`Everything to do with Diana is complicated," Queen Elizabeth is reported to have confided to a courtier in the 1980s, and those who would see her as either saint or sinner fail to understand the paradox at the heart of this woman, the confusion that made her who she was. She was bright but uneducated, a volatile mix, likely to explode at any time, dangerous both to herself and to those around her.
In the early hours of August 31st last year, this explosive mix detonated, causing a seismic shift in the structure of British society. When the two little princes were shown attending Crathie Church, just outside the gates of Balmoral where the Windsors were on holiday, the shock was palpable. That these children should be subjected to public scrutiny at this terrible time beggared belief.
It was left to a politician to find the popular pulse. And in designating Diana "the people's princess" Tony Blair, rather than the monarchy, became the beacon that shone the way through the communal grief. The newly elected British prime minister had already recognised Diana's potential in bestowing on his government the feel-good glow of her humanitarian halo and plans were well-advanced to develop a roving-ambassador role for her.
Tony Blair's immediate return to London from his Sedgefield constituency in the north-east of England contrasted grimly with what was happening at Balmoral where among other crass decisions, it was rumoured Prince Phillip saw no reason to cancel the barbecue planned for the evening of Diana's death. The dearth of Union Jacks among the tributes and flowers left outside Kensington and Buckingham Palace reflected public anger at the perceived lack of compassion.
It was Blair who persuaded the queen that her presence in London was necessary and that a "people's" funeral was essential. There were other concessions to the masses: the lowering of the royal standard; the family standing outside Buckingham Palace gates as the funeral cortege passed; the absence of protocol inside the abbey. But as the congregation took up the applause from outside that greeted Earl Spencer's controversial speech, no one, least of all the queen and Prince Charles was left in any doubt that something had to be done.
Twelve months on, and all has changed. The key is Prince Charles, who for all his stiffness and formality had done the decent thing and gone to Paris to accompany his ex-wife's body back to England. And the image of him hand-in-hand with Prince Harry as they walked together along the river of flowers in front of Kensington Palace belied the myth of the uncaring father.
And it was a myth. Ever since the publication of Andrew Morton's Diana Her True Story (which we now know was her de facto autobiography) Charles has been cast as the villain: the insensitive husband who never even loved her in the first place, who only married her because she was a virgin, who betrayed her from the earlier days of their marriage, who was an emotional cripple and who was not a good father. With her Bambi eyes and undoubted personal charisma, Diana had no trouble convincing the Great British Public - via a male-dominated press - that her version of events was the right one. Nothing Prince Charles did could counter her power. Certainly not the Dimbleby biography which was specifically designed to focus on his work for The Prince's Trust, and unlike the Morton book, made no disparaging noises about his wife's behaviour.
Yet now she has gone, a more objective picture has begun to emerge. The princess was a drama queen. (No one tries to commit suicide by throwing themselves down stairs.) She was highly manipulative and a practised liar, as addicts usually are. (Bulimia is an addiction like any other.) As soon as she realised the power she had over the press - certainly by the mid-1980s - she began to organise her diary in order to ensure high-profile press coverage on occasions when by rights the limelight should have been on Charles. Upstaging her husband was a habit she continued right up until she died. "I'm a great believer that you should always confuse the enemy," she told Martin Bashir during the Panorama interview. And confuse them she did.
By 1991, Diana was determined that the sham of the marriage should become public. If she was to emerge unscathed, then the fault had to be all his. In June, shortly before her 30th birthday and when she had already begun negotiations with Andrew Morton, Prince William was hit with a golf club. Both parents were informed and both went along to Great Ormond Street hospital.
While Diana stayed for the operation, Charles left the hospital to go to the opera, a long-standing commitment with a foreign delegation. And so, with tabloid co-operation, the myth of the uncaring father was born.
It was easy to believe. The stilted portraits of deer-stalking Dad with his two little clones compared ill with the snaps of Mum and the boys getting soaked on a roller coaster. Even Earl Spencer believed it. "We, your blood family, will do all we can to continue the imaginative and loving way . . . so that their souls are not simply immersed by duty and tradition."
But it is their father who in recent months has shown imagination. There was the trip to South Africa, when Harry met the Spice Girls. Then there was Canada, and the jocular joshing over hats. There was the trip to Paris and the World Cup, even going by train so that Harry wouldn't miss out on the atmosphere.
Prince Charles may have looked a tad out of place, but the photographs and television footage show that this is clearly a father who is happy being with his children and they with him.
As for their uncle, he has been noticeable by his absence. His glory was short-lived. First there was the tacky divorce in South Africa, when his mistress joined forces with his wife showing him up as a heartless cad, then the even tackier memorial to his sister at Althorp, which adds greed and ruthlessness to the list of attributes. It has been estimated that the museum will bring in some £35 million a year. He says the profits will go to the Memorial Fund. What percentage of the entrance fee that represents has not yet been announced, but he need have no worries about keeping the place going.
Spencer's fall from grace has certainly done the monarchy no harm and Mohammed Al Fayed's histrionics are testament to the virtues of stiff-upper-lip grief.
But, as promised by the queen in her pre-funeral broadcast, lessons have been learnt. According to polls conducted by ICM, over the 10 years before Diana's death support for the institution of the monarchy had remained at about 70 per cent. Yet by August last year it had slumped to 48 per cent, the lowest ever. It is now back to 69 per cent.
The first decision of the Way Ahead Group (key members of the royal family and courtiers) following Diana's death was to commission a report to determine exactly how the monarchy was perceived. The results from a series of focus groups were damning: "remote, out of touch, lacking in compassion, poor value for money". Research also showed the public believed the monarchy had been badly advised.
Prince Charles worked more quickly than the queen. In the past year he has put together a team of shrewd, young advisers and already changes are noticeable in his dealings with the press. On the final leg of the South African tour in November, he emerged from the front section of the plane for an informal chat with the accompanying journalists at the rear. It happened again during his visit to Bhutan. Small beer, maybe. But it was this sort of easy affability that made Diana such a favourite.
So far the changes in Queen Elizabeth's approach have been largely cosmetic: the televising of investitures and royal garden parties, the "people's banquet" in celebration of her golden wedding. Her visits to a pub and McDonalds (she neither drank nor ate) may be laughable, but she's an elderly lady and no one expects her to do more than show willing. (Her own personal approval rating still beats Tony Blair and Prince Charles.) However, the team of advisers cautioned that until the anniversary of Diana's death had passed, it was best to just tread water.
Radical changes will not become apparent until November and Prince Charles's 50th birthday, the first set piece for Simon Lewis in the new post of director of communications, an appointment he takes up next month on two-year secondment from British Gas, with a salary of £230,000 (the Crown providing £90,000) making him the highest paid official in the royal household.
The spin-doctor supremo is 39. He helped launch the ill-fated Social Democratic Party, but is a now a fully signed up member of the Labour Party. He is said to be a close friend of Peter Mandelson's and his wife is a chum of Cherie Blair. (Their children went to the same Islington school.)
So New Labour, New Monarchy? We shall see. But Prince Charles's Prince's Trust - getting disadvantaged young people into work - and Labour's welfare-to-work programme are kissing cousins. The Prince's Trust has been going for a quarter of a century, but few people noticed because for the last 17 years it was operating under the long shadow thrown by Diana.
In the days following the funeral, only 40 per cent believed Prince Charles would make a good king. Indeed 54 per cent thought he should give up the throne in favour of Prince William (a batty idea given credence by Diana in her Panorama interview). Now those figures are reversed. As for Mrs PB - as insiders refer to Camilla Parker Bowles - she's not going away. Following recent fears about terrorist threats, she has moved into Highgrove, Prince Charles's secure Cotswold home. Her behaviour throughout has been impeccable. And, as far as Diana's sons are concerned, like all children in such circumstances, what they really want is to see their father happy.
Prince Charles is no longer threatened either by the legend or the reality of Diana. Some 80 per cent of people polled earlier this week said they have not been affected by her death. A memorial walk to raise money for Diana's charities, following the funeral route, flopped last week when only 300 people turned up instead of the expected 10,000. The organisers blame grief fatigue.
Yet her death has made a difference. Far from destroying the monarchy, as commentators prophesied, the royal family appear stronger and more united than at any time since Queen Elizabeth's accession to the throne.