Diana: An arabic-style family game -with sore losers!.

Submitted by John Douglas (United Kingdom), Nov 9, 2007 at 09:21

I find it somewhat amusing to be informed of the reaction of the Press in the Arab world to the death of Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana. It is that thinking that has kept the Islamic world firmly locked into the 7thC. Whilst I do subscribe to the fact that the couple were assasinated, the use of that very word, of 'arab' origins, should be enough to convey the understanding to the Arab world of what happened.

Diana was so full of vengeance against the British Royals, and so very conscious of the way the media had promoted her to iconic levels, she felt confident in 'rubbing the Royal family's noses in the dirt' by 'violating' the British establishment's protocols. On the other hand Dodi was merely being used, and encouraged, as a puppet by his father in his own game of vengeance against that same establishment, on account of his being both rejected for British citizenship, and having his business dealings investigated by the U.K. government.

If one speculates that Prince Harry (accepted as part of the Royal lineage) looks not one jot like his mother Diana or HRH Prince Charles, but in fact does appear almost as a facsimile of her previously 'adored' lover James Hewitt, then we have a problem. The Royal family (like any family) must have had quite a pow-wow style gathering over that one, with the result they seemed to move on.Like any mother-in-law the Queen(an even greater iconic figure) must have decided to tolerate the situation, but may not have been too happy about it.

Now, having lived in the Arab world I know that this alone would be grounds for a 'revenge' killing of Diana as she would have besmirched the honour of that family, and in particular its No1. son. It's not legal, but many Arabs would 'nod' in understanding of the process. The UK, with it's huge Islamist Pakistani community, has grown to live with many press reports and judicial proceedings concerning attacks upon, and murders of, runaway or adulterous wives.

In many cases this has even extended to the children of that marriage. All in the name of honour. So, when Diana starts openly cavorting (i.e inviting the press) with an Islamic playboy, whilst at the same time being mother to the heirs to the British throne (title: Fid Def.-defender of the (Christian) faith)then it would be fairly understandable for the Royal family and the 'establishment' to be pressed into playing their own honour-card, rather than place their noses in the dirt again.

This therefore should be a fairly familiar scenario for Arabic or Islamist observers to comprehend. It is a sad scenario. It brought together a rather vulnerable,not very worldly daughter of a disfunctional British aristocratic family who had been 'catapulted' to the dizzy heights that many rock n' roll stars cannot even psychologically handle, and the 'spoiled-rotten' son of a rich,dodgy, manipulative Egyptian storekeeper. Hardly a combination to spot the potholes in life's rocky-road.

Maybe the fault all lays with Mr Fayed Snr., who like any normal father looking after his sons interest should have taken him to one side and said " Look son, this Diana girl, are you sure she's right for you? I think there's trouble ahead in this one - so be very careful". Thats not what he did at all. Instead he pressed $280,000 into his son's hand, and told him to " Go get a big sparkly (engagement?) ring -that'll really piss "em all off" Whats that phrase I recall my own mother using? " I always blame the parents"

Mr Fayed Snr instead, seems intent on blaming everybody else in the British establishment. He should accept that even in the event of his son actually being assasinated, his own common sense as a responsible parent could have prevented it.Instead, he started to 'play games', using his own son....and tragically lost.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".