Princess Diana and the Betrayal of the British Monarchy

When Queen Elizabeth signed the Queer "Marriage" law a few years back when dear, old Britain was losing its mind faster than we all expected, any respect I had for her vanished.  That a supposed Christian Monarch (although weighed down by Masonry) could put her seal of approval on such a monstrous law ended any and all illusions.  She betrayed her country, her Queenship and she betrayed Christ.

Like America, it was the death knell of England, soon followed by an ostensibly Catholic country, Ireland.  It will never recover from this until and unless God somehow intervenes.  These countries will continue their downward slope until all that is left is a rotting corpse.

Peter Hitchens writes an interesting piece on what has become of the British monarchy and he begins his interesting article with some thoughts on tragic Princess Diana.  Though Mr Hitchens allows his Protestantism to somewhat color his views he is nevertheless always worth reading.  His instincts are generally good on many issues.

He begins his article thusly:

Once in my life I stood a few feet from Princess Diana, and, though I was looking for her and knew she was there, and had seen ten thousand pictures of her, and watched her, shimmering, on many a TV screen,  I did not recognise her. Eventually, on that gloomy winter morning in the forecourt of the Brazilian ambassador’s residence in Washington DC, I realised that I was almost within touching distance of the most famous woman in the world.

But she simply did not look like herself. If what I saw on that cold morning had been what the public were used to, her reputation and effect on the world might have been completely different. She looked a good deal more like the formidable natural politician she was, and a good deal less like the breathtakingly pretty but rather lost and lonely young woman most people thought she was. But the camera loved her so much that the world saw the naïve and lovely victim, not the brilliant wielder of public relations skills and tactical genius.

And I have been fascinated by that fact ever since. The woman I stood a few feet from was darker, sharper more serious and more angular than the wholly different princess I had seen many times in photographs or on TV.

Now, I know that the camera lies, or can be made to lie. I am not especially vain of my appearance (it would be futile, and seeing yourself many times on film rather cures you of any illusions) but I am sometimes astonished at the way TV cameras make me appear. When I occasionally catch sight of myself on cheap security CCTV screens, I usually find the image is closer to what I think I look like than the version provided by expensive BBC equipment, which is odd. Though I was amazed, a few years ago, by the difference (about two stone less, several fewer chins, and no view up the nostrils) when I appeared on a programme from the BBC’s Glasgow studios. After I had watched the recording, I actually rang up and asked if they used a different type of camera in Glasgow. Apparently not. Must have been something else.

So I am fascinated by these unquantifiable things. Do cameras see an essence that the eye doesn’t see, or do they miss important truths that the eye *does* see? And what did they see, or not see, about Diana?

As we ramble through the Diana saga yet again, I seem to recall a certain reluctance on my then newspaper to let commentators such as me say very much about it. Given the tendency to blame the whole thing on the media pursuit of the Princess (an accusation I rather resist), I think editors thought that commentators who were defenders of traditional monarchy might be best employed walking up and down the Pennine Way for a couple of weeks, with their phones switched off.  Or something like that.

In retrospect, I am quite glad. One forgets at these times that very famous people are still people, who have families, and children. And when, later, one remembers, the damage is done.  In Diana’s case, the dreadful circumstances of the two boys now seem quite unbearable to me. At the time, I might have thought that was something Diana might have thought of before she went off on Mr Fayed’s yacht. I now realise that makes no difference at all. The two boys transformed everything. They still do. They always will. When the succession comes, as come it must whether we want it to or not, they will transform that too, nobody knows yet exactly how.

Alastair Campbell, another propaganda genius, realised the power of Diana’s sudden death immediately and instinctively.  He can probably sort of explain it now, but the thing about such people is that they just know, at the time, exactly what really matters. I have no doubt that the phrase ‘the People’s Princess’ was his invention, not the Blair creature’s. Alastair is of course a lefty and republican by instinct, but he had far too much strategic sense to make a frontal attack on the Monarchy in 1997.

What he could do and did was to inflict a huge defeat on old-fashioned monarchists who had identified the monarchy with tradition, heredity, Christian marriage and the Protestant settlement. He stole the monarchy from them, and they have no idea how to get it back.

 Read the whole article here:  http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/08/some-thoughts-about-the-princess-diana-affair.html