Kindergarten teacher
dies in Paris Crash

Diana Spencer Windsor -- or should it be Mountbatten-Windsor -- died following a car crash in Paris in the company of her "companion" (the delicate term the English-language press appears to have settled on), Egyptian playboy film producer Dodi Fayed, late Saturday night Aug. 30, a year and a day after finalizing her divorce from the son of the queen of England.
I'm sure she was a perfectly nice person, and of course it's a terrible thing when a young woman dies, leaving motherless children not yet grown.
On the Internet, the conspiracy aficionados went quickly to work, pointing out this is about the only viable scenario under which the divorced Charles Windsor might still retain a hope of ascending to his mum's throne.
But that's absurd, of course. No one

has committed murder to secure the throne of England since ... Whitechapel in 1888, right?
Of more immediate interest is the way the story played out in the domestic American press.
The younger Mr. Fayed was apparently no prince -- he is reputed to have had the habit of renting "party houses," and then stiffing the landlords.
But at least his family invests much of its wealth in department stores and hotels, the kinds of places that provide actual jobs -- Dodi's father, Mohamed al Fayed, has poured at least $500 million into Harrod's since buying it in 1984, for instance, despite the British government routinely denying, without explanation, his requests for citizenship.
Perhaps this helps explain the appeal, for Fayed the younger, of the divorced Mrs. Windsor -- described by essayist Roger Rosenblatt in Time magazine as "more innocent than clever," but the embodiment of social acceptance -- a woman even the press in America (a nation which supposedly foreswore the use of royal titles

 
centuries ago) insists on calling "The Princess of Wales."
This despite the fact that the late Mrs. Windsor, so far as I've been able to determine, never established residence in Wales, never made any serious attempt to master the Welsh language, and never took any more than a symbolic role in the administration of Welsh affairs.
No, the wife of the heir apparent to the English throne is called "Princess of Wales" for the same reason the Queen of England used to also bill herself as "Empress of India" -- to remind the conquered peoples of who's in charge.
Imagine for a moment that, following the swearing in of Al Gore as next in succession to the presidency, there ensued a hushed ceremony in the National Cathedral, at which Tipper Gore appeared in some sort of colorful native garb or feathered headdress, and was solemnly crowned "Princess of Puerto Rico," or "Princess of the Sioux Nation."
Yet Mr. Fayed, who produced the Oscar-winning "Chariots of Fire," dropped to the status of "other casualties" when the crash claimed the life of a 36-year-old divorcee, thus making it the Biggest Story of the Year.
Why?
By profession, Mrs. Windsor was a kindergarten teacher, lured into an arranged marriage based on her presumed

virginity and suitable bloodlines (daughter of the eighth Earl Spencer, for those who actually believe the mating habits of the descendants of the Norman conquerors were ever careful enough to constitute a viable experiment in eugenics.)
Yes, her naive failure to understand that the cad never intended to give up his favorite mistress was pathetic. ("Tragic" seems a tad overblown.)
But I'm instructed, by outraged members of the fawning multitude, that the reason Mrs. Windsor's death is a tragedy for the entire civilized world has nothing to do with the fact that her only productive talents seem to have been staying slim and child-bearing for the haughty yet debauched Clan Windsor. Rather, I am told, it's "because of her charities."
Ah.
And what is a "charity"?
A voluntary decision to take some of the wealth I have earned through the sweat of my brow, surely, and use it for the betterment of others.
But how can it then be "charity" if I use money which I have not earned at all, but only looted from others?
The British "royals" do still receive vast salaries and "living allowances" out of tax moneys looted from the common folk, don't they? Including the sizeable

 
number who would never "contribute" voluntarily?
One of "Princess Diana's" most recent charitable endeavors, as I recall, consisted in shipping her once-used costumes to New York, where they would bring the highest price, and then auctioning them off.
But if these outfits were purchased by the British taxpayers, shouldn't the proceeds from their re-sale have been repatriated to the British Treasury? Why did "the princess" get to keep the dough?

Never mind: Mrs. Windsor, I am instructed, was dear to the hearts of the world because of "her charities."
And such charities they were!

Next time: Working to Ban Land Mines.

Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/.

§ § §