IMGpapers 1980–83

Newspapers of the International Marxist Group and its forerunners, 1980–83

Lady Diana

Socialist Challenge No. 207, 23 July 1981 · p. 8 of the scan · 256 words

The scan: sc-no207.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive, opens at this page)

Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Apple Vision OCR) from a scan of a newspaper page, and the page was cut into articles by machine, at the headlines found by their type size. Nothing has been corrected: expect misread words, text from a neighbouring article, and titles that are the machine reading of the headline, some of them only fragments. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: headline found by type size in the OCR geometry (split_tabloid.py); 7-7 of 7; machine-segmented newspaper page; uncorrected Vision OCR.

page 8 of the scan

wanted DAILY EXPRESS But Lady Diana did not need long to make up her mind, I never had any doubts about it. It's what I always •We want to make her like a fairy princess' said the designers of the wedding dress. Janet Reger, renowned for her slinky, sexy lingery, favourite with Lady Di WOMANS OWN titillate ourselves privately by thinking about the wedding night, and thereby accept continuing relations of power. is a firm Her friend said, 'She's so domesticated, she always seemed to be washing dishes or cleaning THE ROYAL WEDDING lines rakish, DAILY MAIL 40272 OF POSITIOn DAILY EXPRESS For the monarchy it means that the direct succession is almost certainly assured.

OFFICIAL SOUVENIR We are asked to celebrate a wedding made to identify with a family.

are human, fallible because families inherit (while give (while capitalism takes).

family album, do Barbara Cartland says: "The royal wedding mirrors where a virginal heroine like Di falls passionately in love with a man of nobility raffish, characteristics, like Charles.' told me she WoUld marry for love, not for money Her father, E physical speci In the later sta subjected to a that she could WOMANS O - but Why? Not simply to take our minds off Thatcher and unemployment. But because families endure (while capitalism does not); because families and accepting (while capitalism is technical, divisive and ruthless;

capitalism disinherits); and because, above all, families But wouldn't a President, complete with just as well? Not so.

Presidents have to be elected (by someone),

← LADY DI-THE GIRL NEXT DOORPrince Charles →

Something wrong on this page?