasons are thus:
700 people have been invited to this service. A memorial service, so far as I'm concerned, is for those who loved and admired the deceased and to remember them with affection and spiritual nurturing. In fact, I have some experience in organising memorial services and prayers for a deceased and much-loved member of my own family, every year, on the anniversary of his death. Only those whom he loved and who loved him are invited to participate, though others have asked to be included, to no avail. Now, some who loved and admired Diana have been excluded. No matter what the reason, a memorial service, a deeply spiritual and religious event, has absolutely no place for petty paybacks, no matter what the provocation. In short, I think it uncivilized and certainly not consistent with the ultimate purpose of a memorial service.
I've read where some people are also baffled by the choice of the Bishop of London, Richard Charltres to give the memorial address. The Royal Family may well view Charltres as a safe choice, due to his long term friendship to Prince Charles. but observers have noted that Chartles barely knew the princess. There are also others in the UK, not only friends of Princess Diana, who have never understood Charltres for failing to carry out other explicit wishes for the distribution of her estate. As one of her trustees, he was bound to make sure that her "letter of wishes' was carried out. Few people know that Diana's "letter of wishes" had been struck out on a legal technicality and that,therefore, her executors, whom she absolutely trusted, failed to even attempt to do as she asked. Because people who have some knowledge about these things view Chartles as a negligent trustee, they see him as unsuitable as a memorial speaker.
Last (and this made an indelible impression on me)............
I was in London in June 2000 and walking around the Kensington Palace area. I came across a ceremony to dedicate the Diana Memorial Playground, very close to the Palace. It is a wonderful, exciting place for children, built on JM Barrie's (Peter Pan) ground, complete with an enormous pirate ship, teepees, and all sorts of inventive attractions for children. A brilliant design, in fact, which children to this day enthuse over.
About 200 people were officially present, including Earl Spencer and his children, many of Diana's friends and other family, but not one, single, solitary royal. Not one! Many of them lived within a two minute walk to the playground, I assure you. Upon enquiry as to 'why', my husband , who was able to ask such questions, was told that everyone was just too busy, including Diana's sons. (well, I wonder if they were even asked, young as they were then).
It was a sweet and an endearing occasion, with Diana's little five year old goddaughter, Domenica (Rosa Monkton's daughter) who suffers from Down's Syndrome, doing the honours and opening the playground. I'm sure that Diana would have absolutely loved that and applauded.
Thus, I remain completely skeptical about this imminent memorial service. In my sense of a Christian world, it's almost offensive to me. iI's punishing, discriminatory, vindictive, obviously political and unnecessary. The only one showing any calibre of character or sense about it is Camilla.
Please don't respond with 'if the boys want it...' They are not boys; they are grown men, one of whom cavilled at not being permitted to go to war and the other almost is the same age as his grandmother was when she assumed the throne. They are not, perhaps, as wise in the ways of the world as are the dreaded courtiers and PR proponents who dictate almost everything.
.
i enjoyed your post very much ysbel. 
