10 July 1998
The cult of Diana
The cult of Diana moves in mysterious ways, observes Andrew Calcutt reporting on
yet another episode in the afterlife of Princess Diana
'We need to beware of clinging to the icon. There is some element of wallowing in
her death'. Speaking to the Sunday Times at the start of the annual meeting of
the General Synod of the Church of England, the Archbishop of York urged an end
to 'the cult of Diana'. Warnings against cults are a bit rich coming from a
bishop, but David Hope's comments are welcome nonetheless. Indeed they are
something of an antidote to the recent publication of two books which have
confirmed the elevation of St Diana the Victim and thereby accelerated the trend
towards the degradation of all that is best about humanity.
Julie Burchill's 'Diana' is a hysterical hagiography which, as the distinguished
biographer Philip Ziegler said in the Daily Telegraph, 'does not tell one
anything new about the Princess, but it reveals all too much about Julie
Burchill'. It shows that the patronne of the Modern Review (publication of which
has now been suspended for the second time - these rich kids just cannot keep it
up) has lost her touch. In painting a portrait of Diana as heroic victim, she
probably thinks she has composed an original and hard-hitting polemic against the
establishment as embodied in the House of Windsor. But Burchill is like a little
dog (a corgi, perhaps), yapping at a dead sheep. The old establishment is already
profoundly self-critical (just look at the self-doubt which clouds the life of
Prince Charles). Like every other traditional institution in Britain today, the
Royal Family is rigid with anxiety, and in this context Burchill's criticisms are
as outstanding as a prescription for Prozac in a drop-in centre for the mentally
ill. Moreover, in her setting up of Diana (good) versus Charles and family (bad)
she is merely adding another line or two to the other, stereotypical soap opera
of our day: the attack on masculinity. A biographer of Diana which revealed only
its author would not be so bad if the author was herself interesting. But
Burchill's tongue-lashing of the Windsors is as safe as their House once was; and
La Burchill is now as predictable as the Queen Mum.
Bea Campbell's book follows a similar path, but to an end point which is degraded
as well as banal. By telling her story on one the BBC's flagship current affairs
programmes Panorama, Campbell concludes, 'Diana joined the constituency of "the
rejected" - the survivors of harm and horror, from the Holocaust, from world wars
and pogroms, from Vietnam....'. By bracketing Diana and her personal difficulties
with the Holocaust, Campbell has 'joined the constituency' of the historically
illiterate and the morally bankrupt.
Compared to this, the good bishop is good indeed. But, crucifix in hand, he has
not remained entirely unaffected by the vampires of victimhood. Further into his
interview with the Sunday Times, the bishop tried to separate out the
over-the-top cult of Diana from the real Diana, authentic symbol of genuine
suffering and healing. But this is a spurious distinction. The icon of Diana
symbolises the redefinition of our common humanity in terms of weakness,
vulnerability and victimhood; and, as such, it is necessarily a cheapening of the
active spirit of humanity and an insult to the sense of ourselves as high
achievers. While the bishop's opening remarks were critical of the excesses of
the Diana cult, in his subsequent comments he seemed to be striving for a
respectable way of revering her. But to respect the icon of Diana, in any shape
or form, is to disrespect the image of human beings as active agents in history.
Venerating the victim is a desecration of our humanity.
With the first anniversary of Diana's death less than two months away (then
again, it seems like every day of the year is a Diana anniversary), the bishop is
staking a claim to the event on behalf of the more traditional sections of the
Church of England which he represents. His comments should be seen as part of the
ongoing rivalry between traditionalists and those who represent the New Age of
spirituality in the Church of England. But even the traditionalists are not all
that traditional. In the early sixties bishop John Robinson's 'Honest to God'
introduced the idea that God is a personal thing. Now, as a continuation of that
idea, we have the notion of each to his own, personal Diana. David Hope and his
co-thinkers may not like the end results of DIY spirituality; but it has been a
growing part of the Church of England since around the time that Lady Diana
Spencer was born; and now, as the saying goes, they shall reap what they have
sown.
Andrew Calcutt is the author of 'Beat: the iconography of victimhood from the
Beat Generation to Princess Diana' (Sheffield Hallam University Press).
Join a discussion on this commentary