30 DECEMBER 1995, Page 39

High life

Five's the number


ne more year down the tubes, but what a year. Weddings, balls and parties galore, and riveting television provided by Mother Diana as she trashed the 'enemy' in her unrelenting quest against the man who done her wrong. Mother Diana's on- going soap opera could only have been invented by a very bad novelist, which I guess proves that art does imitate life. `Love is, essentially, only for the very stupid or the very poor,' wrote Somerset Maugh- am, and I leave you, dear readers, to decide which one of the two shy Di is.

Speaking of love, the correct ratio of woman to man is five to one. That is, in order for both parties to be happy and stay in love, a man should have five regular lovers. As everyone but Diana knows, women are more psychic, whereas men are more physical. Ergo women are monoga- mous and men polygamous. Furthermore, a woman is much happier having one fifth of a good man, rather than having the whole of a lousy one. As Gianni Agnelli once said on American television when asked about his promiscuity, 'One can be a good husband and fool around just as one can be faithful and a bad one.' (The pussy- whipped American reporter was surprised. `What do you mean by that, John?') Personally, I prefer variety where age is concerned. And 1995 was just about per- fect. I like one girl who is 19, two who are 24, one who is 36, and, of course, my won- derful princess wife who is 48. What I truly do not understand are those Ayrab types who have harems consisting of 500 women or so. Too impersonal. Like owning a candy store and munching away on choco- late all day and night. No, siree, five will do fine.

If Diana wasn't such a nut case, she would have realised that Prince Charles's great weakness lay in having only one girl- friend, and would have encouraged him to take three more. This is the Taki fail-safe road to happiness and sexual well-being. Mind you, four will also do.

Ever since Diana's television extravagan- za, newspapers in America have been spec- ulating on the future of the monarchy. Celebrity vulgarians like Barbara Walters and the Trumps — described by the British press as high society — have made republi- can noises and expressed solidarity with the Princess of Males. They would, wouldn't they. All one has to do is look at the Draft Dodger as head of state, or what happened to my poor country after the monarchy was abolished. An airline stewardess, known to have said no only to the automatic pilot of Olympic Airways, runs a nation once led by great kings like George II and Paul.

An impartial head of state, standing above party and ideology, is the only pro- tection the people have against greedy and corrupt politicians. In Greece, there is no way Andreas Papandreou would have been allowed to turn an ancient and glorious nation into his private fiefdom if there was an impartial head of state. In America, the greatest liar and flim-flam man ever to occupy the White House is living proof the Founding Fathers erred when they insisted that republics are better than monarchies because monarchism had as its philosophi- cal ally the aristocracy. (Although they did offer the American throne to George Washington.) And what's wrong with being allied to the aristocracy? It's a damn sight better than being allied to the kleptocracy, as is the case of the United States, Italy, Greece, and every other republican coun- try in the world except for Germany, Switzerland and Singapore. But back to 1995. Despite all the fun, it ends on a sad note for the poor little Greek boy. My best friend is fighting for his life after a major cancer operation. He has shown Patton-like courage. All one can i do is wait and pray. Happy new year to all Speccie readers, and especially to you, Yanni old friend.