"Flower fascism"?

I read a rather interesting article today. Although set in a Norwegian newspaper, I am in no doubt that it has been reproduced from an English/British article (I think the Guardian). The subject was Diana and Diana's death, ten years ago to the day.


Interesting in many ways, what I find to be most interesting is how the British today feel embarrassed and mildly surprised at their emotional reaction to Diana's sudden death. What has made them this bewildered? It seems to me that their immediate emotional reaction, which didn't last only for a moment, but a whole week, was their real and natural way of responding to the premature death of a person the country as a whole had loved more than they, until then, had known.

No doubt this public movement of grief took many of the Brits aback. When did they ever show this much affection for a person very few really knew, other than through interviews and articles of various grades of sordidness in the press. A few dared name their uncomfortableness during the "Diana week" when grief swept the nation, but I dare say for many this grief was as real as the various actions bore witness.

Placing flowers in front of Kensington and Buckingham Palace (hence the term "Flower Fascism"), irately accusing and attacking members of the press for their supposed parttaking in Diana's death, the anger directed towards the rest of the Royal family for not showing any remorse or even sorrow in the sad affair -- was all this the expression of something the British peoplenow need feel ashamed about? And if "unnatural" to the British people; unnatural in what way -- and why?

For an outsider, this whole second thought-thing seems rather peculiar. More accurately; it seems like a reaction brought on by too much thinking, too much looking back and analysing, too little trusting their own reactions and subsequent actions.

To me, this illustrates the way we let our mental activity misdirect our natural ways of living. Anything can be analyzed to death.