I think some people are confusing things here:
Noone ever questioned either the pain of the family or their right to grief privately. It was THEM who first talked about letting the public in to pay their respects in the farewell ceremony. My understanding is that they were talking about the funeral, not any event that would follow in Michael's memory -a concert or whatever. So, it was their words that the final farewell would be somehow accessible to the public. Precisely, however, because I understand that the final moments are theirs and only theirs, I realize that the burial would have to be separate, and private. Noone ever questioned that.
All we said is why don't they try to combine these two as it happens when such great people are leaving -and I mentioned Diana. Where you had the religious service at the centre of London with thousands crowding across the streets, and the burial at her paternal estate and away from any journalist or public. That's what I had in mind.
As for the body, it was never a matter of 'excitement' for anyone if it was present at the service. It's just the norm that in farewell-services people say goodbye to the remains as well. It is a way of paying respects -at least in the Christian tradition, to which I belong.
I repeat, an arrangement like that which has ocurred in other cases of great people deceased I think would combine both the privacy needed by the family and the ability that outsiders ask to participate.
And I'm not faulting the family solely. They seemed undecided for days, but now it's also the fault of the police that is refusing to make it easier for us. this is unprecedented -the first time an authority comes out and tells people to mourn somebody "from their homes", essentially forbidding them to pay farewell publicly. If it is a matter of money, then the family should have contributed and made it easier.
Either way, I hope they all reconsider and it changes..
