Editor’s note: this post has been pulled up. For newer posts scroll down.

This week it will be ten years ago that Diana, Princess of Wales died and the remembrance train is in full swing. No doubt it will all culminate in wall-to-wall coverage this coming Friday, the actual date on which she died in a car accident in Paris. So if you’re allergic to it all, make sure you tune out on that day.

The case however has fascinated me immensely and it is worthwhile contemplating the two key aspects of her death. On the political side it was the near constitutional crisis following her passing, captured imaginatively in the excellent movie The Queen - which I reviewed here. For Americans it may be hard to understand, but royal power in some European monarchies is not limited to the symbolic or cultural realm, political power is a prerogative still enjoyed by quite a few sovereigns. On the social and cultural side Diana’s impact continues to be far reaching, and Time’s Catherine Mayer had a very worthwhile piece last week which yielded this excellent excerpt:

The comedian David Baddiel, whose novel Whatever Love Means begins on the day of Diana’s funeral, sees her as an exponent of “a degraded version of therapy culture,” a self-help addict who couldn’t stop spilling her guts. She “didn’t know who she was but gained an identity through her messiness, through her lack of identity, by splattering her lack of identity on the walls of our culture,” he says. “People chimed with that.”

And so it is indeed. Diana’s death accelerated the emergence of a new and very public culture of death, now an integral part of the lives of the ‘commoners’. Personally I subscribe to the more private approach to mourning – whether it is a loved one or a public figure – but in our highly individualistic society where tradition and restraint have given way to the unfettered celebration of the self that is apparently no longer the norm. Diana somehow left the commoner with this message: ‘you too can be special in death’.

And as science and technology are allowing us to postpone death’s eventual call, it seems that we are increasingly unable to deal with its eventual arrival. Our forefathers must no doubt frown on the hysteria that now accompanies something that used to be a regular and private affair. That too is a part of Diana’s legacy.

MSNBC reports:

The deployment of Britain’s Prince Harry to Iraq is constantly under review, the Ministry of Defense said Thursday after a newspaper reported that his dream of fighting on the front line may be over.

Harry, who is third in line to the throne, is due to head to Iraq with his “A” Squadron of the Blues and Royals regiment in the coming weeks as part of the latest British troop rotation.

“Prince Harry’s deployment to Iraq, as we have always said, is under constant consideration,” a defense ministry spokeswoman said. “It is still our intention that Prince Harry will deploy as a troop leader.”
[…]
But the best-selling Sun tabloid reported that army chiefs had ordered an 11th-hour review of his planned deployment.

The move would likely end up with Harry being banned from going near the frontline, the Sun cited unnamed senior sources as saying. The younger son of Charles, the Prince of Wales, could still deploy to Iraq for six months but may be desk-bound for the duration, it reported.

Now, one has to remember that it is a tabloid we are talking about here, but let us assume the story to be accurate, at least for now: it would be, albeit understandable, a wrong decision to ban Prince Harry from “going near the frontline.” There was a time, once, that monarchs, well, rulers in general for that matter, who got into a position of power by inheritance, had to prove their worth on the battlegrounds. People respected them, respected their authority and listened to them, because they knew that, when push would come to shove, these rulers would out there, on the forefront to protect their subjects.

To touch that is dangerous. Those who support the monarchy in Britain should think twice. Once it is established that princes should not do dangerous work, that it should be left up to ‘John Doe’ since John is replaceable, the people will lose their respect for the Royal family. Indeed, they are in a position of power, without ever have done anything to deserve their priviliged position. The only way to justify that (position) is to protect the ‘people’. That was, of course, how noble families became noble in the first place. Yes they had money, yes they had power, yes they priviliges, but in the end, they were also the ones leading the forces to battle.

What I am writing is - perhaps - an ancient concept, but so is the concept of (the) Monarchy.

h/t Holly

We have been blessed with a new member of the Royal Family: princess Máxima gave birth yesterday evening to a little baby girl. If you want to watch a video click here (the man holding the baby is our crownprince Willem Alexander).

It is their third daughter, we’ll find out her name later this week (Friday).

Congratulations to them, and us.

NOS journaal reports (Dutch) that princess Maxima, wife of our crownprince Willem Alexander has checked into the hospital Bronovo in The Hague today. She is expected to give birth to a new prince or princess tonight (she already gave birth to two girls).

Maxima’s parents, Jorge Zorreguieta (a highly controversial figure who was not allowed to attend the marriage ceremony) and Maria del Carmen Cerruti arrived in the Netherlands a while ago already.

For those interested, here is the line of succession:

“Nieuwgeborene” means “newborn.”