The reader would get the impression that the Militant's position was that the British monarchy was somehow weakened through the events in the UK in the aftermath of Diana Spencer's death. A news article in the September 22 Militant, titled "Funeral spurs debate on UK monarchy," explicitly stated that "the stability of the monarchy was severely undermined" following Spencer's death.

But the opposite is true. The British crown was stabilized that week and developed closer and better relations with the Labour Party government of Anthony Blair.

Some writers and editors in the big-business press pointed to this reality. "One immediate, and surprisingly widespread conclusion, at least in the press, has been that the princess's death and the popular reaction to it both bode ill for the British monarchy. Few think it doomed but many think it weakened," said an editorial in the September 6 Economist. "This week's emotions actually illustrate one of the monarchy's greatest strengths.

"This is that it focuses attention on human beings rather than on the more abstract world of political institutions or documents," it continued. "This week, the royal family has most often been guilty of looking remote, or stuffy, or rigid rather than frail; and, important though they may now seem, these are sins that are likely in the end to be forgiven or disregarded. Only when it looks truly inadequate will the monarchy be genuinely vulnerable."

The British "royal family" was relieved that Diana Spencer, who had become a nuisance to them, was no longer in the way, their few displays of grief notwithstanding. And Blair made a point of stating in the middle of the hoopla around Spencer's death, "The monarchy is a tradition which we want to keep. But the monarchy adapts and changes and will change and modernize with each generation."

It's true that the United Kingdom has been experiencing strains along its national seams. The recent pro-devolution votes in Scotland and Wales and the unstoppable fight for Irish freedom are ample proof. But there are no signs of weakening of the monarchy at the moment - an institution the British rulers need to keep their imperialist state together. As the September 15 editorial correctly pointed out, the importance of the crown grows in times of economic and social crisis, as the bourgeoisie uses it as an institution that can "speak for the nation" to maintain stability.

There are differing views among the UK rulers on the monarchy, a feudal remnant, and its interrelationship with other institutions of capitalist rule. That's a problem for the ruling class, however, not for workers. When the working class takes power out of the hands of the capitalists, it will deal in passing with ending the monarchy.

Nothing progressive in outpouring for Spencer's funeral
Unlike what Gorton suggested, there was nothing progressive reflected in the hundreds of thousands who laid flowers for Diana Spencer or went to her funeral. "I think we will find that the adoration of the dead princess was not orchestrated by the British state machine," Gorton said. "The sense of loss displayed by millions of people is a criticism of those that wield power in the United Kingdom." He also stated that only by establishing a government of their own will workers in Britain "achieve the humanitarian values which they appear to identify with Diana Spencer."

I disagree. Spencer lived her entire life off wealth, much of which came from inheritance of the royal family she became part of for a period. Like many other bourgeois figures, her sexual exploits, bulimia, and travails made headlines regularly. She preached dehumanizing charity for "the poor." In short, she perpetrated thoroughly reactionary bourgeois values heaped on the masses of the workers.

The outpouring of the "adoring crowds" was nothing but a mass expression by working people and middle-class layers being sucked into what we may describe as pornographication of politics - organized largely by bourgeois politicians, especially those in the ultraright. Today a capitalist social crisis is deepening in the United Kingdom, the United States, and other countries. But a communist leadership is not yet growing out of rising mass workers struggles and no solutions are being offered on any mass level to the burning problems created by the decline of capitalism. Under these conditions, growing numbers become susceptible to crank ideas, conspiracy theories, and a variety of reactionary explanations of why society is gripped with crisis. It is the ultraright that benefits from this.

It is from this vantage point that class-conscious workers must respond to and politically explain the interrelated sexual and financial scandals involving ruling- class figures - including those Diana Spencer and her former husband and possible heir to the British throne, Charles Windsor, were involved in. From the standpoint of the working class, it's much better when every worker couldn't care less about the sex life of Spencer, Windsor, or any other public figure.

This type of scandalmongering, which surrounded much of the coverage of Spencer's death, is an effort to exacerbate and profit from middle-class panic and to drag workers along into the pit of resentment and carnal envy. The outpouring over Spencer's funeral reflected the emotional frustrations and sexual misery that are widespread among middle-class layers and among layers of working people under capitalism in decline. A front-page article in the September 13 New York Times, titled "Diana's death resonates with women in therapy," was an indication of that.

Finally, I think revolutionaries should never refer to Diana Spencer as "princess" or "Princess of Wales," as the news article in the September 15 Militant did. It's part of standing up to the rulers' efforts to prettify their figures among workers.

- ARGIRIS MALAPANIS  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home