Every once in a while, Polly Toynbee manages to spring a surprise on bloggers and come up with something that’s really rather good…
Now Lily Allen is to join Sir Elton John and the rest at Wembley stadium for Diana’s birthday concert. But there is something creepy about celebrating the 10th anniversary of her gruesome life and death.
Meanwhile, the interminable and ill-fated inquest into her unmysterious end staggers on like Jarndyce v Jarndyce, costing God knows what, its mountainous paperwork and thousands of legal hours destined to show that she was indeed killed in a crash by her lover’s drunken chauffeur.
What is being celebrated? The bulimic life of a sad neurotic who was abandoned by her mother to a hopeless father and a step-mother from hell. Far too young and silly, she made the awful decision to marry a much older, selfish Prince who was under instruction to deliver the requisite heir and a spare.
She was beautiful, spoiled and brainless. She could have brought down the monarchy, but only wanted the crown to skip to her son. It is a true tragedy for children to lose their mother, but that doesn’t make her a national tragic heroine. Her wish to be “Queen of Hearts” in her Panorama interview was a toe-curling insight into a celebrity who believed her own hype.
It took the genius and charm of Helen Mirren to rescue the royal fiasco of her death and re-invent it as an entirely new national myth to warm the people to their sour and unmotherly Queen.
How must the palace feel, ten years after? Blessed relief and no doubt only too glad to party, if that’s what the princes want. The royals must ask themselves daily where Diana would be at 46, in what trouble, giving what interviews, spending what fortunes on grooming, with more men of the Dodi and James Hewitt variety?
Diana nearly cooked the monarchy’s goose - though it would have been a constitutional irony if the crown had fallen over a public spasm of celebrity worship of the very kind the monarchy thrives on. Her death marks a brief moment when it was just possible the whole absurdity might have come tottering down. No wonder the palace are all celebrating their survival.
Nothing much to disagree with there, although I will say that I think that the concert being held at Wembley Stadium is an absolutely brilliant idea…
What better way to completely fuck up any residual shreds of dignity, mystique and ‘cool’ that might still surround the neurotic clothes-horse and her over-privileged fuckwit offspring than by holding a concert with a line up that reflects her ‘taste’ in music (and that of her sons) that consists, so far, of…
- Elton John
- Bryan Ferry
- Status Quo
- Rod Stewart
- Duran Duran
- Lily Allen
- Status Quo
- Joss Stone
- Kanye West
- Natasha Bedingfield
- the Feeling
- James Morrison, and
- Orson (wasn’t he the pig in the cartoons by the guy who did Garfield)
Fuck me. Chuck in James fucking Blunt, Black Lace and copy of the Birdie Song and what you’ve got there is not so much a concert as a shit wedding DJ.
That’s why I love the idea of this gig… because it’s going to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that neither she nor her little Chuck-Spawns-from-Hell possess(ed) any fucking taste at all! Just look at that line up and tell me that any lingering reputation she might have had for having style is not already in its coffin and waiting only for the addition of Chris de-fucking-Burgh to the bill to finish nailing down the lid.
All that crap about how beautiful she was and how brought glamour to the royal family - all a load of bollocks. Even Jade Goody could manage glamorous from time to time if she had a special flunky just to slap on the yoghurt every time she got thrush.
Think about it for a second - can anyone really think of anything that would do a better job of fucking up they way she’s perceived by the public than this concert…?
Other than, perhaps, the sudden appearance of a home video marked ‘Diana Does Sandhurst’.
And while we at this - can anyone out there honestly say that when all that Wills & Kate split bollocks was all over the news, they didn’t see the stuck-up twat give that poxy little snort when Nick Witchell asked whether he’d be getting married, while he was on the skiing trip, and think…
Fuck me! It’s Tim Nice-But-Dim!
Go on, be honest… you did, didn’t you.
FFS, the guy went to university to study the history of art and left with a degree in Geography. How the fuck did he manage that?
You can imagine the conversation is the vice-chancellor’s office can’t you?
Errr. we’ve got a bit of problem?
Yes.
It’s Prince William… he’s… he’s… well not to beat around the bush, he’s fucking useless.
Ohhhhh shit! If that gets out my knighthood’s fucked for starters. What do you mean useless, exactly?
He’s useless. Knows absolutely fuck all about art - think’s Leonardo was the speccy kid that used to get sodomised twice a week by old Squiffywhatshisface at Eton.
Bollocks! Must think… quickly… got it! Is there anything he does know?
Well he knows where Buckingham Palace is…
Right, well that a 2:1 in Geography, then. Problem solved… Now is it the left knee or right knee first when you kneel before the Queen..?
Then there’s this crap about whether Harry should go to Iraq. Fuck him, he wants to go, so put him on the fucking plane.
The guy clearly knows the score. The deal was for an heir and a spare and he’s the fucking spare, so why should we give a toss about him - it not as if the government give a shit about sending anyone else’s kids out to Iraq, so why give Charlie Windsor’s youngest brat an easy ride.
What are they thinking? That’s his last name’s Bush or something.
As long as William’s not a Jaffa, then where’s the problem?
So what if he could get himself killed - it’s only going to saving him from ending up like any of the other spares of recent times.
You know, like Uncle Andy the junket-king or what’s his name, you know, the disappointment - the one who’d rather sing than get married and live in his dad’s castle in the swamp…
… no, fuck! That’s ‘Holy Grail’ isn’t it? The disappointment is the one who couldn’t hack it in the marines, so he fucked off to work for Andrew Lloyd Webber…
Ah bollocks - it amounts to the same thing either way.
Centuries of (in)breeding - you just can’t beat it.
I can’t and won’t argue that the Princess of Wales was created into a tabloid circus. Having said that, Prince Andrew flew several flights into a combat zone during the Falklands War and deserves respect as any soldier does for doing so. Consequently we should also respect Prince Harry for wishing to do the same in the Army. There is not decent reason for him not serving, if he was to be killed he deserves the same respect as any other serving member of the armed forces. Whatever anyone’s feelings regarding the Monarchy, serving in the armed forces deserves respect.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:25 am
April 28th, 2007 at 10:09 amInteresting post.
This really sticks your principles into perspective.
While you spit your bile at William and Harry you go to huge lengths in an earlier post to explain the predicament of ‘Honest John’. They are just as much victims of circumstance as is Mr Hirst.
Like you I have no liking of the royal family however neither of these two asked to be born royal, they are the victims of both nature and nurture. They have parents from families that both could be described as ‘dysfunctional’ and are subject not only to that but also incessant media intrusion. The chances of them being ‘normal’ are as remote as Tony Blair telling the truth.
If they can arrange a concert that generates money for charities what is the problem? If you don’t like the music don’t go, it will not harm anyone and the money generated should help some.
That Harry wants to go to Iraq shows that he does show a level of commitment that should be commended. – I would like to see Blair’s offspring join him.
As long as William’s not a Jaffa, then where’s the problem? – Well using your vocabulary it would also be useful if he isn’t a puff, queer, faggot or equivalent term from the gutter.
FFS, the guy went to university to study the history of art and left with a degree in Geography. How the fuck did he manage that?
You can imagine the conversation is the vice-chancellor’s office can’t you?
Errr. we’ve got a bit of problem?
Yes.
It’s Prince William… he’s… he’s… well not to beat around the bush, he’s fucking useless.
Intelligence, just like Asperger’s Syndrome is something you are born with, although it would appear that the former is to be mocked, the latter to be understood.
Blogging can go one of two ways from this point. Take the blue pill and it can develop fully into an authentic exchange of ideas, enrich our political culture and become a tool for holding the political elite to account, or take the red pill instead and it can become a cesspit of sock-puppet driven propaganda that benefits no one but the people at the top.
True to your politics it would appear that on this occaision you have taken the red pill.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:57 amThat’s a stupid analogy to make, Andyw. John Hirst spent 25 years in jail and lives in a hovel; Harry and Wills are privileged beyond our wildest dreams. The point about satire is that it slates the powerful and the privileged…
April 28th, 2007 at 11:18 amNo i’m afraid i have to agree with andyw on this one.
Unity, you were spot on over the John Hirst thing, but you have failed to apply that same tolerant principle to Harry and William, here.
These are two boys born into a life of constant harrassment and intrusion, who lost their mother while still being very young. No amount of material wealth can compensate for either of those things, and i would have expected you to have appreciated that.
Personally, i have no objection to the monarchy continuing to exist, so long as it is not to the detriment of the taxpayer, which it isn’t because we get so much money in extra tourism every year because of them.
However, if i Was to object to the monarchy, it would be on the grounds that it is just as abhorrent for people to be born into a life of constant intrusion, harrassment and speculation as it is for those living in poverty.
In both situations, the individual has no choice. Arguably, poverty can at least in theory be escaped from. Being a member of the royal family is much harder to shed.
April 28th, 2007 at 5:53 pmI agree with andy, you’ve gone over the top here. It’s like you’ve turned into a left wing Devil’s Kitchen.
I must have missed something, but when did History of Art become to be considered a difficult subject and Geography an easy one?
William should have had an advantage in Art because his family probably owns stuff by half the artists on the syllabus. But he got an A grade in geography at A level, while only a B in History of Art, suggesting he has a better aptitude for Geography.
April 28th, 2007 at 11:07 pmAndy/Leo/Sam
You’ve rather missed the point - the post is satirical as John points out.
What I’m attacking here are the banality of the institutions, not the individuals.
William may be a highly intelligent young man but his position in life, which stems entirely from an accident of birth, makes that entirely irrelevant. He could just as easily be a drooling imbecile and it wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference - he’d still have been afforded a university education, a commission in the forces, and everything else that goes with maintaining the façade of the royal family.
Likewise Harry is literally the ’spare’ in the family. He serves a purpose only until William comes up with the goods and produces an heir, after which point he becomes an irrelevance, just like his uncles, whose sole remaining purpose in life is to keep a low enough profile not to become an embarrassment.
Leo is wrong, however, to suggest that, like John Hirst, they have no choice in the matter. Of course they have a choice - their privileged existence provides them with an unimaginable range of choices if only they choose to exercise them.
Are they compelled to participate in this farce of a concert? Of course not - they could easily have refused to have any part of it and who would have argued with such a decision. Or rather, who could have argued with such a decision without being clearly and obviously seen to be cashing in on the cult of Diana.
What could anyone have said had they decided to mark the 10th anniversary of their mother’s death with a private memorial service for family and a few flowers at her graveside and told the rest of the world to fuck if they expected their usual round of bread and circuses?
Nothing - not without looking a bunch of exploitative arseholes.
So they have choices - that had the choice of whether to buy into the cult of Diana to maintain a public façade, or not - and chose the façade.
April 29th, 2007 at 8:50 amLike the pair “organised” it? Too busy falling out of Annabels wine bar or wherever they royals party these days.
I empathise with them losing their mother - god knows that’s awful, regardless of how nutty she was - but frankly what’s the point of the Royals? Like Mark Steele surmised, it’s not as if tourists would suddenly go “there’s little point visiting Britain - they got rid of the Royal Family and I’ll miss those little hopeful views of them at Buckingham Palace. I know… let’s go to France instead…”
The Cult of Diana is sad and sickening. I recall the stomach churning “drive by” with cockney geezers bellowing “we love you Diana… always” before they went home, belted the wife and kids and embarked on some random racist thuggery.
They can - like some brave predecessors (albeit a little more Nazi like than even Harry could commit to) choose to step down and be normal people with normal jobs and normal lives. It’s worked in other countries.
As for the 2.1 - apparantly, he’s the most academic of the Royals.
April 29th, 2007 at 6:21 pmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4363824.stm
Frankly, if 2.1 was the best they can do, that’s a pretty poor state of affairs after a lifetime of the best schooling money and influence can buy.
“Leo is wrong, however, to suggest that, like John Hirst, they have no choice in the matter. Of course they have a choice - their privileged existence provides them with an unimaginable range of choices if only they choose to exercise them.”
Their “privileged existence” affords them a range of material choices, but still does not change the fact that they are inescapably part of the royal family. The existence they lead affords them a considerably smaller range of emotional choices than those of the average member of the public. That is the point i’m trying to make. It was not their choice that they be brought up under intense media scrutiny, nor was it their choice to lose their mother at a young age.
Belonging to the so-called “facade”, i would argue is as understandable as the kid who drinks and smokes to fit in with his peer group - these are two boys brought up in circles of privelege and royalty who would effectively disown them, were they to “opt out”. Not to mention the likely and total ostracism of them by their own family, were they to suddenly decide that the royal life is not for them.
I’m not saying such a route is advisable, merely that their actions should be better understood in the context of their situation, just as much as we must try to understand the actions of a mugger or drug addict in the context of their situation. No more, no less.
I simply do not believe, Unity, that you have made sufficient effort to do this, preferring to dismiss any emotional suffering or torment they may be experiencing by somehow concluding that their material wealth more than compensates for it.
April 29th, 2007 at 9:12 pm