Part One: Setting the Scene: A Death Unlike Any Other - 'Modern', Anyhow
As 'everyone' remembers precisely where they were, so we are told, when an assassin's bullet (or several) ripped through the frame of America's 35th president, and thus finished off 'Camelot' and with it the budding career of America's much-adulated, idolized and popstar-like President "JFK" (as he has been 'immortalized' ever since), who can possibly forget the day/eve(ning) of August 31st, 1997, when in an altogether different manner, but with the ultimate same result, 'the world' 'awoke' to the news that the youthful, famous, adulated and idolized Princess Diana met her own tragic death within a tunnel in Paris. No-one of my acquaintance, of my 'generation', anyhow. No, it was a moment in time never to be forgotten in days, weeks, months, years and decades to come.
Did that necessarily mean that each one of us then held the selfsame attitude towards or viewpoint of the cinderella swept up by a royal suitor, of the 'ugly duckling' (in the sense of 'commoner') 'plucked' from obscurity and (metaphorically) replanted in the palace of the (reigning) Queen, or, more precisely, miraculously transplanted into the (figurative) antechamber of the (putative) future king? Not necessarily, and indeed not at all from this pleb's perspective. Yet something was definitely at work.
That something - to my way of thinking (and reflecting) - was crystallized in and through a number of disparate events and occurrences that transpired over coming weeks, some seemingly utterly unrelated: the much-loved pop-song, the chart-busting hit chosen (within days) to be reworked into the funereal strains of an immemorially-beloved dirge to the Princess' memory and sung by the co-songwriter himself at her state funeral; the unforgettable speech of Diana's brother, giving the paparazzi in particular and (British) tabloid media in general a right royal serve to the proverbial, at selfsame service; the relative glare of publicity (or rather, lack thereof) given to another equally famous woman who likewise passed away, exactly one week on - in altogether different circumstances - on literally the other side of the globe; plus of course the remarkable, even extraordinary melodrama(s) subsequently played out across the Western world (especially) as crowds of adulators, well-wishers, and the deeply grieving turned out in literal hordes to give their own personal respects to the memory of a person who had - via the all-enveloping tentacles of the modern media - long since been embraced to their very 'bosoms' as their very own 'Princess Di'(ana) - as a modern-day reincarnation as it were of the goddess Diana so beloved of the Gentile masses the New Testament's preeminent Apostle Paul 'encountered' as he criss-crossed the then known (pre-European) world of his day.
Indeed as I reflect upon that time (and event) there are literally so many indelible memories surrounding those events and others in their temporal vicinity, including some intensely personal (and grief-wracking in and of themselves), as well as apparent synchronicities, 'coincidences', felicities and other such things that I not only can hardly contain myself from sharing, feeling metaphorically close to exploding therewith, but it's quite literally hard to know where to even begin; so, in an ironic twist, I'll leave off here for the present...
Many Apologies That I've Only Now Re-continued This Savagely Abridged Blogpost At the Very End of August 31st, 2017 - U.K. (i.e. Greenwich Standard Mean) Time...but such is life, as they say.
Part Two: A Prophet Without Knowing It
I'm choosing to resume here at what might appear an odd point, but it ties in with much of the rest that I'm due to share: a beloved old, classic LP, Elton John's and Bernie Taupin's much-acclaimed and well-selling 'Goodbye Yellow Brick Road'. For, one simply couldn't have written a better 'introduction' to the untimely demise of Elton's good friend Diana than appears in the first three songs on side A of that classic two-record LP. It's almost - to my way of thinking - beyond (normal) belief, in fact, so eerily and unmistakably do those three songs point not only to Lady Diana Spencer's death but to Elton John's own - and the Western world-at-large's - reaction to that tragic passing.
So, you rightly query, how so? Well, song number one is the incredibly-titled 'Funeral for a Friend', and did EJ perform a special item to the memory of his long-time friend at Diana's state funeral, or what? And sure, he was invited, or rather requested, to alter the graphic imagery of another of his songs (chronologically, #3) from that LP - his one-time chart-topping hit, 'Candle in the Wind' (about 'Norma Jean', aka the famous actress and mistress of JFK himself, Marilyn Monroe) - thus reconfiguring it as 'England's Rose', to make it acceptable to a general audience at said occasion, yet it was still effectively that classic Candle in the Wind whose memorable lyrics resounded as a background echo in the ears of many TV (and on-site) listeners/viewers, (as with myself), I've no doubt whatsoever.
And on that particular score, I find it personally equally fascinating, intriguing again beyond belief or everyday 'coincidence' that that classic song (of Elton John's and Bernie Taupin's) was the very one which came - completely unsought - to my own mind, within mere days after Diana's death and certainly prior to media report being made that EJ had been even touted as a possible special guest, let alone officially chosen to perform his unique musical item at her funeral service. (Curiously I can even remember exactly where I was when that thought first came to me, driving my Mum's (and at one time my own) 'old' Toyota Starlet just up from the Roslyn shopping centre!)
And after Funeral for a Friend Taupin/John then feature the little-known accompaniment (to Funeral for a Friend) known as 'Love Lies Bleeding'. "What?", you understandably exclaim, barely able to credit the irony yourself. I can only add: "I fully agree; with knobs on, to boot!" Need I full out the relevant detail? I mean, really?
And so side A of Elton John's (and Bernie Taupin's) undisputed greatest (as in most popular and generally-acclaimed) LP, 'Beyond Yellow Brick Road', itself contains an almost prophetic/'forth-telling' outline of the very scenario which ultimately played out on the fateful day of August 31st, 1997. Yes, at a funeral for a very close friend, the 'legendary' Princes Diana Spencer, whose own generally and much-lauded love for the world (and especially its unfortunates, whether aids' victims at home or land mine victims abroad) now both metaphorically and literally lay bleeding in a limousine within a Parisian tunnel...as it came to an untimely and tragic end not of its own making...Diana's one-time friend Elton John sang a song, 'England's Rose', *which captured the very spirit of her life and times and personality and character, to a world-at-large in equal measure of grief which could only echo within their own hearts a sense of 'Right on, buddy; right on!' You've nailed it down to a literal 't'.
*Most of whom perhaps, like myself, held within themselves the actual lyrics of the original song, Candle in the Wind, whose very words themselves so vividly and graphically and unmistakeably painted a verbal portrait of the person whose life was so abruptly cut short upon that fateful day.
To Be Continued...
Saturday eve (September 2nd) NZ time
Part Three: Reading the Hearts of the Self-Appointed Critics As An Open Book
Having thus dealt extensively with the main (and, it seems to me, rather unique) 'thing' that struck me at the time, let me now 'posit' some additional observations: some (involving Diana's brother Earl Spencer, as well as another famous woman on the world stage) 'hitting' me powerfully mainly 'then and there'; another (vis-a-vis the seemingly unprecedented mass outpouring of grief) both then and thereafter; and the last occurring to me the other day as I viewed (at a thankfully earlier time slot, the second occasion shown within a week or so) a special new two-hour documentary featuring some 'exclusive' reflections of sons (and princes) William and Harry in particular, alongside the likes of then famously popular new British Prime Minister Tony Blair and others in the wider royal 'entourage' and community.
The special funeral highlight for this (free-lance) journo and longtime close media watcher and critic - though Tony Blair's rendition of the famous New Testament 'love' chapter, 1 Corinthians 13, and Elton John's 'performance' of his reworked Candle in the Wind, 'England's Rose', constitute pretty close seconds - was a brilliant, incisive and bitterly scathing speech by Diana Spencer's South African-based brother, Earl. Transitioning almost seamlessly and without further ado from a deeply moving, from the depths of the heart eulogy to his sister's character and lifework, Earl launched into a full frontal assault upon initially (and primarily) the paparazzi - who'd arguably literally chased and hounded Diana to her death in the French tunnel - through to the tabloid press who'd dogged her steps for literally decades; making her life a virtual misery, affording both her and her beloved kids no real privacy whatsoever, so constantly and incessantly and unremittingly did they bedevil her/their steps and every move. Finally, in a finishing 'flourish' perhaps more addressed to the media in general, or at least 'royal commentators', he left some of us speechless with amazement as in one pithy, poignant sentence he summed up his 'beef' in a nutshell, in the process arguably embracing modern-day journalism and media in one fell swoop (in spirit, anyhow, even if his literal words could hardly be transposed in their entirety to fit all situations without adjustment).
Earl Spencer, wielding his verbal sword, *concluded by firstly mentioning how his sister hadn't, indeed could never understand why said media always sought to put some negative connotation upon, to give some less than flattering interpretation to, the good works and deeds she habitually engaged in. But she - and he - finally were simply unable to avoid the inescapable realization and conclusion that "those [habitually] in the moral gutter were simply unable to understand those at the opposite end of the moral [continuum]". Needless to say, the service was scarcely over before selfsame media readily turned their sights upon a new-found target, Earl Spencer himself, adopting those selfsame methods and modus operandi in a newly-fashioned determined to now discredit him, sadly eventually seemingly succeeding therein as, after the soon breakup of his own marriage, they proceeded to drag his name through the mud in a wretchedly successful attempt to wreak utu (Maori for revenge or vengeance) upon the man who'd presumed, who'd had the sheer audacity to question the moral judgement, the very ethics and character, of these self-appointed 'guardians' of 'the truth'. And sadly, by their very silence on the one hand, and readiness to propagate such titillating scandal against Earl Spencer's good name and reputation on the other, the Western media-at-large subsequently joined in the hate fest at his expense, proving yet again - as if it had been necessary - the original veracity of his frankly unanswerable critique.
Some words of Scripture come uninvited now to my mind, and I'm glad they do, they sum up the aforementioned situation perfectly, in so many ways. Firstly the words of Jesus' beloved Apostle John, who after detailing Jesus' private audience with Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin, then concludes with some remarks Jesus then made:
And this is the condemnation [judgment], that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth [practiseth] evil [bad things] hateth the light, neither cometh to [unto] the light, lest his deeds should be reproved [detected]. But he that doeth [worketh] truth cometh to [unto] the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." (The Newberry Bible: John 3:19-21)
And in words that I've long since used as both the title, and indeed the entirety of my message, in another blogpost, the 'gospel prophet' of the Older Testament, Isaiah, gives a strong warning to all those, like our modern-day media, who so often venture upon such forbidden ground themselves:
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; That put darkness for light, and light for darkness." (The Newberry Bible: Isaiah 5:20)
I don't believe Princess Diana's brother Earl could have put it better himself.
*My profuse apologies to Earl Spencer for of necessity paraphrasing his words somewhat liberally here, but I'm sure I've contained the great gist of his denunciatory remarks and moreover their cutting tone and spirit.
To Be Continued...
Sunday (Father's Day, NZ time) September the 3rd
Part Four: So What Made All the Difference - Between Princess Diana's Death and Some Others; In Particular, Between That of the 'Queen of Hearts' and That of the 'Missionary to the Poor'?
Perhaps I was one of the few to notice, and moreover note the fact, that the then two most well-known and respected women of that time died within a literal week of each other. *Incredibly - and perhaps the reason for my so observing this - was the fact that the death of my much-beloved Grandma two months earlier itself occurred precisely one week before the death of my then closest friend's own Mother. As I reflected upon this, and then heard almost exactly my own thoughts then echoed by a **talkback host, then a fairly rare breed (bring back the day!), a day or two later, my thoughts naturally turned to considering/assessing just what really had made all the difference. The conclusions I came to were actually pretty simple, even obvious, but nevertheless I felt and still feel worthy of note.
I realized that Mother Teresa, whose death did actually result in a state funeral also, I believe - or at least one broadcast 'simulcast' to the world-at-large, and certainly attended by some fairly high-ranking, prestigious dignitaries (of both church and state, from both India and elsewhere) - differed majorly from Princess Diana's in just two essential but very significant respects: the relative lack of publicity and fuss 'n bother, of 'big-noting', given to the 'saint to the guttermost', alongside the comparative absence of the sort of unstinted outpouring of grief so evident (at least Western) worldwide with Diana; and the particular characteristics of the two women that evidently caused this to be.
So what really made all the difference in how media treated the two, or reacted to their deaths? Well, excuse my 'tactlessness', but whereas Diana was youthful (though rapidly aging - like all of us), rich, and possessing much (worldly) power and prestige/influence, ***plus of course glamour (that intangible element of 'charm'), Teresa lacked all of the above...to the nth degree. Yes, while I do accept and readily concede that the response could easily be explained in terms of the obvious fact that whereas Diana died awfully young, and so of course hugely prematurely, Mother Teresa had lived a very long life, and so was nearing her end anyhow. Yes, fair enough on that particular score.
But Teresa was not only getting on in years, she was poor as the proverbial church-mouse, and utterly lacking in personal or political power and prestige, not to mention superficial charm, glamour and glitter Yes, let's just say she lacked the 'good looks' and personal 'sexiness' so extolled to the rafters these days; especially by a media totally enmeshed in and fixated upon the 'wonders' of the female physique and moreover its attractions to the other half of humanity. Quite frankly, nothing else could possibly account for the relative 'treatment' of these two female ****'icons' of recent generations, though they were both undeniably women whose lives had a tremendous impact in their relative spheres upon those of their fellow human beings in our modern (pre-'9/11') world. That much is surely incontestable.
*Even more incredible to me was that all four deaths - of significant women (in our various lives) - occurred, I believe, if I remember rightly, upon Saturdays and/or Sundays (depending upon one's hemispherical location).
**Perhaps it was a fellow named John McDonald, long since having moved on
from his then position with Newstalk ZB to the then Radio New Zealand
frequency.
***Though as I reflect in depth I cannot help but include one additional quality, one which, whether truly possessed by Diana or otherwise, was widely perceived as so being. This 'quaint' quality of 'innocence', I at least firmly believe, was undoubtedly one of the greatest secrets of her popularity and/or universal appeal.
****Perish the awful cliche-ridden term!
Monday/Tuesday September the 4th/5th
Part Five: Dianaphilia Runs Rampant: How the Phenomenon of Dianamania Became A Global Pandemic
We now approach the very heart of this blogpost, a 'thing' I've deemed dianamania - or dianaphilia; both newly-minted terms, as far as I know, anyhow...and both seeming - to my way of thinking - to accurately, even graphically, describe the phenomenon under consideration/examination...and in a way nothing else either does or even can. For within minutes, even moments after the news got out - was spread abroad - we suddenly had what can only be deemed a psychological phenomenon, whereby people throughout the world - Westerndom, anyhow - were being reduced to grief previously unknown, certainly virtually unheard of. And grief moreover for someone - however (superficially) beautiful/attractive, glamourous, charming - whose involvement in our own personal, day-to-day lives had ever been only vicarious, mediated for us through that beloved 'icon' of modernity variously known as the idiot box, the kiddie manager, or simply the television set, or TV. That is, for the great majority of onlookers, anyhow, - i.e., all those (the vast majority of us) who'd never ever personally known Diana - beyond perhaps a cursory crowd glance or word, or at most a handshake.
People were quite literally stopped in their tracks, and within a short time became obsessed (with), even seemingly 'possessed' by this happening...as if they'd quite literally taken leave of their senses; thus suspending all normal, proper, rational judgment. That someone they'd (generally) never even met, much less personally known - except vicariously, c/o the ubiquitous 'idiot box' - should somehow have the innate/inherent power to mold and reshape their lives and emotions...and moreover cause deep-seated grief and heartfelt, incapacitating mourning - spoke veritable volumes, if not encyclopaedia!
And so, when, as the very latest documentary-makers upon the death of
Diana have cited, various individuals and couples were randomly
approached and interviewed over days (and weeks) subsequent to the
Princess' death, very strange reactions were cited, such as where one 'wag' later stumbled upon divulged he hadn't even had such intensity of grief for his
very own wife when she'd died! Such types of responses were obviously far more
befitting the deaths of close personal relatives and friends, and grief
reactions thereto which one would certainly expect from those closest
and dearest to them; but not the sort of responses one would normally have to the death of total strangers, leastwise from folk who'd never even known them to begin with! But of course this was precisely what we saw upon Diana's death - all across the world.
It was a phenomenon whereby the vast majority of not only ye average Jane and Joe Bloggs, but supposedly rational, serious commentators even - to virtually a man and woman - seemed completely 'taken in', 'under the spell' of intoxication, infatuation, bewitchment, hypnosis; dispossessed, however momentarily, of their own free wills; swept up in a global obsession, addiction, even dare I say it, mania. Well, I dare do so, despite myself admittedly also being carried off, carried away by this obsession, this mania, which I'd now like to term 'dianamania' or 'dianaphilia'. But I was not the first or necessarily the most insightful or perceptive, to notice let alone name or identify it; that distinction seems to have belonged to one very *courageous individual alone, even if he was perhaps accompanied, either then or subsequently - however unbeknownst to myself - by many other opinion writers and the like.
That person was well-known New York-based socio-political critic Christopher Hitchens. He was, as I say, and far as I'm aware, the first person to both identify this new concept and moreover 'call it out' for the dangerous psychological phenomenon it undoubtedly had become, and just as - in fact even more - importantly, to subject it to the sort of critique for which he is famous; and for that he deserves full credit, though much more so for being prepared to hang out on a limb with virtually the whole world against him.
To say that with Princess Di's unexpected demise people were suddenly caught up in a chord of public sentiment previously unknown is clearly an indisputable truism. It was indeed one in which (summing up all I can still recall of Hitchens' observations and analysis) people globally, or at least 'Westernwide', for the moment took leave of their rational faculties and were swept up in pure, unadulterated emotionalism. Something Hitchens understandably considered a dangerous thing, no doubt vividly recalling how similar outbreaks of mass hysteria throughout the previous 20th-Century had seen masses of people in various places caught up in socio-political movements, and, in 'temporarily' even losing possession of their rationality and higher reasoning powers, had become a prey for tyrants and megalomaniacs alike, great oppressors who had used and exploited these folks' naivete and gullibility to further their own often diabolical ideological agendas.
Yes, such mass movements, however initially innocent-seeming, had oftentimes, even regularly morphed into something much more sinister, and, like the mass hysteria with which sports fans and fanatics at times have 'lost their senses' in utter pandemonium, 'harmless' emotion' and well-meaning sentiment have quickly, rapidly transmogrified into what can only be described as rebellious, chaotic anarchy engendered by mass brainwashing or crowd-induced hysteria; whereby died-in-the-wool loyalty to one's beloved, be it a sports team, a political party, a nation, a popstar or the like, or even a special family member or friend whom one has **put upon such a pedestal as to esteem as almost godlike, can simply do no wrong.
It is a 'condition' whereby one becomes possessed by a kind of reverse anthropomorphism, and instead of a 'conception or representation of a god as having the form, personality, or attributes of man; ascription of human characteristics to what is not human', as my ever handy Chambers Concise Dictionary defines 'anthropomorphism' itself, the definition (in Dian's unique case) here becomes reworked as follows: the conception or representation of a human being as having the form, personality, or attributes of a god/dess; ascription of god/desslike characteristics to what is not a god/dess. Need I say more?
Yes, just as Earl Spencer noted at Diana's funeral, whereby "the one (i.e. Diana) with the name representing 'the huntress' [of ancient Greek mythology] herself eventually became 'the hunted' ", people in our day [i.e. during that mysterious period of universal grief back in 1997] became - if unwillingly and unknowingly, even subconsciously - themselves wrapped up in that selfsame phenomenon; a mania, as recorded in the annals of the Book of Acts in the New Testament, which also apparently struck the crowds in an amphitheatre in the great Apostle Paul's day. No, just as 'we all' didn't do what the hateful ***paparazzi got up to, ultimately pursuing, virtually hounding and harassing Diana to her very death, the Greek multitudes at that time themselves got wrapped up in the selfsame thing we encountered back in 1997, in which, for three long hours, nothing could be heard over the ongoing shout of the spectators: "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" Her godlike status simply could not be questioned; it was a cardinal principle of that society, and anyone in any way seeming to challenge it was (literally) shut out, as if their view of matters was irrelevant; unwanted it most assuredly was!
Yes indeed, Princess Diana's death was a singular event, a psychological study in human nature, worthy of a varsity paper even - a snapshot in time, now enshrined for time immemorial in peoples' hearts. Yet what a light it cast, it shone - and continues to shine - upon modern-day (Western) humanity, a 'people' having summarily eschewed anything and everything making pretense to Godlike status while actually eagerly, desperately seeking solace in anything and everything which will effectively substitute for such in their hearts and lives; living in conscious denial of a reality they really inwardly crave and cannot live without!
The very severity/intensity of peoples' grief responses/reactions were simply out of all proportion to both the importance of the event to both life and the universe in general and to their own lives in particular. Nothing else can account for let alone explain this except to label it indeed as a singular psychological phenomenon; and one unparallelled in most of our lifetimes. It was an event whereby the mass of (at least Western) humanity was caught up in a wave of mass hysteria more associated with extreme ideologies and sports fanaticism, and surely better befitting a ****more worthy object.
*Because to remark that Mr Hitchens was, almost from word go, subjected to intense and at times even vituperative, public criticism and moreover opprobrium as a result of his singular critique, is to considerably understate matters.
**For a singular treatment of this phenomenon, i.e. of cultish 'groupthink' - although unavoidably, inevitably that very (latter) term of course instantly 'conjures up' [conveys as if from the dead by a necromancer] George Orwell, celebrated author of not only 1984 but the equally brilliant and epochal Animal Farm, since he, by first utilizing and skillfully employing this very term - far as I know - has pretty well singlehandedly brought this phenomenon into widespread public awareness - one likewise cannot go wrong by also referring to C S Lewis' equally brilliant The Four Loves, where he unveils all the many and various dangers inherent in it.
***According to my Chambers Concise Dictionary, the correct word is 'paparazzo': 'a photographer who specializes in harassing famous people in order to obtain photographs of them in unguarded moments.'
****By this last comment I intend no reflection upon Diana Spencer
personally, only to signify that such adoration and indeed adulation has
traditionally been seen as not only wholly inappropriate for mere mortals, for everyday, fallible human beings, but likewise only truly appropriate for a Being considered to be God. It was verily something Earl
Spencer and other eulogizers at Diana's funeral, moreover, readily
conceded about her, indeed a major part of her appeal, enabling
multitudes to personally identify with her through all her very many human
failings and foibles.
To Be Continued...
September 12th, 2017
Part Six: Afterthoughts on A Life Lived In The Public Spotlight: Expectations of British Royals' Attention To 'Duty' Vis-a-vis Grief
*On this other day (Northern Hemisphere Time, Anyway) upon which 'everyone' graphically remembers exactly where they were and what they were doing when another major international 'incident' occurred, i.e. '9/11' as it will ever be 'immortalized', it seems appropriate (if more by chance than intentionally) to wrap up with some curious, but significant, reflections upon the royals' own **reminiscences of that decisive day back in 1997 in which their own lives were irreversibly altered.
Essentially the dynamic of the conundrum involved, for on the one hand Queen Elizabeth herself, and on the other for the two young royal princes, William and Harry, was between their own understanding of their rights to personal grief or otherwise as opposed to public expectations of their duty (or even grief) at such a time. And thus 'Queenie' was essentially panned/pilloried 'from pillar to post' for not showing sufficient grief and/or the sort of emotions 'everyone else' was experiencing, and thus it was accordingly both expected, indeed positively demanded of the Monarch herself and British Monarchy Incorporated, that she likewise, effectively not be allowed to grieve - or not/otherwise - i.e. in her own, private, personal, self-chosen way.
Meanwhile, in a position that can only be described as the polar opposite of the dilemma facing Elizabeth, William and Harry confessed in this latest close-up, in-depth doco that though wanting to grieve away from the public eye (as their own personal, private emotions seemed to best dictate) - indeed as any kids prematurely deprived of a very beloved mother would naturally be expected to want to do - without any recriminations whatsoever, they pretty soon realized (as with Queen Elizabeth the Second) that this would be ultimately unacceptable to the British public, and so eventually resolved to 'bite the bullet' and shun emotion in favour of duty.
And thus the two young princes' genuine, legitimate emotional responses were effectively shelved (for the time being) in favour of (their expected) public duty, whereas the Queen's right to attend to her own private duties (embracing personal grief in her own time and way out of the public eye if so be it) were required/ demanded to take second-place to the public emotions she was expected to evidence...and that no matter how personally unnatural such (grief-stricken) 'emotionalism' might well have been to the Queen irrespective of the close relative who'd died, and obviously especially so in view of her own well-documented ever-so-fraught personal relationship in times past with Princess Diana.
Yes indeed, the things we do for (and to secure) 'peace' with one and all, and so as to avoid any undue offence or upset, even thus effectively denying who we really are, of putting on a mask/public persona and pretending to be someone we're really not. The way, indeed, that sales representatives and the like are so often encouraged nowadays to 'fake it until you make it', for example acting as if one believes something until by so doing long and enthusiastically enough one ultimately comes to believe the very sort of thing/s one once did not. But just as we are told that 'all is fair in love and war', so the ever-incessant demand these days to please public sensibilities no matter how personally antithetical to one's very being and/or anathema to one means that anyone seeking 'to thine own self be true' has to either ultimately be just that or compromise with and effectively give in to the sort of persona that the public-at-large would prefer to see. And thus and so the royal family were obliged to be untrue to themselves 'in the greater public interest'.
Yet the question will ever remain - as an inescapable backdrop against that unforgettable 'scene' and snapshot in time, in vividly-remembered shared world history: is it, indeed can it ever be the right thing to put on an ever-so-accepted public persona when by so doing one thus effectively denies one's very being? For surely - no matter who is involved, for this is a far larger conundrum than one merely facing members of a quaint old institution many today regard as a relic of a bygone era - to thus act a lie is surely the first step on a very slippery slope to such evils as duplicity, deception and deceit, which as 'we all' well know, have ever led to such grave and awful consequences in world history. For, as I suggest, once one sets foot upon that sorry path there is simply no way of knowing where one - and one's fellows, loyally and dutifully following in one's stead - will ultimately end up. And history is surely littered with testaments to that... .
*As a sidenote - and in connection with Part Five (above) - it's interesting to me that upon the very day I wrote (that aforementioned section) Prince William and Kate won their lawsuit against their own present-day equivalent of those erstwhile paparazzi, for photographing a topless Kate while they were sojourning on a tropical Pacific isle. Indeed in court they cited their personal remembrance of that tragic day back in 1997, the newly-minted contemporary paparazzi's actions thus serving to resuscitate bad memories of their own
mother's untimely, tragic death; something which will naturally ever remain raw in their very beings.
**As revealed in historical/archival film footage and close-up interviews in a special documentary recently released in New Zealand.
No comments:
Post a Comment