Cockburn on Spain.

I've just been flicking through the pages of The Devil's Decade (1973) by Claud Cockburn, in which he has a chapter on the Spanish Civil War, entitled The Battle for Spain: Triumph of the Right. This is not so surprising as Cockburn was a Communist agitator in the 1930s and covered the Spanish revolution and its fight for survival. He was not totally exceptional as a British aristo abroad fighting for a cause which seemed insane to the ruling-classes of the day. Here's an excerpt I quite like:

 

Outside Spain, the event was noted with generally calm incomprehension. A general election had taken place, a shift to the Left had been registered. 

Europe north of the Pyrenes was in the main ignorant of the state of mind of the Spanish working people; was indifferent to it; and would in any case have found it unintelligible. 

Those whose business it was to observe the course of events found it impossible to convey their nature and significance to populations cocooned in their political habits. Some tried to translate Spanish into French or English by seeking comparisons with the mood of revolutionary Europe in 1848 or of the Paris Commune of 1871. The translation was rough indeed, the analogy distant. 

It was justified in one sense only: in Spain now, as in those great European explosions of the nineteenth century, hundreds of thousands of people - in Spain millions - were motivated and propelled by a good hope that the moment had come when man could remake his world; that he could master his circumstances; that liberty could cease to be an empty word, and work be no longer a dreary one. They did not accept that Utopia must be a sick delusion. 

These words must have been bittersweet for Cockburn who had seen the defeat of Spain's revolutionaries by Fascism first hand. It was a defeat which the Western powers had colluded in (along with Stalin) to stomp out an alternative vision of society. It would be four decades until Spain was emancipated from the jackboot of Franco's regime. It's an important lesson in the dark times in which we as leftists live. Many years later in the final years of the twentieth century Claud's eldest son Alexander Cockburn would write: "These days we're shy imaginers of Utopia. We know we live in the age of iron, lamented by Hesiod and Ovid. All the more reason not to lose heart. There is abundance, if we arrange things differently. The world can be turned upside down; that is, the right way up. The Golden Age is in us, if we know where to look, and what to think."

The Gentleman Bitch.

Requiescat in Pace.

The soixante-huitard turned chickenhawk Christopher Hitchens once said that he had a kind of "penis envy" for Gore Vidal. Indeed the young contrarian had based himself on Gore Vidal and the two met in 1970 at the New Statesman. Eventually the slender Hitchens became the dauphin to Vidal's contrarianism and would later become one of many porky opponents to be outlived by Gore. Over the years the gadfly had stung William F Buckley as a "crypto-Nazi" only to apologise on the grounds that the term "crypto-Fascist" is much more accurate. Truman Capote felt the sting when Vidal described him as a "filthy animal that has found its way into the house". Later Capote's passing prompted the infamous remark "That was a good career move." Then there was Norman Mailer whose positions on women's rights prompted Gore to criticise his old friend. It was at a Manhattan dinner party in 1977 that Mailer threw a whiskey in Gore Vidal's face before heat-butting and punching him. To this violence Vidal quipped "And, once again, words fail Norman Mailer."

On that note Gore Vidal once described himself as a 'gentleman bitch' in his role as a provocateur of historians and the political class. He showed no mercy in his scathing attacks against deserving enemies and reached into areas as seemingly varied as politics, religion, history and literature. As a polymath he tried his hand at novels first then plays and scripts for film as the commentariat turned against him over The City and the Pillar. The mainstream media, with The New York Times in the lead, waged a campaign against Gore Vidal refusing to review his work. Out of this relatively dark time in Vidal worked on Ben-Hur (uncredited) as well as Visit to a Small Planet and a political drama set on a fictional campaign trail The Best Man. History is not without irony as Ronald Reagan auditioned to play the lead in the film adaptation of The Best Man. Reagan was turned down on the grounds that he did not appear presidential. Eventually Vidalian fiction was rehabilitated in the eye of the Establishment, but he remained a controversial figure.

The essay was his preferred form, placing him in the line of great litterateurs, for it was the form which he felt he had mastered and he hoped he would be remembered as an essayist above all else. There is a degree of self-awareness, detachment and cool about Vidal that led Italo Calvino to conclude that he has no unconscious. In his own words Gore stated "I am exactly as I appear. There is no warm, lovable person inside. Beneath my cold exterior, once you break the ice, you find cold water." He was as much a fixture of American life, its discourse, culture and narratives even in the capacity of opposition which he practiced. Even though Gore was a prominent commentator he remained out of the field for the most part. He could have been a politician with his family background and connections. Indeed he came close to becoming a player in the 1960s. After the disillusionment he experienced Vidal contented himself with the role of gadfly and cynic. In the words of Alexander Cockburn "Cynicism is the birth of opposition."

The contrarian tradition to which Gore Vidal belongs may properly be traced back to the Cynics of Ancient Greece. The taunting and mockery of all power by Diogenes, whether it be the waggling of a plucked rooster at Plato or telling Alexander the Great to get out of the light. It is the case that Gore was more than content to stand on the side-lines, for the most part, and attack both the Democrats and the Republicans. He deemed both parties to be just two right-wings of the Property Party. Vidal wasn't a perfect cynic, for he knew how to appeal to power at times and did so in support of George McGovern, then Jesse Jackson and later Barack Obama. But Gore Vidal remained much more of a cynic than his former dauphin Christopher Hitchens. He hadn't voted since 1964, when he did so to support Lyndon B Johnson, which severs him from the Democrats at the ballot box. Vidal explored the third party option in the form of the People's Party, a left-wing populist party looking to build on New Deal liberalism.

As a controversial figure, right up until the end, he outlived many old opponents and even the unseated dauphin only for Hitch to slander him a conspiracy theorist and anti-Semite. This is over Gore's provocative comments on the "War on Terrorism" waged by the Bush administration, let alone his long-time criticisms of neoconservatives and Israel. He first courted controversy as a proponent of gay rights, though he was strictly anti-essentialist in his insistence that there are only homosexual acts and no homosexual persons. Similarly Vidal maintained that the issue of race was a real one, even if just politically. He never bought into the language of liberal multiculturalism and political correctness. The reasoning here is that the issue is not cultural, the US is a case of a monoculture with plenty of room for hatred along racial lines. This was the same man who once rubbed shoulders with the Kennedys, Tennessee Williams and Paul Newman (he didn't mind name-dropping either). The irony of all this is that the ideal Vidalian narrator is a person who sees as much as possible, but is seen the least himself.

See also:
Proposals to Improve the US Government
Vidal looks back on his remarkable life
The Profile of a Writer
Documentary on Vidal
Hot Talk with Gore Vidal 
The Education of Gore Vidal 

The League of Ugly Gentlemen.

The Time for Populism.

The very suggestion that there is a ruling-class might be dismissed as a "conspiracy theory". It would no doubt be met with rage from some who would unroll the accusation that this is just a backward attempt to take us back to the politics of class. Because apparently we have moved beyond class and into an age where all the old battles have been won. Nothing will ever change for the reason that all the necessary changes have already been accomplished. Even as the British elite hold around £4 trillion in the form of antiques, paintings and pensions, to speak of 'class' is to resurrect flat-earth politics. This huge concentration of wealth in a few hands is not unique to our little island. The total liquid wealth of the global rich (around 10 million people) came to $40 trillion in 2009 and it has been increasing in spite of the crisis. In the advanced capitalism of today, we are led to believe, the class structure has been obliterated and the individual now rises in accordance with their own merit, specifically talents and work ethic.

There was an interesting study covered in the New Scientist on the matter of a global ruling-class. In an analysis of the relations between 43,000 multinational corporations it has become evident that a relatively small group of companies that hold onto a disproportionate amount of power in the global economy. The work revealed a core of 1,318 companies with interlocking ownerships. On average each of these companies had connected to around 20 other companies. These 1,318 companies represented 20% of global operating revenues and it appears that the 1,318 own through shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing corporations - representing a further 60% of global revenues. The team went further to untangle the network and found that just less than 150 companies control 40% of the wealth in the entire network. The dominant companies include Barclay's Bank, JP Morgan Chase & Co and Goldman Sachs. In light of all of this can we really maintain that the idea of a ruling-class is so outlandish? 

The British elites still carry some of the remnants of the privileged position that they held in the old feudal power-structure. Consequently, the political class has not yet gotten used to ratifications, not even at the symbolic level which the Americans "enjoy" so much. This is the reason that the Americans have a much stronger Freedom of Information act than Britain. Of course, the US has a sophisticated network of mass-media and public relations which muddies the water to keep a great deal of Americans in the dark. There is a similar network in Britain, except we lack the same formidable free access to information. The consequence is that the insights into the political and ruling-class are much more difficult to come by. Occasionally the information seeps out of the liberal end of the mass-media press, to the chagrin of the reactionary gutter-press who would rather announce the triumph of socialism than acknowledge the bitter truth of class and deplore the horrors of capitalism. The discourse is casually limited by the influences and interests that ensnare the media.

So we know that the Conservative Party received £7.3 million in the campaign for 2010, while Labour received around £5.3 million. Since David Cameron became party leader we know that the Party has received £42 million from financial institutions, over half of the total donations that the Party received altogether. This is chicken feed compared to the US elections where the outcome is always pre-bought, Obama received around $750 million which is $400 million more than his opponent. In 2012 it seems we will see campaign contributions surpass $2 billion thanks to a decision by the US Supreme Court. We should view the corporate circus run-amok in the American government with wary eyes in Britain. The tales of the links between Tories and the private sector should not surprise anyone, nor should the proximity of lobbyists to power even at the highest level in this country. Out of the convergence of interests invested in the state we find policy emerges, there is a potential for political stagnation as well as radical change. Right now the situation is one of stagnancy.

The Labour Party has often been thought incompatible with the Conservative Party for the reason that the former is embedded in the labour movement, whereas the latter has long been the party of business. It has to be noted that the decline of trade unions in this country as a political force has made it possible for Big Business to share the Labour Party with them. As long as the unions are powerless then it is possible for Big Business to dominate the Party, the clashes of interests can be easily managed. It has to be noted that the industries unscathed by union-influence at all are impervious to the decisions of militants and moderates alike in the labour movement. This is the reason that it is perfectly possible for financial institutions to hold out for the Labour Party. The financial colossus cannot be broken by the labour movement and it cannot be stopped from leaping from Labour to Conservative whenever it has to. The commentariat don't like to say that the Con-Dem Coalition could have easily been the Lab-Con Coalition.

As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has found, the overall effect of the Treasury's new plans will be to reduce the incomes of those in the bottom 30% of earners and to benefit those in the top 60%. The top 60% would include the 10% of the population who own £4 trillion in wealth already and this is the primary constituency of the Coalition. It is not that the government is incapable of serving the people, it is that the government has a dual constituency torn between the interests of working-class people and the elites. So any appeal to one has to be made to the other at the same time, often on the terms of the constituents with greater clout and influence. This is the reason that David Cameron will talk of "muscular liberalism" and the "failure" of multiculturalism as an appeal to working-class people riled up by the press about Muslims and immigration. It is perfectly compatible with the austerity measures which are set to destroy what was accomplished in the immediate aftermath of World War II. To put it crudely the economic policies appeal to a particular base while the social policies and political rhetoric appeal to the masses.

Hobbes on Democracy.

Thomas Hobbes was a perfect foil for Machiavelli in a way, as Machiavelli claimed to have discovered a new continent of a new order but it was Hobbes who made that continent habitable. The focus of Leviathan, specifically in chapter 19, shifts onto the different kinds of commonwealth as distinguished from one another in terms of institutions and the succession to sovereign power, as well as in differences of convenience, aptitude in the creation of the peace and security of the people. For Hobbes there were only three main models of commonwealth: monarchic, aristocratic and democratic. This is due to the indivisible nature of sovereign power can only be peacefully manifested in representatives of “either one or more or all”.[1] For our purposes we will be focused particularly on what Hobbes has to say about democracy rather than aristocracy and monarchy. But the views he held on aristocratic and monarchic systems remain important only insofar as they can be distinguished from a democracy or a “popular commonwealth” as Hobbes deemed it.

Early on in the chapter democracy is marked out as distinct from monarchy and aristocracy, as a popular commonwealth in which representation comes in the form of “all that will come together”. Thomas Hobbes contrasts this with monarchy, where the representative is one man, and aristocracy, which is only partial assembly. In the case of a democracy every man has the right to enter into it, rather than in an aristocracy where only the men distinct from the rest can enter. Notably, if the power of the monarch has been limited then the state in question is not a monarchy as sovereignty fell into the hands of an assembly (which could be either democratic or aristocratic). For Hobbes the indivisibility of sovereign power is necessary for peace, an end for which sovereignty is instituted. Once power becomes divided it is no longer sovereign, so for conflict to be avoided it is vital for a duality of power to be averted.

For peace the sovereign must have absolute authority, be not a party to the covenants and hold absolute authority only to the extent that the sovereign has the power to enforce the law. Then it is absurd to think that there could be perpetual peace when sovereign power is in the hands of an assembly (as in a democracy) for the absolute representation of the people would fall to subordinate representatives and the power could very easily become divided. Thus subordinate representatives pose a danger to sovereign power insofar as such a system can become a source of division in the commonwealth.[2] So sovereign power can be divided, but it shouldn’t be because power ceases to be sovereign once it has been divided.[3] Think of instances in which states have collapsed into chaos amidst an uprising, a rupture of the order from which the sovereignty of the regime is undermined to the extent that a duality emerges and a rival for sovereignty appears.

There are also cases where the sovereign takes the form of a one-party state and a sudden rupture explodes the status quo. The revolution and subsequent civil war in Libya was one such example where power was stripped of its sovereignty as the people rebelled, but eventually sovereign power was manifested in a new government as the Gaddafi regime was brushed aside in Tripoli. We might even segue into theories of what makes a revolutionary situation. We might understand a revolutionary situation as defined by the emergence of what Charles Tilly called “multiple sovereignty”, which has three main features. First of all, the existing state suffers a loss of power to contenders and rivals. Secondly the rivals fall back on a base of popular support which is a significant portion of the population overall. Lastly, the existing state cannot, for whatever reason, repress the contenders and the base of support behind them. The fears of a divided sovereignty, which Hobbes had, are precisely a fear of this kind of situation arising.

Whether or not it is possible for a sovereign to hold absolute power regardless of its' form (whether monarchic or democratic) is not really explored by Hobbes at this point. For Hobbes, democracy is problematic for a number of reasons let alone the question of indivisible sovereignty. In a democracy the people of the assembly would not just represent the common interest of constituents. The individual has their own private interests which would rival the common interest and could easily come first, as Hobbes notes that the “passions of men are commonly more potent than their reason.” Where the public and private interests are unified the public is most advanced, Hobbes maintains that in a monarchy the private interest is the same as the public. The reasoning being that the wealth, power and honour of a monarch are derived from the subjects. The ability of the state to defend itself from enemies would be undermined if the people are poor, contemptible or too weak to maintain such a war. In a democracy, the prosperity of the people contributes not so much to a corrupt leadership as it does many times deceit, treachery and conflict.

Hobbes points out that a monarch can receive counsel wherever and from whomever he so deems fit, in secrecy, at whatever point before the time of action. In a democracy in which a sovereign assembly has been established, there is no time or place in which the assembly could receive counsel with secrecy because of the multitudinous nature of an assembly. So when such an assembly requires counsel, it will not be received except from those who have a right to do so and may not leave the confines of its own body to do so. Typically this will mean that the assembly will receive counsel from people who are more versed in the accumulation of wealth than knowledge. The advice could likely come in the form of long discourses, which would commonly call upon men to act in various ways rather than govern them. For Hobbes the assembly could reach out to counsel from the unskilled in civic matters, orators and so on, who give their opinions in speeches full of pretence and inept learning, this could only lead to the disruption of the commonwealth or do it no good at all.

It is possible that the assembly could strip good citizens of property to enrich friends of the assembly (e.g. friends of the people rather than the friends of elected representatives). Hobbes concedes that this is a possibility in a monarchy, he maintains that “we do not read that this has ever been done.” For the favourites of the assembly are more numerous than a monarch, so there is a greater temptation to serve the interests of their own kindred as well as to seductive orators – who have greater power to hurt than to help, as “condemnation than absolution more resembles justice.” Not only is it impractical for the assembly to be well advised there is a great potential for inconstancy as the potential for such in a monarchy is multiplied as with the mass of the representative. For Hobbes the resolutions of a monarch are subject to no other inconstancy than that of his own nature, whereas democratic resolutions are subject to the nature of the masses.

The assembly would be prone to disagreement as a result of the nature of man, as well as due to envy and interest, to the height of such disagreement a civil war maybe the consequence.[4] So it would seem that the stability of the state in question is at stake with the rise of a democracy. At the same time, the whole of the assembly cannot fail unless the multitude fail as well and there is no place for the question of the right of succession in a democratic government for the reason that anyone can enter into such a government. Though the death of a monarch differs from the death of an entire assembly, it would still dispossess the people of a representative and leave the multitude without a sovereign which unites them. The question of stability inevitably arises once again, without the guarantee of the “peace of men” it is likely that the state could return to the “condition of war in every age” and the only alternative to this is an “artificial eternity of man”.[5]

---

[1] Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. (1994) pg.118-120

[2] It makes sense then that Hobbes considered it absurd that the monarchy could hold sovereign power as it invites the people to elect representatives capable of putting forth the advice from the people. In the rare case of a monarchy in which the monarch is never considered a representative, though called sovereign, the status of representative would fall to those who have been sent by the people to carry their petitions and give the monarch their advice. In such cases then it is imperative for the “true and absolute representative of a people” to instruct the people in such offices and watch how they admit any other representation on any occasion.

[3] Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. (1994) pg.120-121

[4] For Hobbes, to say it is inconvenient to place sovereign power in the office of one man or an assembly of men (e.g. rather than a democratic assembly) is to hold that “all government is more inconvenient than confusion and civil war.” All danger must originate in the dispute between those who are for an office of such honour and those out to profit for themselves.

Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. (1994) pg.122-123

[5] Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. (1994) pg.124-125

On the Royal Wedding...

William Arthur Philip Louis has found a wife to cheat on, in accordance with the family values of Henry VIII. How can I express how little I give a fuck? The mock national anthem from Human Traffic comes as close as possible. The elephant in the room is class and that I do care about. Of course, we all know that Kate Middleton is a 'commoner' and millionairess descendent of landed gentry and solicitors as well as the odd miner. Notably it is her mother's side, the 'prolier' side, which is scrutinised more by the media than the father's side. Kate Middleton could suffer the modern equivalent of a public execution, death by media, if a past of promiscuity is uncovered by the gutter press. The persistant survival and rigidity of class in British society has yet to be levelled, the bloodlines and property deals of Royalty will dominate the tabloids until a social convulsion brings down the monarchy.
 

Britain is one of the few countries in the world that doesn't have a written constitution, as a consequence the country is typically conservative. Change comes slowly and when traditions are threatened the reaction is often despair. The British throne was once at the apex of capitalist accumulation and imperial expansion. Queen Victoria was important in providing the ruling class with the legitimacy to hold back the tide of mass-democracy, whilst the Empire can be expanded and the Church of England maintained. Today the Royals provide legitimacy for the bourgeoisie, as well as tradition and patriotism to keep the 'commoners' from despair. The ruling class and the dominant ideology have been in crisis, this wedding offers the possibility of rejuvenation. To keep up with old imperial traditions the Chief Torturer of Bahrain attended the ceremony, though Colonel Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad were not welcome. The distinction between these guests is a fine one, between "evil-evil" and "good-evil". Incidentally, April 29th is the same day that Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun wed.

The press claim we are 'less deferential' than ever and yet there are thousands on the streets of London. The irony being that Westminster have been trying to drive away homeless people in recent months. Naturally this private occasion demands camping on mass on the Mall, a wave of flag-waving and piss-ups to celebrate the union. It's all about procreation of course! The bloodline must continue! It was 20 years ago that Major declared Britain to be a "classless" society and here we are fawning over a marriage like obedient plebs. Mind you, a nun was spotted wearing tatty trainers and so far 43 people have been arrested including one person who was singing "we are living in a fascist regime" in Soho. Though there were also plans for a mock execution of Prince Andrew. There are 5,000 police officers on the streets with the support of the military in case of an "attack". The EDL pledged to march if the Muslims Against Crusades demonstrated.

Republican Rhapsody.

 

And so for the first time since Prince Charles pulled a Caligula and married a horse, we saddle up for another ROYAL WEDDING, where the taxpayer’s money is gleefully spent on an inbred family whose original purpose as figureheads has been buried under meaningless luxurious ceremony. Apparently an awful lot of cash is needed to make Prince Willy look like less of an absolute farting cretin, and to make Kate Middleton look less of a social climbing trophy-wife in waiting.

Unless you’ve been on the moon for the past couple of weeks, with your fingers in your ears and your eyes stapled shut, you will inevitably have heard that William Wales and Kate Middleton are engaged and will be married next year at the tax-payers’ expense. Yes, its true, the Prince has found a wife to cheat on, following in his illustrious father’s footsteps. Naturally the feeding-frenzy led by the parasites, who call themselves “journalists” and “paparazzi”, is underway with an enthusiasm rivalled only by a teenage boy’s yearning for privacy having just discovered masturbation. The media frenzy has barely got started and has yet to “climax”, the press has already shot down the Bishop of Willesden for expressing his views on the Royal wedding. It is obviously a grave crime to express indifference or opposition to the Royal Family, for it is an institution endowed by God with the right to rule us and live off our taxes, because their better than us and we’re their bitches, so sit back and watch all the fantastic ceremony kick off at your expense, bitch.

It is somewhat ironic that Christianity has been taken up as the religion of the ruling class. After all it was Christ – a radical Black Jew who came from the Middle East and looked like a goddamn hippie – who denounced the rich and the powerful, who held that the losers and deadbeats would inherit the earth, before being done to death by the state. Not an obvious hero for the British monarchy, with its family values derived from Henry VIII and pillaging the most of the world in the name of “civilisation”, which also has a history of crushing dissent to prevent the rise of a mass-democracy. The vote was not a gift from above, it was seized from below. It was gained after centuries of struggle against a clan of inbred hypocrites and syphilis-ridden playboys “entitled” to rule only by a hereditary principle.

Actually, speaking as writers, it’s probably a good thing that this wedding has been announced, because damn it, we need material for this column. Prince William, our future King lest we forget, is being hitched to another hot piece of St. Andrews ass (don’t think too much about that metaphor, I certainly didn’t) whom he first “fell for” (i.e. made Prince Will’s little Wills go SPROING!!) at a University catwalk, where Kate was wearing a dress that left very little to the imagination. An adventurous lady could possibly replicate the effect using four cobwebs and three beer bottle-tops, but it would be a near thing.

So, then, Prince William. Already balding, and always seen with an insufferable and inherently punchable smirk on his over-privileged face, he is the centrepiece to this royalist burlesque, and it’s hard to figure why he’s so popular. He’s not even that attractive. His “brother” Prince Harry could, potentially, be considered attractive if one had just served a long voyage at sea, but William just looks like a New Yorker caricature of the stereotypical British toff, all braying laughs and absence of chin. More innocent or less cynical writers than we would wonder what Kate saw in him, but then one remembers that the prospects of a fortune and endless photo shoots for Hello and OK! Magazines would turn Jo Brand into a fanny-magnet. But there’s one thought that keeps circling the mind like a vulture, which is the thought of whether or not William is good in bed. The idea of William’s cut-glass English accent expressing explicit sexual pleasure is one that will haunt my dreams forever, as is the thought of whether or not William says “crikey” at the vital moment. Though at this rate, the media coverage will catch the “vital moment” for YouTubers everywhere.

The current estimates for security alone are £20 million. That’s an astonishing amount of money to be throwing around. The money spent on the caviar and smoked salmon alone could probably neatly settle my student loan. Twenty million pounds is more money than the average working Briton will make in their lifetime, and here it is being thoughtlessly frittered away on lavish fripperies that make your average Bullingdon night out look like a monk’s lifestyle. The fact that this money is coming from the taxpayers, who have mortgages and bank loans and other plebeian concerns is the point that turns this farrago from merely an exercise in repulsive decadence into a downright insult. As we said before, the subtext of the glamour and luxury of this wedding is not to celebrate the union between two whinnying upper-class toffs, but instead to highlight the fact that some people are just born better than you. That’s right, they are better. God says so. Nobody cares if you don’t believe in God or if you don’t like how they’re living, this family of scroungers descended from a line of murderers, madmen, syphilitic lard-arses and tyrants are better than you.

The affair brings to mind nobody less than a giggling little “People’s Princess” Diane Windsor nee Spencer. When so much money was spent on the wedding of her to that gloomy bat-eared man, only for the marriage to fall limply to the ground like an overused condom, how we would have laughed, had the population not been footing the bill. The dress and ring alone cost the equivalent of £100,000 today, paid for with the wealth and land bestowed onto them by God and the public. Diana Spencer was a voluntary member of the dynasty in pursuit of a fairytale life as a Princess and Queen in waiting. The media indulged her in this puerile quest and has succeeded in creating a cult to the Princess. As for philanthropy and the two days she spent in Angola and Bosnia, when you’re a borderline airhead with millions of pounds and nothing to do except shag the riding instructor and contemplate regurgitating lunch, these things are something to do. This also helped cement the cultish following in the press. So when the Spencer girl died the press lost control of this cult and had no choice but to suspend reality. The non-event of 1997 would be mourned incessantly in the mass-media, not out of genuine adulation but to retain circulation. No deviation would be tolerated. Banning and censorship were the penalties for doing so. Today the Memorial to Diana’s memory seems very similar to her as a person. Both pointless and gushing, though unless my memory fails, Diana never drowned any squirrels. Feel free to correct us on this point if you have proof. But we digress.

I guess that the point that we are trying laboriously to get to is that this wedding is, at best, ridiculous, and at worst a spit in the eye of the taxpayer. What needs to happen is for us to reassess the position of the royals in society. The kind of unquestioning loyalty that so many people have is completely groundless. Loyalty needs to be earned, and it cannot be wasted on these non-elected, inbred sponges. So many people never seem to question the privileged position of the royals in society, despite the omnipresent implications that some people are born better than others and that you should pay for the honour of being ruled by these toffs. Not that we want to sound like Cromwellian abolitionists (we are, but we don’t want to sound like it) but the Royals are an utterly vestigial part of Britain today, a detriment to the equality of man and the last remnant of imperial rule and all the nasty baggage that goes with that. If we must have them, then let’s not waste our time harping on about the wedding, but have the incestuous pricks tone it down. Give Willy and Kate a registry office-followed-by-local-pub wedding. Move the Queen into just one of her stately homes, and give the rest to the National Trust. Give Prince Phillip an ASBO for “racial insensitivity”. Tear down the Diana Memorial and replace it with the verdant beauty of Hyde Park once again. If we are to have the Royals, don’t have them be the symbols of a lingering aristocracy. Make them normal people. It’s either that, or we can dust off the guillotines.

Written by JT White and Josh Ferguson, November 28th 2010, for the Heythrop student newspaper the Lion originally.