The late-summer sun shone brightly on Buckingham Palace yesterday. But the House of Windsor, like the rest of Britain, was cast in the deepest gloom. The usual throngs of tourists were augmented by armies of the disbelieving. Numbed, wretched, grieving, they turned instinctively to the palace which, through their nation's history, has so often provided the national focal point at times of both triumph and tragedy.
This time the tragedy struck at the heart of the royal family itself. And, for all the difficulties of recent years, the immediate outpouring of grief confirmed the affection and esteem in which the British public still holds Queen Elizabeth and her immediate family.
Death often brings recrimination. It cannot conceal or deny that the Prince of Wales and the late Princess, in their spectacular and all-too-public matrimonial battles, threatened to divide where monarchy's function was to unite the nation. And yesterday, there were some prepared to point an accusing finger at the royal family, reflecting the bitterness and disappointment felt still about the fairytale romance which ended a year ago in the divorce courts. But the overwhelming sentiments were of sympathy, compassion and concern - most powerfully for two young princes robbed of their devoted mother. And for Prince Charles, too: for who with a human heart could not feel his loneliness and pain as the Prince of Wales undertook the longest and most painful journey of his life - to return with the body of the beautiful young woman who would once have been his queen, and who would never now be the queen mother?
Historians and commentators were quick to compare their feelings on learning of Diana's grotesque and untimely death with their recall of the time and place when they heard of the assassination of President Kennedy. People in Britain, Ireland and across the world will similarly carry the memory of yesterday for their lifetime.
Prof Cary Cooper, a stress expert and dual American/UK citizen, suggests the impact will be even greater than the death of Kennedy, not least because we felt ourselves so familiar with every detail of Diana's life. "Diana wasn't just a national icon, the beautiful fairy princess," he said. "We identified with her as somebody who was in so many ways just like us. Not only was she compassionate but she was a person who needed love and was vulnerable, and showed her frailty, and that's all of us." And in the coming days he believes feelings of loss, guilt and anger will hit the British people like an "emotional atomic bomb".
Much of that anger may well be directed at the media. Within hours of the late princess's death the debate about privacy legislation and press regulation was in full swing. Foreign Secretary Robin Cook first raised the spectre of privacy laws, when he said: "In the longer term, serious questions will have to be asked whether the aggressive intrusion into her privacy has contributed to this tragedy." And Diana's grieving brother, Earl Spencer, fuelled the debate when he declared that proprietors and editors who had paid for intrusive pictures had "blood on their hands".
A number of Labour MPs called for a fresh look at the privacy issue, but Sir Teddy Taylor MP, a fervent Diana supporter, said a privacy provision would be "a pointless nonsense". He added: "The only way in which this horrific, nasty and intrusive practice would cease would be if the public at large made clear that they do not like newspapers which engage in this kind of business."
Editors and others observed that notoriously tight French privacy laws had not prevented the paparazzi chase which may have led to the fatal car crash. And while ministers were under immediate pressure, 10 Downing Street discouraged the search for instant answers or solutions. That cautious approach underlined Mr Tony Blair's support until now for self-regulation.
The belief in official circles is that the self-regulatory system will survive, although there are tentative suggestions that Britain's new anti-stalking legislation might be used to curb the activities of the paparazzi. That said, the political disposition could yet be shifted by a fresh wave of public revulsion at news that photographs of Diana entangled in the wreckage of the car in which she died are being touted around the world at an asking price of one million dollars.
Further down the line, the focus will switch to the impact of Diana's death on public support for the monarchy and, in particular, for Prince Charles's eventual succession. The succession, like the constitution, is unaffected by the tragedy: the death of King Charles before his son William comes of age would create the need for the appointment of a Regent. But the death of a consort has no implications. Indeed the striking message of yesterday, as Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles and his two sons went to church at Balmoral, was that the business of royalty goes on. Whatever their personal pain, "duty" remained to be done - even by the 15-year-old who will one day succeed to the throne.
It will have struck many as bizarre, confirming - were confirmation needed - that the British royals are not like the rest of us. But for all that we can trivialise the lives of the stars in the royal soap opera, the ritual which public grief and sentiment will demand in the coming days confirms, at the same time, that people don't want them to be mere mortals.
Before this tragedy there were human, as well as constitutional and ecclesiastical questions, about what the people could reasonably expect of Prince Charles in the aftermath of his divorce from Diana.
Could he remarry and remain Head of the Church of England? Would Disestablishment follow? Whatever the legalities, would the public ever accept Mrs ParkerBowles in Diana's place?
The prince has previously denied any interest in remarrying. At the same time a concerted, if discreet, campaign appeared under way to win public approval for his relationship with Mrs Parker-Bowles. And constitutional experts said yesterday that the way is clear for Charles, as a widower, to remarry should he wish. One expert, Michael De La Noy, said: "By her death Diana has made the future for the Prince of Wales easier to handle." And royal watchers suggested that Mrs ParkerBowles's status as a divorcee would not be an impediment to an eventual civil ceremony followed by a church blessing.
But such theories allow nothing for the condition of the human heart, the deep tragedy which has been inflicted on Prince Charles, the torment he will know, and the apprehension and awesome responsibility he must feel as he turns to secure and bolster his heart-broken sons. Rebuilding their shattered lives will be the greatest royal duty now.
