Wednesday, August 23, 2017

An ocean of Dianaolatry.

We are about to be flooded with an ocean of Dianaolatry. as the 20th anniversary of her demise is upon us. I write lots at the time but have no backups not access to my old emails. I know I made plenty of comment on the corporate madness that engulfed my country at the loss of the woman who to me will for ever be the princess of PR, the woman who complained of her treatment by the media but who manipulated them, especially in the Bashir interview, to very clever effect.
This was the 'crowded with three in a marriage' assertion. I do not defend Charles' adultery but I do defend him from Diana's implying he is not fit to be king. This was to hit him where it hurts and where he is vulnerable to the vagaries of public opinion. The fact is Charles possesses the only two essential qualifications to be king. First, he is the eldest legitimate son of his mother. No doubt there. Second, he is not a Roman Catholic. Again he qualifies. Those two are the essential qualifications so Charles should one day become King George VII. an honourable name compared with previous Charles on the throne. One was a pious foo and his son a clever king of dissolute morals, plenty of bastards but no heir. Georges have been a mixed bunch in the past. The first four were German and the fifth divested his family of another German name. He and his son were honourable men and adorned the office of monarch. We are told George V was none too bright but their is no IQ test for kings. The one most dishonourable thing he did was out of self preservation to refuse to give shelter to his cousin in his hour of need. So the Tsar and his family were murdered bu the Bolsheviks. George VI I can remember - well the announcement of his death is the first wool event I can remember. I was five. He was killed by cigarettes and the strain of being landed with the top job when his scurrilous elder brother abdicated both crown and responsibility for a twice divorced woman. The abdication was a blessing in disguise for the country. We got the better man, one fit to lead us through a war. But the strain affected the king's health and he went to an early grave. 
 But in conclusion I must mention the third George. It wasn't his fault he went mad. Was it his fault we lost our prize colony? No I think that was Lord North et al. I still love the film, The Madness of King George. The title was shortened between play and film dropping III after his name lest I am told the Americans looked for parts one and two.

So here comes the flood. So far I have heard on good clip. Her sons say it was a family decision for them to walk behind the coffin. That gives the lie to their uncle's complaint that the family should not have made them do it. They chose to. Althorp is not a man to be admired, not after his disgusting funeral speech, the only one where I have heard a relative by marriage run down the inlays. But such was the worship of his sister that the fools in the crowd outside applauded the bounder.

No comments: