The attention given
to the twentieth anniversary of the death of Princess Diana is a media luxury
we could do without given the real problems of the present and the way things
are and are going. I would have preferred to avoid this but it is a good example
of the media at its worst.
When the
couple married in 1981 we were far removed and had no TV to watch. We were in a
tent by St. Tropez and there were rumours that Brigitte and others were in
town. What moderns like to call a "no brainer" in terms of immediate
interest.
In any case,
by then I had come to the view that the 1485 Battle of Bosworth had been won by
the wrong side and that the lines of monarchy that had followed were not the
right ones. Quite who should be monarch at present is a matter of dispute among
the many of Plantagenet descent.
As for the
couple I am inclined to blame neither. Poor Charles education and upbringing
would have been challenging for a saint cum noble warrior cum scholar of high
order. Especially, as during it all he was followed and watched by the worst of
the gutter press.
Diane was one
of the Spencer family. In the long past there have been some it would have been
unwise to lend money to or have some sort of contract with. They had ways of
their own which were not those of others and lived in the other worlds of the
British aristocracy. Her education had a number of gaps.
Their never
never lands may have been in part the same but there were many differences
which would have created problems for any marriage, let alone one always in the
public eye and subject to detailed scrutiny by people, some of whom were
enemies and worse some who were friends but just as bad as the enemies.
Requiescat in
pace.
Requiescat, regurgitated at intervals by the Mail.
ReplyDeleteIf it were not for media luxuries they might have to look at the possibility of reporting real news. Can't see it happening.
ReplyDelete