In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (it would be hard for anyone to make themselves quite as ugly as HM.
FFS Gordon, this kind of comment really isn't the kind of thing I'd expect from a man of your intelligence. Or have you taken to only reading good-looking writers these days?
> It was just cheap and nasty and little more than easy point-scoring among trendy cynics, IMHO.
Erm, have you actually read the article to see what it's all about? Have any of the other commentators on here?
Anyhow, it's very interesting and also sympathetic to the Royals, in some respects. If you can't be arsed, here's a quote from the piece:
"Adulation can swing to persecution, within hours, within the same press report: this is what happened to Prince Harry recently. You can understand that anybody treated this way can be destabilised, and that Harry doesn’t know which he is, a person or a prince. Diana was spared, at least, the prospect of growing old under the flashbulbs, a crime for which the media would have made her suffer...
"Cheerful curiosity can easily become cruelty. It can easily become fatal. We don’t cut off the heads of royal ladies these days, but we do sacrifice them, and we did memorably drive one to destruction a scant generation ago...I’m not asking for censorship. I’m not asking for pious humbug and smarmy reverence. I’m asking us to back off and not be brutes."
Now tell me, how is this being nasty to the monarchy?