Since QE2 died, the news has been breathlessly covering every detail of not only her funeral, but the transition of power. I half wondered if the Former Guy would show up and claim that she had given him a knighthood and as such HE was now in charge. But as usual, I digress.
I'm American. I have family in England and I look at their posts to get a sense of the mindset of the average person across the pond. I also wonder what my Irish family is thinking- my great-grandfather was most likely a wanted man in Ireland when he fled to this country, there was some kind of intrigue that surrounded him that was kept hushed up. Be that as it may, here are my thoughts:
Love her or hate her, that woman sat on the throne and took charge of things for 70 years. I think as a person, she was a kick-ass, take no prisoners kind of woman that would have been considered to be an anomaly , back when she ascended to the throne. Women were supposed to simper behind their husbands and do what they were told. That was the expectation, probably NOT the reality. Once she realized she was going to be queen, something she was not born with but became her "duty" when she was around 10, her life was no longer her own. Someone DID point out that since Edward had no children and almost no prospect of children, she would have more than likely to have been queen at some point but...
If Edward had gone along with the "program" would he have married some poor, hapless minor royal and kept his mistress on the side? Edward is portrayed in history as being weak and under the wiles of Mrs. Simpson, but what IS the truth? He must have faced immense pressure to go with the flow. He couldn't do what he wanted and remain king so he gave up the job. Since he had been "in training" for the job since birth , I wonder what his skillset was after he didn't have the job.
I remember reading, that upon the change to the monarchy, Margaret was said to have told her sister "poor you"
Charles was born into being prepped for the job, but I wonder if he is up to the task. He always reminds me of a contestant in the Monty Python skit "Upper-class twit of the year" Despite what must have been intense training, Charles often comes off as something of a git, in the past two days, we have been treated to Charles' boorish public behavior. Camilla seems better prepared for the task than Charles.
Thinking about Charles, Camilla and Diana, I am beginning to see them as victims of the monarchy. Charles wanted to marry Camilla, but she wasn't "royal" enough, among other things. the wife of the future king had to be a virgin and that had to be verified by a doctor. Enter Lady Diana Spencer. Imagine a twenty-year old woman whose sexual status was not only required to be verified BUT was broadcast all over the planet. I will talk about the whole "virginity myth" in a later post because I have a LOT to say about it. If Charles had been able to marry Camilla, three lives would not have been ruined by some archaic outdated idea of purity which is complete and utter bullshit.
Charles is not as popular as his mother, who ascended to the crown as a beloved princess. Charles comes with the baggage of his failed marriage that was doomed by his cheating. He is also portrayed as not all that bright. He certainly lacks diplomatic skills. He is portrayed as an old man who waited 70 years for his job. Let's be fair, it was only about 50 years. He's 73. He could not have been expected to rise to the kingship at three. Still he has been the heir apparent since he was born to the princess. You would think they would have done a better job training him. Maybe he thought he'd never get the job and has progressed-or not- accordingly.
In recent days, Camilla has been seen as the shining star.
Now I have no love for anyone who interferes in a marriage. Camilla was trying to sabotage that union from the get-go. Again, this was all due to the idiotic rules in place, which are now moot, thank GOD. However, she seems to be a calming influence on Charles and apparently the Queen was quite fond of her, so there you have it.
A lot of media focus on the next Gen of royals, in a nutshell:
William and Catherine=Good
Harry and Megan=Bad
Does that sum it up quite nicely?
I think that Harry is still suffering the trauma of his mother's very public life and death. People are STILL talking about her. When he saw the media going after his wife in a familiar and similar manner, he responded by trying to protect her by removing them from the situation. But people want a villain and Meghan , an American AND an actress (clutch pearls, everyone) filled the bill quite nicely. Is she a nice person? Who knows? Harry seems to be happy and to love her and that is what should matter. It seems to me that he is making the same choice his great-grand-uncle David ( aka King Edward) made. Harry is not in line to be King anytime soon. They should let him do what he wants. He has done his duty to the nation by serving in the military- as has his brother- and he should just be able to do his thing. There is a dichotomy, wanting less Royal family on the payroll and being pissed that Harry wants no part of "the Firm"
I like Catherine and William.(I am sure my approval makes them both all fuzzy and warm inside.) They seem to be a nice couple, trying to raise their children in a fishbowl. Catherine was older than Diana and probably had the benefit of what happened to Diana, so they could avoid the problems that arose when she was married to Charles. Also, this is a true love match, not an arranged marriage. Diana was young and thought Charles was in love with her. It must have hurt terribly to discover the truth.
Still, as an American, I watch the British Royal Family with a mixture of boredom and curiosity. Not like the American political scene these days, which I look at with a mixture of hope and fear.
More on THAT in the coming days.
