Friends and admirers of Princess Diana have defended her against a controversial new book published yesterday which brands her a muddled, self-obsessed woman who damaged the monarchy, her children and herself.
In Faking It - The Sentimentalisation of Modern Society, Bradford University philosophy professor, Mr Anthony O'Hear, denounces Princess Diana as a symbol of a `fake Britain' which has abandoned reason in favour of cheap sentimentality.
The book, which is published by the Social Affairs Unit, a rightwing think-tank, depicts a Britain where politics, arts, religion and even eating habits are dominated by the same self-indulgence and hollow emotion.
Its editors say: "Today's Britain is not `modern', let alone `cool'. It is a fake society with fake institutions.
"The society's defining moment was Princess Diana's funeral, in which sentimentality - mob grief - was personified and canonised, the elevation of feelings above reason, reality and restraint."
Prof O'Hear describes the princess as a woman who "lacked understanding of her public role" and says the rest of the royal family had to put up with her "childlike self-centredness".
He writes: "In the Diana story, duty is a notion which is entirely absent.
"Nor in the version according to Diana and the tabloids are we even to entertain the thought that Diana's obsession with her own feelings and her self-development might have done damage to the monarchy, to her marriage, to her children and ultimately to herself."
He concedes that Princess Diana did good through her charity work, but says even that was driven largely by sentimentality.
The former Tory minister, Lord St John of Fawsley, described the book as "a farrago of prejudiced nonsense".
He said: "The Princess of Wales is one of the great figures of our time.
"Her appeal lay precisely in that she elevated feeling to the highest position. That is why people responded to her - they knew she really cared."
A spokesman for the British Red Cross, whose campaign to ban landmines the princess supported, said: "Because of the nature of the weapons, it was difficult to avoid confronting the suffering of the victims, which some people might mistake for trying to get sentimental over the issue, but they would be wrong."