France? Never looked back! Troubles yes, but not because the people are starving whilst only the King is allowed to hunt! I don't think it was a good idea for Diana OR Charles to go public the way they did, and the Queen doesn't need to do it. Diana was only 21 or 22 when she married Charles, with no experience. She didn't know her husband had a long-term mistress that he was not going to give up. The media had more respect for privacy in those days - all America knew about the Prince of Wales and Wallis, but it was blacked out by our press - I know this from my own father who was at sea in those days, and was amazed they didn't know at home. Marj the Unrepentant > I think the freedom of the media in our lifetime has made all these events > appear more than they are. The sad thing is the Queen cannot defend herself. > I mean she can't give an interview like Diana did, spilling all. She also > knew what she was marrying into. Before the advent of on the spot media coverage etc, IT was going on, >it was just not covered as much if at all, and we plodded along happily living in ignorance. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.319 / Virus Database: 178 - Release Date: 28/01/02