The absurdities of the cult of Diana, Princess of Wales stem from two main causes. First, in the apparent absence of a satisfactory religion for most of our people, she has become a figure for worship. Ludicrous ideas are voiced of her contribution to humanity, and her memory is treated with more reverence than is normally accorded to a saint.
Second, recognising this hysterical sentiment, some in the media take any excuse to feed it. One American magazine last week stopped only just short of attributing all the good in the world in recent years to the example of the late Princess. It is sometimes difficult to understand what planet these people are on.
But the celebration of the cult also provides a perfect opportunity for some mischief-makers to engage in what they imagine is the popular sport of bashing the Royal Family in general and the Prince of Wales and his second wife in particular. The row over whether the Duchess of Cornwall would attend yesterday's memorial service was unfortunate but inevitable: she was damned if she did and damned if she didn't, precisely because of the unhinged way a small but vocal minority regard Diana. Inevitably, at least one bovine pundit represented the to-ing and fro-ing over the service as being proof that Prince Charles was not fit to be king. How these two points are in any way linked I do not feel qualified, by reasons of sanity, to judge.
advertisement
The events of 10 years ago were awful principally for the Princess's two sons. They should continue to have our sincere sympathy. But the additional baggage attached to those events is now beyond a joke. I have no idea what went on in the Princess's marriage, but it is clear it was not entirely satisfactory. The attribution of blame in such cases can only ever be tenuous. What is clear - because it was played out in public, thanks to the Princess - is that she chose to parade herself as wronged, to manipulate public opinion ruthlessly, and to cause whatever damage she could to her husband and his family. Most people do not choose to ask what long-term effect this might have had on her own sons - the elder of whom will one day be head of that family - but I feel it is a legitimate question.
The late Princess has, of course, become the patron saint of that group of people of both genders who are completely self-obsessed, and whose self-obsession is fed by their belief in something called "the right to be happy". Any sane individual knows there can be no such "right": and the way she carried on with disregard to the feelings not merely of her children, but of the rest of her family, shows the selfishness with which this illusion can only be pursued. The public mania for her memory may be dressed up as lingering regard for a victim, but it is little more edifying than that exhibited a fortnight ago, when, on the 30th anniversary of his death, people paid their respects to Elvis Presley. She is just another dead glamorous celebrity.
There is a debate about whether the outpouring of grief a decade ago, and its lack of restraint, was an aberration, or signified a "change" in our national personality. I hope it was the former, but fear it was the latter. It wasn't people displaying their emotions that was the problem: it was the lack of proportion and dignity they showed in doing so. It showed just how unpleasant mass hysteria is.
But worse, it revealed an increasingly ungrounded and shallow society that can attach such significance to such things. A people that had in living memory endured the Somme and the Blitz can only have behaved like this because they were duped. Let us hope this 10-year commemoration will be the last such public event: and that those who still feel, for whatever reason, the need to mourn will now be encouraged to do so privately.