From: jf@threel.co.uk (John Fisher)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Madonna offers haven to Diana
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:44:06 GMT
Organization: 3L Ltd, 86/92 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PY, UK


In article <1992Sep30.153337.10218@netcom.com>,
jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) writes:

> According to Reuters news service, Madonna has invited Princess Diana to
> move into her apartment in America so that Diana can have some privacy. 
> 
> Madonna said "I have weeks off, and she doesn't.  It's hideous.  Nobody
> really knows what this girl is going through." 
> 
> [I wonder who has more money, Madonna or Prince Charles?  Certainly Prince
> Charles has (or will have) better jewelry.  But there aren't many occasions
> when wearing the Star of India wouldn't be overdressing.]

Charles is, in fact, enormously wealthy.  Amongst other
things, he is Duke of Cornwall, and the estates of the
Duchy include most of Cornwall and Devon, as well as
enormous slabs of prime territory in London and elsewhere. 

The queen is also rich, in her personal capacity.  Nobody
knows *how* rich, because unlike everyone else, her major
shareholdings are kept secret.  The best bet is that she is
one the half-dozen richest women in the world.  All this
Charles will inherit, without the nuisance of having to pay
death duties, unlike his subjects-to-be.  The monarch is
also exempt from Income Tax.  Nice work if you can get it.


Despite this, I have every sympathy for Diana or anyone
else who gets grafted into this horrendous family.  She
was, remember, very young when she was put through the
ghastly State Deflowering Ceremony which hitched her to
Charles, and her upbringing in the minor aristocracy could
hardly prepare her for her current life.

The royal family is both a political and a biological
entity, a fact which they have been trained to cope with. 
They are used to the notion that procreation is a national
and political duty, an essential part of their job, and they
adjust their personal lives to suit.  They do not expect
their marriages to be anything other than breeding
contracts, and they are accustomed to looking elsewhere for
such sexual satisfaction, affection and comradeship as their
upbringing permits them to apprehend. 

Diana's function is primarily biological, and she is viewed
by the other members of her adopted family in this light.
The fact that she resents this will simply make them regard
her as vulgar and bourgeois.  

Despite the simpering coyness of her initial public persona,
there's much that is laudable about Diana.  She has made HIV
and AIDS a particular concern, visits AIDS centres and
hospices, delivers sensible homilies about the support that
HIV+ people need and hugs HIV+ babies (not the adults - that
would be, um, *inappropriate* for a royal - they get
handshakes).  In the mid-eighties, when straight people in
this country were becoming aware of HIV, this was really
important in combating a Diseased Pariah view of HIV+
people, and she has taken a lot of direct criticism from the
gutter press because of it.  In a minor but not
inconsiderable way she's a Good Thing. 

Her position is fairly strong, in fact.  She is the mother
of the second in line to the throne, and removing her would
cause a major constitutional crisis.  If she keeps her head,
she can write her own ticket.  But she'll have to dump most
of the fairy-tale nonsense she brought with her.

--John