"Serial adulteress"? Sorry, but are we to infer that that her husband's having conducted an ongoing affair with just *one* woman confers some sort of morl superiority? Don't get me wrong, I was never virulently pro or con Diana OR Charles (as if either of them could be arsed to care what we think, anyway!), but fair is fair!

To my mind, the important thing is that she was by all accounts a loving mother; how can that ever be a bad thing? That her now adult sons sought to honour her memory by putting on a charity concert in her name seems a testament to the affection she inspired in them, and their recognition of the affection--regardless of what anyone may think of it in re: commemorative plates, mugs, etc--that she clearly inspired in others as well.

Why should anyone care who she slept with? Who can really say that they'd be 100% comfortable with having their personal lives examined under a microscope? She was human, for chrissake: flawed, weak, subject to heat and cold, apparently not the sharpest knife in the drawer in many ways, but hardly Medusa. The fact that she *did* use some of the media spotlight in which she lived to bring attention to worthy causes is laudable, regardless of what her motivation may or may not have been. I agree with the above post to the effect that her humanising influence on her sons may have a positive impact on how the British view the royal family that, no matter how the anti-monarchists may fulminate, they remain clearly attached to.

~D