Noblesse Oblige

Noblesse Oblige

When NBC and CBS decided to broadcast the Diana tapes, the one element they would not be able to show or explain is the peculiarly English upper class concept of noblesse oblige - that is the obligation of the upper classes to honour the responsibilities bestowed upon them by their privileged status.

This is well understood by those who are born into that circle of Lords, Ladies and royalty from the moment the silver spoon is planted in their mouths as they emerge from the protection of the womb into the security of their high ranking families.

From the moment they speak their first word - usually 'nanny' - the concept of duty is hammered into every aspect of their home and academic lives. They are made to uphold family tradition by going to the same Prep School, Senior School and University that their fathers and grand fathers before them attended.

The traditional Public Schools they frequent reinforce qualities of leadership, duty, Queen and country. The cliché that the British empire was built, and wars won, on the playing fields of schools such as Eton, Harrow and Winchester is true. Driven to believe that nothing less than the first team is good enough, that taking part is fine but winning is better, and always being on top or in front is the natural order has shaped the leaders and therefore history of the United Kingdom since the 14th century.

Spending three obligatory years in the school's proto-military combined cadet force to reinforce the ideals of leadership and discipline. Polishing brass, marching in unison and surviving annual field exercises in the cold muddy environment of rural England to provide the foundations from which they launch into the world. Usually from the hallowed cloisters of universities such as Oxford or Cambridge whose world class academic reputations are almost secondary to their place in history.

The members of this exclusive club are remarkably low key in how they conduct their lives, the public spectacle of fox hunting being one of the few exceptions. Normally they just get on with their lives, wearing jeans, jumpers and sensible shoes like the common man giving no clue to their high birth, large mansions or park like estates.

Only the polished accents and the presence of staff calling them 'sir' or 'ma'am' - pronounced 'mamm', never 'marm' - give the game away when you visit them 'at home'. An excursion to the local supermarket is even a possibility in this enlightened age. The muddy four wheel drive in the parking lot that they load up with good food and quality wines giving the only clue that they are not from the nearby public housing development.

Presiding over this club of the high born is the royal family who have taken the idea of noblesse oblige to the next level and turned it into United Kingdom Plc. The image they project of a cosy picture postcard family with a warm cuddly Queen who does nothing all day but smile, wave and walk her corgis is a common misconception. This discrepancy between the public image and private reality is what tripped up Princess Diana and the Duchess of York.

Both were modern women who would have been better off marrying one of the lower echelons but who aimed too high and were burnt by the glare of publicity which kept them on the front page of magazines and newspapers all over the world. Imagine not being able to sneeze without a paparazzi taking a picture of you wiping your nose and a journalist speculating that you were suffering from terminal pneumonia.

Neither woman was forced into her marriage. Diana announced to her friends during a game shoot that she was determined to marry Prince Charles, and the Duchess ostensibly married for love. One union constructed from a combination of ambition and the need to produce an heir, the second from the heart which made the subsequent divorce the more tragic for its emotional impact on both parties.

In Diana's case she did not understand that when royalty marry to consolidate territory or continue the line of succession, the concept of duty rather than love is understood. Each party doing what is expected of it to meet the obligations of their heritage. Continuing the practice that has sustained Europe for centuries. So successfully that the 1914-18 war was seen by some as being more a family squabble between irascible cousins than a military conflict.

After such marriages, and once the requisite heirs have been produced, it would not be considered unusual for these arranged couplings to evolve into two separate lives with the inevitable extra marital relationships being conducted with discretion behind closed doors. Unfortunately, in the case of Charles and Diana, Charles' relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles - which began in the early 1970s - was far from discrete.

Not surprisingly, given her young age and fairy tale like image of the British Princess, Diana lost confidence, felt rejected and developed a series of highly publicised psychological disorders. My feelings upon hearing the news of her fatal accident were not of bereavement, but instead of sadness that she had been killed just as she was beginning to find her way in the world. I am convinced that had she lived she would have achieved a great deal in the role of a UN peace ambassador or similar.

And so back to the NBC and CBS broadcasts. The musings and untimely death of a woman going through an emotional turmoil who performed her duty, provided an 'appropriate' wife for the British throne, and was then left to get on with her life as a royal appendage to be dusted off and wheeled out from time to time on formal occasions.

Should we judge Diana? Should we denigrate her for helping to destroy the credibility of the current heir to the throne that will likely result in the line of succession skipping a generation to give Prince William the throne when the Queen passes on?

Or should we think of her as a modern twentieth century girl who could not fit into an outmoded way of life in an institution whose days are numbered? Personally I take this latter view, and now care more for the future wellbeing of her children - Prince William and Prince Harry - who need to be left alone to get on with their lives.

Hopefully the NBC and CBS broadcasts will now draw a much needed line under this unfortunate and tragic chapter in British history to leave her memory, and her family, in peace.



	When NBC and CBS decided to broadcast the Diana tapes, the one element they would not be able to show or explain is the peculiarly English upper class concept of noblesse oblige - that is the obligation of the upper classes to honour the responsibilities bestowed upon them by their privileged status. This is well understood by those who are born into that circle of Lords, Ladies and royalty from the moment the silver spoon is planted in their mouths as they emerge from the protection of the womb into the security of their high ranking families. From the moment they speak their first word - usually 'nanny' - the concept of duty is hammered into every aspect of their home and academic lives. They are made to uphold family tradition by going to the same Prep School, Senior School and University that their fathers and grand fathers before them attended. The traditional Public Schools they frequent reinforce qualities of leadership, duty, Queen and country. The cliché that the British empire was built, and wars won, on the playing fields of schools such as Eton, Harrow and Winchester is true. Driven to believe that nothing less than the first team is good enough, that taking part is fine but winning is better, and always being on top or in front is the natural order has shaped the leaders and therefore history of the United Kingdom since the 14th century. Spending three obligatory years in the school's proto-military combined cadet force to reinforce the ideals of leadership and discipline. Polishing brass, marching in unison and surviving annual field exercises in the cold muddy environment of rural England to provide the foundations from which they launch into the world. Usually from the hallowed cloisters of universities such as Oxford or Cambridge whose world class academic reputations are almost secondary to their place in history. The members of this exclusive club are remarkably low key in how they conduct their lives, the public spectacle of fox hunting being one of the few exceptions. Normally they just get on with their lives, wearing jeans, jumpers and sensible shoes like the common man giving no clue to their high birth, large mansions or park like estates. Only the polished accents and the presence of staff calling them 'sir' or 'ma'am' - pronounced 'mamm', never 'marm' - give the game away when you visit them 'at home'. An excursion to the local supermarket is even a possibility in this enlightened age. The muddy four wheel drive in the parking lot that they load up with good food and quality wines giving the only clue that they are not from the nearby public housing development. Presiding over this club of the high born is the royal family who have taken the idea of noblesse oblige to the next level and turned it into United Kingdom Plc. The image they project of a cosy picture postcard family with a warm cuddly Queen who does nothing all day but smile, wave and walk her corgis is a common misconception. This discrepancy between the public image and private reality is what tripped up Princess Diana and the Duchess of York. Both were modern women who would have been better off marrying one of the lower echelons but who aimed too high and were burnt by the glare of publicity which kept them on the front page of magazines and newspapers all over the world. Imagine not being able to sneeze without a paparazzi taking a picture of you wiping your nose and a journalist speculating that you were suffering from terminal pneumonia. Neither woman was forced into her marriage. Diana announced to her friends during a game shoot that she was determined to marry Prince Charles, and the Duchess ostensibly married for love. One union constructed from a combination of ambition and the need to produce an heir, the second from the heart which made the subsequent divorce the more tragic for its emotional impact on both parties. In Diana's case she did not understand that when royalty marry to consolidate territory or continue the line of succession, the concept of duty rather than love is understood. Each party doing what is expected of it to meet the obligations of their heritage. Continuing the practice that has sustained Europe for centuries. So successfully that the 1914-18 war was seen by some as being more a family squabble between irascible cousins than a military conflict. After such marriages, and once the requisite heirs have been produced, it would not be considered unusual for these arranged couplings to evolve into two separate lives with the inevitable extra marital relationships being conducted with discretion behind closed doors. Unfortunately, in the case of Charles and Diana, Charles' relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles - which began in the early 1970s - was far from discrete. Not surprisingly, given her young age and fairy tale like image of the British Princess, Diana lost confidence, felt rejected and developed a series of highly publicised psychological disorders. My feelings upon hearing the news of her fatal accident were not of bereavement, but instead of sadness that she had been killed just as she was beginning to find her way in the world. I am convinced that had she lived she would have achieved a great deal in the role of a UN peace ambassador or similar. And so back to the NBC and CBS broadcasts. The musings and untimely death of a woman going through an emotional turmoil who performed her duty, provided an 'appropriate' wife for the British throne, and was then left to get on with her life as a royal appendage to be dusted off and wheeled out from time to time on formal occasions. Should we judge Diana? Should we denigrate her for helping to destroy the credibility of the current heir to the throne that will likely result in the line of succession skipping a generation to give Prince William the throne when the Queen passes on? Or should we think of her as a modern twentieth century girl who could not fit into an outmoded way of life in an institution whose days are numbered? Personally I take this latter view, and now care more for the future wellbeing of her children - Prince William and Prince Harry - who need to be left alone to get on with their lives. Hopefully the NBC and CBS broadcasts will now draw a much needed line under this unfortunate and tragic chapter in British history to leave her memory, and her family, in peace.