When Diana died, a curmudgeonly friend who was about 65 at the time commented on the mourning crowds, "It's like watching the Romans turn into Italians."

Her public career, and the reaction to her death, demonstrated that the English national character had changed deeply in the 60 years since the end of World War II. The old structure of deference hadn't just collapsed politically; it had collapsed psychologically. The upper and middle class principle of "stiff upper lip," and its working class counterpart "mustn't grumble," had been replaced by a popular culture of open emotionalism and what one might call entitlement to happiness. Diana didn't create it, but she shared it with the people who mourned her. Her conspicious sharing of their feelings (hardly thoughts) and desires is why they mourned her.

Of course, such a culture is neither willing nor able to dominate anyone. It is the negation of the old English culture symbolized by Diana's ex-in laws, that successfully predatory alliance between landowning aristocracy and businessmen that grabbed the Empire in the 18th and 19th centuries and defended it one last time in the 20th. The old English governing class lost its political, cultural and moral authority once the Empire collapsed in exhaustion and bankruptcy after World War II. It took about two generations for the process to be completed.

Somewhere between the arrival of Lend Lease in 1941 and the fiasco of Suez in 1956, the English learnt not only to believe in but to embrace their own fecklessness and incapacity. I think I'm All Right Jack is a good marker for the beginning of the trend. They have consoled themselves that they were much nicer people than the appallingly energetic and aggressive Americans who supplanted them. See Four Weddings, Sliding Doors, Love Actually and Bridget Jones I for commercially successful movies based on this English self-image of amiable passivity faced with American energy. Tony Blair was popular when he played to it; he fell from grace when he decided, anachronistically, that the UK ought to impose its will on someone by armed force.

That was the other thing my old friend the curmudgeon said about Diana's funeral: "Hitler would have gone through these people like crap through a goose."

unitl, as we always do, we came to our senses and woke up. But isn't that the way it always is?

Otherwise Argentina would have the "Malvinas", Sierra Leone would still be run by gangsters, we would be scared to use the tube and the taliban would be in charge of Helmand province.

For all the media driven gushing emotion surrounding Di's death, nothing really has changed. We are still the same muddling through bunch that we ever were.

As for the old English governing class, its debateable that it was more the slaughter of WW1 that did for them than the collapse of empire following WW2.

I doubt that anyone like Thatcher could be PM of the present day UK. The Falklands War was the last, post-mortem reflex of what had been. Sierra Leone is something else -- a use of force acceptable only because it is altruistic and does not involve any possible profit. The British are no longer a ruling people and don't want to be.

WWI was indeed the beginning of the downfall, or rather WWI coupled with the onset of democracy after 1910. I think of 1922 as a good turning point. Lloyd George had to accept un the USSR, in Turkey and finally in Ireland because the public simply wouldn't pay to go on fighting. When he fell, Curzon, the strongest figure in the Tory party, declined the Prime Ministership because, he said, it was impossible any longer for a PM to sit in the Lords instead of the Commons. At that point, it is fair to say, the days of the old British governing class were numbered, and its survival was at the sufferance of a public opinion.

My mother was born in Canada, and my father spent his first 9 years there. Every time I visited relatives in Montreal, (in the 1950s and early 1960s, before the French took over), I had the thrilling feeling I was visiting "Little England". (Reading, later, that Imperial England had considered Canada to be the "First Daughter" of the Empire, thrilled me immensely!) As a deeply romantic girl and adolescent, (and profound admirer of QE II.....who, I knew, was far more powerful than all the little male-chauvinists in my first and second grade classes put together....hurrah!), I took -- and still take -- a great interest in all English affairs, and history....and especially in English royalty, past and present. After all, the "American Dream" is to live as well as possible, (without, hopefully, hurting anyone else).....and who lives in better circumstances than the English (and perhaps other) Royal families? I believe most American, (and other?) admirers of the Royals today feel the way I do....NOT slavish adoration, (although Her Majesty, as a human being, has certainly earned that, in spades....as did her father, King George VI).......but simply as a model of the "good life", which we ambitious "wannabees" would truly want to live and emulate!

What you mention about Diana is very true. I have read that the "sticking point" between Diana and the other Royals was that Diana wanted the focus of the Royal Family to change, from that of being "National Icons", to being simply "Celebrities". Although I have also read somewhere, of someone (unkindly?) describing the profession of the Royals as being "performance artists", in my own heart, I believe they are far more. They are the symbol, for better or worse, of what the country of England, the nation of Great Britain, and the wider British Commonwealth, is all about. I have also read that the Royal Family is to Britain, what the Flag is to the United States. Yes...there's a lot of truth in that, but flags, of course, do not have scandals, and do not have self-propelled moments of deep triumph.....such as the Queen had, when, all alone, she calmly talked to the intruder who hae entered her bedroom -- and neither screamed nor fainted -- until help could be summoned. THIS showed the true character of rhe person who now occupies the British Throne as no ceremony ever could. She shows that the "best" of Britain did NOT die with her mother! It continues on with Queen Elizabeth II......and will, I daresay, also continue with Prince William, when he becomes William V! (Perhaps, also, with the intervening Prince Charles, when he becomes King Charles III.....as I suspect he has learnt much from both his tumultuous relationship with Diana, (and the Press and People), and also, I suspect, from the simple kind-heartedness, empathy, and earnestness, of his own son and heir, Prince William. ( Not believing what I had heard -- that Prince William really would prefer NOT to become King -- I bought several books and read up on him. My conclusions? William is indeed a role-model for the entire World to follow -- and I agree with so many others who say that, should (the unthinkable happen and) Britian become a republic, that William would, indeed, have an excellent chance of becoming its first President. (Another exemplary Royal, King Simeon II of Bulgaria, held power as Prime Minister of that country for quite some time!)

Are people today softer and more loving of "creature comforts" than they were during World War II? Yes. For those who lived through WWII also, in great numbers, lived through the Great Depression. They know/knew what hardship is.....and were willing to risk it, for the greater goal of freedom.

However.....with such leadership as Prince William's in Britain's future, and such recent tragedies as "9/11" in the memory of today's generation, I feel that people in Britain -- as well as those in the rest of the world -- will once more rally when danger strikes, (as they already have, with Britain and others giving troops for the War in Iraq, at this very moment!)

Diana's legacy -- and that of her son's -- is that the English, I feel, will no longer fight for "King and Contry". They will, however, fight (and fight vigourously), for "Ourselves, Country and King". As more and more people feel they are NOT "getting above themselves", by ambitiously aiming for the best, (not only for aristocrats....but for EVERYONE....themselves included), they will nonetheless look still for leadership -- INCLUSIVE leadership, such as Prince William seems to proudly espouse. Diana -- his mother -- aristocratic, but not, before her marriage, royal -- taught him the true value of honouring everyone, no matter what their social or economic status, and to judge people individually, on their own merits, no matter what their class. The actor Michael Caine totally refused to change his own Cockney accent, for a more "posh" one, reasoning that the accent of his parents was as good as anyone else's. He is now Sir Michael Caine, has had an extemely distinguished career.....and actors with Cockney accents are no longer relegated to stereotyped, comedic-relief roles. Television, radio, and computers have opened the world to everyone....yes, the world has changed considerably since WWII.

Are people more lazy now? Yes. But we still love freedom! With such leadership as Prince William promises to give, and our own intense desires to KEEP our freedoms, AND our creature comforts, any new would-be World Dictator will have a great and troubling war on his (or her) hands.....as Osma Bin Laden is now finding out! Hitler would NOT go through us like "crap through goo". HE WOULD, INSTEAD, SLIP AND FALL! Woe betide anyone who would take our comforts away from us in 2007......and beyond! "9/11" has taught us much. As a native New Yorker, I know this is true. As an American, I know this is true. As a citizen of the Western World, I know this is true. As a person who values my freedom and my creature comforts, I know this is true. Today, we are not sloths....although we may seem that way. We are porcupines. Leave us alone to live our own lives, our own way, and all will be well. But if you disturb us......!!!!!!!

How I wish that Prince William's great-grandfather, George VI, the brave and admirable King during WWII, were alive today. He would not only be incredibly proud of his daughter....but also of his great-grandson. The spirit of pride, and of liberty -- for ourselves, as well as for our leaders -- lives today, as I hope it always shall!

I can't believe that anyone would think that Diana's impact on our world was overblown. She awakened all of us to causes that we didn't even think about until she was able to bring them to our attention by using the media just as they used her. I was in bootcamp in the US Navy when she died. The bootcamp Commander stopped or day of training to announce Diana's death even though we were not supposed to have any news from outside of the walls of bootcamp. Yet her death was deemed important enough to stop us all in our tracks and the rest of the day's activities were cancelled so we could go to the on base chapel etc. So if a US military base full of 17 and 18 year old kids were mourning Diana's death I think that speaks volumes. Think about the fact that if she had ended up with Dodi and was in fact pregnant that she may well have become a legitimate peacekeeping figure between the Muslim countries and the rest of the world. Considering the exposure she brought to any other cause she campaigned for imagine the exposure she would have brought to issues pre- 9-11. She also made it possible for public figures ie; Angelina Jolie to go into countries with photographers and bring attention to important issues world wide. So was her legacy overblown...No. Without her legacy would we still be concerned with land mines, etc...No. So we should be thanking people for keeping her memory alive so that we may all remeber all the great causes she lended her hand to and think about what we can do to help the way she would have.

Have a listen to my song "Death of a Princess". I think it sums things up quite nicely. Prince William and Prince Harry loved it. Now to only hear from Charles or the Queen would be nice.

<link>