Their criticism of Princess Diana is no radical assessment of a woman of privilege in the late 20th century. They belong to what one might refer to as the `old school', where children are smacked into submission and like them, women are seen but not heard, and have no time for modern scientific research on human behaviouror the accepted tenets of psychology. Reverend Mullen summed it up when he told the press that the Princess was ``infantile''. He said: ``How else do you describe the behaviour of anyone who goes on hunger strike and throws herself down stairs -- if she was a child of yours you would give her a smack.''

Setting aside the rather retrograde assumptions behind the O'Hear-Mullen book, it must be said that it is the first unabashed critique of Diana since her death. The hysteria generated by her death and her elevation by the government as a symbol of the nation, has made it largely unacceptable to offer an alternative view of the Princess. And as a result people of rather differing ideologies have used the publication of the book to voice criticism both the reaction to the Princess's death and put her life into some sort of context.

Senior Labour MP Gerald Kauffman said, that the death of a young woman, especially one who left behind two young children was sad by any standard, but that the ``... country tookleave of its senses the day Princess Diana died.'' He said, ``When you look at the Dunblane massacre (in which 16 primary school children were gunned down), and compare that with this extraordinary wave of self-indulgent mush which swept this country, then it seems to me the sense of proportion had been lost.'' Others accept that while the Princess did a lot for the charities she supported, this was after all the least one could expect from an individual who lived off the tax-payer simply because of whom she had married.

Professor O'Hear and Reverend Mullen, however, approach the issue from the opposite end of the spectrum. Their denunciation of Diana is that she did not adequately understand the role allocated to her by birth and marriage. Diana is only the symbol of what they say is ``decadent'' in Britain. Their critique encapsulates every aspect of British life from politics through to religion. They say, ``today's Britain is not `modern', let alone `cool'. It is a fake society with fake institutions.''Both men are firmly rooted in a tradition that rates the stiff upper lip and its attendant attributes -- duty, loyalty, hierarchy and formality -- above all else.

Professor O'Hear said a lot of people like Diana because, ``she encapsulates attitudes which are very widespread in contemporary Britain."