Emily Sheffield, Joe Powell, Anna Firth & Eleanor Mills

It's from James in Surbiton.

He says, whose side are you on, Charles or Charles? Anna Firth.

Well, I'm on Diana's side, actually, because I'm one of those people who thought that I thought that I was quite young at the time and I thought Diana was wonderful.

I thought she was a breath of fresh air.

And I think it's just time to respect her memory.

And I think this is just a blatant attempt to commercialise events.

I think there's been plenty said and written about her already.

And I think, you know, her sons are still alive at Her son is going to become the future king.

And frankly, I just don't see what good comes out of a book like this.

So I'm on Diana's side.

And also King Charles's, it

seems.

Well, I think of myself as, I just think about those sons, particularly William, and how is this actually going to help them? I mean, people say you never get over these sorts of events.

How is this going to bring any more closure to them? than they've already had.

It's not.

It's just going to stir up memories.

It's going to do no good.

And I just think, why don't we just remember Diana for those fantastic things she did do? The image of her being the first person to embrace someone with HIV.

The images of her doing things about landmines.

Why don't we just celebrate the person she was rather than all this digging up the past?

Helen.

I don't think that's answering the question at all, is it? You asked about Charles, kind of V.

Charles.

I actually wrote in the Telegraph last week, I wrote a column about saying that I actually thought that Charles Spencer was right to say that it was barbaric for the boys to have to walk

behind

It's from James in Surbiton.

He says, whose side are you on, Charles or Charles? Anna Firth.

Well, I'm on Diana's side, actually, because I'm one of those people who thought that I thought that I was quite young at the time and I thought Diana was wonderful.

I thought she was a breath of fresh air.

And I think it's just time to respect her memory.

And I think this is just a blatant attempt to commercialise events.

I think there's been plenty said and written about her already.

And I think, you know, her sons are still alive at Her son is going to become the future king.

And frankly, I just don't see what good comes out of a book like this.

So I'm on Diana's side.

And also King Charles's, it

seems.

Well, I think of myself as, I just think about those sons, particularly William, and how is this actually going to help them? I mean, people say you never get over these sorts of events.

How is this going to bring any more closure to them? than they've already had.

It's not.

It's just going to stir up memories.

It's going to do no good.

And I just think, why don't we just remember Diana for those fantastic things she did do? The image of her being the first person to embrace someone with HIV.

The images of her doing things about landmines.

Why don't we just celebrate the person she was rather than all this digging up the past?

Helen.

I don't think that's answering the question at all, is it? You asked about Charles, kind of V.

Charles.

I actually wrote in the Telegraph last week, I wrote a column about saying that I actually thought that Charles Spencer was right to say that it was barbaric for the boys to have to walk

behind