NEVER have so many flowers been sold in a single week. Never have so many cuddly toys spent cold nights out in London. And rarely has there been such a national and international reaction to a single death. So just what can explain this bizarre reaction to the death of Diana Spencer?
Before you turn the page in expectation of a stereotypical lefty rant about how royalty deserve a sticky end (how many more to go?), I should point out that when I awoke early on Sunday August 31 to the news of Diana's death I was genuinely shocked and saddened.
Yes, you read it correctly, saddened.
To explain why I felt this way and why thousands of others went much further (no I didn't go to the funeral or queue to sign a remembrance book) it is worth examining just what Diana was, and equally importantly what she represented.
Such an examination may also serve as a partial antidote to the Saint Diana iconography that is rapidly being established.
Of course, Diana was a member of the Royal Family and the mother of the heir to the throne of the British monarchy. However it was precisely her estrangement from this hierarchy that appears to have caught the public mood.
When her brother spoke at the funeral of her not needing a royal title his words were greeted by a spontaneous outburst of applause (at a Royal funeral of all places).
The criticism of the Queen by the quietly thronging masses ourside the palaces was also testament to the fact that the Royal Family was being harshly judged for shunning Diana - there was even muted talk about blame for her death.
At the same time Diana's oft quoted work for 'good causes' (leprosy, AIDS, land mines, sick children) fits perfectly with the Blairite spirit of 1997. It explains why, although his words were carefully prepared, Blair's emotions may actually have been spontaneous.
It also now seems that Diana had accepted an offer from Blair to be a roving ambassador for the British government. All of this speaks volumes for both parties in this arrangement.
The politics are those of "doing good deeds", of personal morality, a hand of friendship and so on. A substantial helping of Christian ethics is of course a vital ingredient in New Labour's programme of sound bites.
It is also the very definition of the saintly Mother Teresa whose passing was (thankfully) almost forgotten in Britain in the wake of Diana's demise.
So we were faced, in the aftermath of Diana's death with a hefty dose of Christian morality at a time of continually falling church attendances, and apparent grief for a royal at time of unprecedented unpopularity for the royal family.
These ironies may pale into significance alongside the popular notion of Diana as a victim and a martyr. Careful remembrance of the last few years will reveal that the Princess had become a shrewd maCarving out a new role for herself after making the break from the Windsors: but not many people really knew Diana nipulator of the popular press and had single-handedly elevated herself to the position of the "princess of the people' in comparison to the evil mother in law who spurned her.
Now I don't intend to indulge in speculation about the trouble and strife in the Windsor household: but it is also obvious that Diana was badly treated by the notoriously odious Liz and Phil, not to the mention the spiteful Queen Mother', and yes, her husband cheated on her.
This must have been painful. But thousands go through this and are unable to rise from their grief in the way that Diana was able to - the fact that she was mother of a potential future king and a member of the aristocracy in her own right had a lot to do with this.
While thousands of womei struggle for independence from partners who have mistreated them, Diana's independence was given to her on a plate. In fact her displeaspriced for a fast buck.
No doubt Diana's crusade against land mines will save lives and socialists should support this initiative.
But Diana, just a few days before her death, denied being involved in 'politics' after she had allegedly criticised the Tories.
So her much vaunted liberal leanings certainly had their limits, and this is hardly surprising given her social position. Yet in an incredibly illiberal British establishment Diana must have been a step too far. But for capitalism she was a friendly face just like Tony Blair and the star of the funeral, Elton John.
The involvement of Elton John in this saga is also telling. As an out gay man who has struggled to come to terms with his sexuality, Diana must have been provided perfect sanctitude.
Acceptance amongst the highest reaches of the establishment. Diana's supposed advocacy for gay rights (support for AIDS sufferers is not the same thing) therefore fits with the great strides that are being made to incorporate a gay sexuality into modern day capitalism.
In this way it is possible to see Diana as a perfect part player for a new generation of capitalist leaders - the generation of Blair, Branson and Bill Clinton.
Underneath the sentiment the persecution of lesbians and gay men continues, just as women's oppression is hardly helped in reality by the graceful leap from the clutches of her family that Diana so skillfully managed.
You may be thinking that all this simply misses the point that thousands of people - many of them not royalists or capitalists - mourned the death of Diana or that in the first few hours of Sunday August 31 I did, too.
But the image of Diana was a pungent opiate against the dour grind of Monday to Friday. A omnipotent figure (and it is always surprising when such figures are suddenly cut down) who appeared to be persecuted and who fought back with a vengeance.
She appeared to support progressive causes that were ignored by other royals and by the Tories. Who better to identify with than a former bulimia sufferer who had conquered her pain and asserted her independence?
Just as people cry when characters die in soap operas, then people cried when Diana died. As many have commented, we did not know Diana, not in person - but this really isn't the point.
If we project our pain and get some relief, then just as we know our pain we know the pain of the person onto whom we project our pain. We "know" Diana to the extent that we know ourselves.
And there is precisely the problem. In this TV culture it is easier when tired and emotional to look to the actions of others rather than to our own actions - this what analysts have traditionally called a defensive reaction.
So the reaction to Diana's death may partly reflect a change in the balance of power in the British monarchy. It may help to usher in a new age of royalty to fit with the project of a new capitalism and a new world order.
These are the battles amongst the ruling class for control, and it is clear that the old establishment has suffered enormously both through Diana's life and death. Should we rejoice at such a change? Well rejoicing would overlook the fact that these are not our battles.
Should we continue to cry over this death? No for this is not our life, this is not our pain and while we would love the capitalists to be our friends the harsh truth remains that capital only values you for your labour power and kills thousands of people a day in its selfish quest for greater profits.
I cried briefly for Diana - as any loss of a life is regrettable. While