In the long list of depressing newspaper headlines, Tuesday's "Spencers reach amicable agreement on divorce settlement" was a new low. I could say it "represented" a new low but there is no need for fancy language. The public disappointment at the anti-climactic settlement in the Earl and Lady Spencer divorce case may have been muted so far, but it is almost certainly enormous.

I need hardly remind you that the divorce battle was bitter and the allegations sensational. In other words it was a fairly standard affair, apart from the status of Earl Spencer as the late Princess Diana's brother, the large amounts of money and property involved, the documented drug/alcohol/eating problems of Lady Spencer, and the earl's extra-marital affairs with 12 women, as alleged by Victoria Spencer and her legal team.

The disillusion among the public has naturally stemmed from being denied the details of what went on in the Spencer marriage, and the details of the alleged affairs. Lady Spencer, her father John and the earl's former mistress Chantal Collopy (mistress No 2, it seems) were due to appear this week to give evidence against Lord Spencer. Now we may never hear the full story.

Newspaper readers and television viewers who devoutly followed the court proceedings have a right to feel cheated. In the glamorous court case involving Ms Michelle Rocca in Dublin earlier this year, for example, the parties very honourably took the case right through the courts, holding nothing back. In the process, the public - ordinary folk without serious money or fabulously exciting lives - gained valuable insights into high society lifestyles.

With the Celtic Tiger rampaging through the country, and Charlie McCreevy handing out millions, it cannot be too long before more and more of us become seriously rich. Already this year we have seen some 15 new business millionaires emerge, and such court cases, regrettably rare, provide useful lessons for those of us with serious social aspirations.

Now we may never learn how Earl Spencer (or Mrs Collopy) knew it was time to end an affair, when it was sensible to begin another, what sort of excuses served best in the circumstances, what presents are appropriate at any given time, and what the whole shebang might cost.

All we know from the final report is that speculation mounted and conflicting reports emerged. As usual they had no other option.

If we are to be honest, it was of minor interest to most of us to read on the same day of the Spencer settlement that Greeks are losing their faith in God, that internal struggles continue among Germany's Social Democrats, that forest fires rage in Australia or that attempts to resolve the constitutional crisis in Pakistan have collapsed. We are primarily social animals, and news of social animals is what we crave.

At least we are not being let down by the other South African cliff-hanger, the Winnie Mandela circus. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearing into the allegations against Mrs Mandela has so far heard of murder, sodomy, witness interference, intimidation, death threats and stabbings; and all this before Mrs Mandela herself has (at the time of writing) begun to testify.

In this case, the valuable insights involve the attractions not merely of social status but also of political power. Let us hope that no anti-climactic settlement is made before we are as fully informed as possible.

With regard to the Spencer affair, it is doubly depressing that in place of the tantalising details withheld from us by the sudden settlement, we are now being fed dreary articles (almost entirely by female journalists)(it must be said) about married women getting their own back on male bullies. Earl Spencer being the new model, thanks to remarks made by some of the mistresses.

Special delight has been taken in the fact that Earl Spencer's former mistress Mrs Collopy (who has signed a five-figure deal with the News of the World) joined forces with her lover's wife, Victoria Spencer, and that in effect they conspired to bring him down.

I hold no brief for Earl Spencer, and I do not necessarily subscribe to the misandrist theories of my colleague, John Waters, but there is much ammunition for him in such media triumphalism.