International Worker No 239, Saturday, September 13, 1997 Diana's death brings constitutional crisis to a head By the Editorial Board The death of Princess Diana has brought to a head a constitutional crisis that has been raging around the royal family for almost two decades. Its repercussions will have a profound impact on the lives of millions of working people in Britain, long after the hysteria surrounding her violent death has abated. Since the middle of the 1980s the matrimonial difficulties between Prince Charles and Diana have been the focal point for deep and escalating divisions within the ruling class. The source of this dispute is to be found in the profound changes that have taken place in world economy and the deep class polarisation this has produced. The monarchy has been used as a symbol of national unity that has proved invaluable in ensuring social peace, particularly during the tumultuous events of the 20th century. For this reason it now stands at the very centre of the historical crisis of the nation state and its political structures, produced by the impact of globalised production, which is bound to find its consummate expression in the institution which stands at the very apex of the British constitutional set-up. On news of Diana's death in a road accident in Paris in the early hours of Sunday, August 31, the capitalist state and media organised the biggest exercise in mass manipulation of public opinion in living memory. Using methods that the Nazi propaganda minister Goebbels would not have been ashamed of, they completely rewrote the dead Princess's history in the most favourable light. They then forced everybody to watch or listen to it, arbitrarily taking over all television and radio coverage and cancelling sporting fixtures, films and other events. Magazine and newspaper articles already in production that carried articles critical of Diana were pulped. The thrust of this media blitz was to portray Diana as a popular "anti-establishment" figure and a "Queen of Hearts" with the common touch. The central role has been played by the New Labour leader Tony Blair. It was he who on the day of her death, dubbed Diana the "People's Princess" in an evocation of the rhetoric about New Labour being the "People's Party". Under conditions in which the Crown and the entire ruling class were in crisis, he acted as the arbiter between the warring factions as they strove to work out their new positions in light of this dramatic change in the situation. Key role for the bourgeoisie Diana has played a key role in the political calculations of the British bourgeoisie for almost two decades. The Royal Wedding in 1981 was used as a means to restore popular affection for the monarchy, which was widely seen as cold, distant and somewhat irrelevant. At a time of growing social polarisation in the first years of Thatcher's rule, Diana was portrayed as an ordinary shy young girl that everyone could identify with -- who worked as a nursery school teacher, shared a London flat with her friends and drove a mini-metro. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Coming from one of the oldest and wealthiest aristocratic families in England, this most privileged of young women had just returned from a finishing school in Switzerland where she had completed her training as a spoilt and manipulative young representative of the British ruling class. The myth created around her was used to reinforce the claim that despite the growing class antagonisms under Thatcher, the whole population were still part of the "Great British family". Both the royal family and Diana herself were initially happy with this arrangement, but differences were soon to emerge. Diana's own ambitions, open love of wealth, designer clothes and jet set parties was to quickly clash with the more traditional role mapped out for her by the older and more experienced members of the royal family. Her world tours became trade missions for British industry and top designers queued up to clothe her. She became the darling of those sections of the bourgeoisie most closely associated with Thatcherism and the development of globalisation in the 1980s -- such as Virgin Records tycoon Richard Branson -- and the nouveau-riche glitterati of the fashion and pop world. The Queen was deeply unhappy with the new high profile the royal family was being forced to adopt and the ostentatious display of wealth accompanying this. She believed it posed a threat to the national consensus -- on which bourgeois rule in Britain has historically depended -- and was hostile to Thatcher's socially divisive policies for the same reason. Against the background of the sharp escalation in the class struggle provoked by the Tory government's attacks on jobs and welfare provisions, conflicts worsened between the Queen and Thatcher, her backers like media magnate Rupert Murdoch and with Diana herself. Diana's resentment over Charles' affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles was intensified by the dashing of her hopes of reforming the royal family. This led to an initial and later well-publicised personal crisis. But unlike in the past, it was not possible for these disagreements to be confined within the Palace walls. Diana had ready access to powerful outside forces -- those within the bourgeoisie who regarded the monarchy as an outdated national institution in the new epoch of globalisation. There was nothing progressive in this opposition. They see the monarchy, standing as it does at the head of the old post war state institutions, as a fetter on their ability to get as much as they can from the international markets and greater exploitation of the working class. The royal family is a thoroughly reactionary institution, but these forces view it in the same light as the institutions of the welfare state, as an expression of a bygone era of national political, social and economic regulation that interferes with their sacred right to enrich themselves. They were motivated by a desire to ensure a dominant social and political position for themselves in line with their growing economic might. Diana's personal popularity and celebrity status was used as a weapon to ruthlessly undermine the House of Windsor and pave the way for reform of the monarchy or even a form of republicanism. This was a component part of a raft of constitutional changes thought necessary to make the British state more responsive to the needs of the transnational corporations, of which the current plans for devolution and decentralisation are a further manifestation. The dispute between the contending factions became ever more open and acrimonious. Diana's powerful backers schooled and encouraged her. They sought to ensure that the next king would be a Spencer -- Diana's son William. She gave her famous interview to Panorama where she said this was the only way to save the monarchy, in which she was cynically refashioned as the "Queen of Hearts". With social misery reaching unprecedented levels, Diana sought to boost her personal popularity with high-profile charity work, claiming that this and her own marital problems, depression and eating disorders proved her empathy with the downtrodden. In the last months of her life, Diana struck up a personal affair with Dodi Fayed, the son of billionaire Mohamed Al-Fayed -- one of the leading figures responsible for ensuring the downfall of the Tory government and bringing New Labour to power. Mohamed Al-Fayed epitomises the growing ascendancy of a new international bourgeoisie, with his ownership of such previous "national institutions" as Harrods in Britain and The Ritz hotel in France. Outraged when the Tory government denied him British citizenship, he engineered the cash for questions scandal that finished the careers of MPs such as Ian Aitken and Neil Hamilton. It was reported that Al-Fayed planned to turn the French retreat of Edward and Mrs Simpson into a home for the couple, establishing a virtual alternative monarchy in exile with Dodi as stepfather to the future king of England. This would be an intolerable situation for the Windsor family and their backers. A New Monarchy Diana's death threw the whole bourgeoisie into crisis. It left the Windsors unsure of how to respond, though initially spokesmen close to the Palace commented that the succession was far less problematic because Prince William and Harry would now be under the direct supervision of their father and, through him, the Queen. It deprived those coalesced around Diana demanding reform of the monarchy of their champion and main political weapon. Their response was not long in coming. They launched a vitriolic media broadside against the Windsors. Its purpose was to generate popular anger through saturation propaganda in order to carry out political engineering at the highest level possible -- to whip the royal family into line. Blair, who owes his own meteoric political advancement to these same forces, quickly became the spokesman for these demands. After the creation of New Labour, there is an attempt to develop a New Monarchy for the global era. The establishment is no longer what it was. A new layer has joined who feel they owe nothing to the past, who made their vast fortunes in the 1980s and 90s -- from those who benefited from the sale of former nationalised industries to pop stars, designers and athletes. Attracting investment from the transnational corporations demands the gearing up of political and economic life to their needs and not those of the vested national interest that the royal family epitomises. Diana is advanced as a role model for the monarchy because, like Blair and New Labour, she was directly attuned to the demands of the newly dominant sections of the bourgeoisie. It also needs new constitutional mechanisms that will be used to deepen the impoverishment of working people. The demands of global competition for trade and investments necessitates the destruction of every last vestige of state social provision. But this threatens to provoke a social explosion. This is the reason for the glorification of Diana's charity work. It justifies handing the fate of society's victims over to the charity Mafia and private philanthropy, while attacking the widespread belief that the state must provide decent social provisions for all. A continuation of this type of work is advanced as a way for the monarchy to play a part in ensuring social cohesion in the post-welfare state. The press openly campaigned for this. The Independent wrote on September 2, "To those who say getting involved with royalty is no business of New Labour, the reply has to be that the royal family's fate does matter... the accession of either Charles or his son would present an unmissable occasion for constitutional reform." The Financial Times on September 1 agreed: "As Mr Blair embarks on the modernisation of Britain's constitution, the House of Windsor should insist on being a part of it." Day by day, the hostile tone against the monarchy increased, with predictions that Charles and the Queen would be hissed at the funeral. The September 4 Independent carried an article by Polly Toynbee which advised Charles to, "call an end to this pointless, painful, ignominious charade", "renounce the Crown" and "recommend that the monarchy ends with his mother's life." Blair used this to exert his influence and authority over the Prince but became concerned that things were getting out of hand. He came out publicly in defence of the royal family while holding private discussions with Charles, urging him to stand up to his mother and make her submit to what was being demanded. This was successful. The Queen and her entourage were forced onto the streets to publicly grieve over their enemy, while she made a televised personal tribute to Diana. The day after Diana was buried, Blair and his wife, Cherie, were ensconced in discussions with the Queen on the future of the monarchy. On the day of the funeral, the media was explicit in recognising victory for those seeking reform. Roland Watson, Political Editor of The Express, wrote, "First it was New Labour. Now, it seems, we have the New Monarchy... Quite where the genuine rapport between Charles and Mr Blair will lead as the Millennium approaches has huge constitutional implications." The editorial in the Daily Mail made clear that what is riding on this is nothing short of the future stability of British capitalism: "The death of the Princess has united the whole nation in a way unmatched in recent memory... There is universal recognition that the things which bind us together are more important by far than the things which divide us: race, class, status, all the rest.... "That is the hope for the monarchy. Here stands a nation still yearning for a tradition which represents all that is best in itself. Diana's passing is a defining moment. If the tide of public feeling can be channelled by the royal family, then its future is assured. One day, years hence, King William will rule happily and securely over us." The future is far from assured, however. There remain powerful tensions within the ruling class. Diana's funeral saw all the contending parties -- the Queen, Blair, the Fayeds, Tory leader William Hague -- mount a display of unity. But the disputes go on. Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, used his funeral oration as a rallying cry against the Windsors. His evocation of, "We, your blood family" protecting William and Harry was a direct challenge to the royals and was applauded while the royals sat stone-faced. This has unleashed a fresh row over who best represents the interests of Diana's children -- the "eminently respectable" House of Windsor or a South African expatriate whose affair broke up his marriage and who bartered his family name for a high profile job in the media. What is more, in order to get what they wanted Diana's supporters stirred up powerful emotions against the royal family which could yet take forms that will not be channelled behind either Charles, William or Blair. By discrediting the monarchy in this way, the genie has been let out of the bottle and this may yet backfire on the bourgeoisie. Everything depends on workers cutting through the mass of confusion that has been created and taking up the struggle for their own genuinely democratic and socialist government which would put an end to the monarchy and all expressions of class privilege. Mass grieving a disturbing phenomenon Not a passive victim

Top of page Front Page

(c) SEP, PO Box 71, Rotherham, England, S60 1SU Tel: 44 (0) 114 2438 117 Fax: 44 (0) 114 2618 424 Email: sep@dial.pipex.com