There was a story in the paper this week about Prince Charles' second wife, Camilla, wearing a brooch which Princess Diana was given when she married Prince Charles.
I clearly remember Charles and Diana's wedding day. I've never been a terrific fan of royalty and I don't much care forPrince Charles, but I watched the wedding as most English people did and I remember being struck by this tiny figure, such a young girl, dressed in a huge flouncy wedding dress and almost swamped by it. She looked very apprehensive, very inexperienced and rather overwhelmed. People say that by the day of the royal wedding she had an idea what she was in for as she had begun to suspect Charles and Camilla might still be having an affair.
Diana of course was from the English upper class, from an aristocratic family, and perhaps Charles and the other royals expected her to take it in her stride when she discovered that Mrs Parker-Bowles was still sleeping with the newly-married Charles. The seceret affair was not very secret and Diana was expected to tolerate it. But at 19-years-old, Diana was perfectly entitled to be in love and be idealistic. She was too young and inexperienced to understand what was tacitly demanded of her: give birth to the royal heir and a spare and turn a blind eye as your husband beds Andrew Parker-Bowles' wife. The story was only made seedier and more incestuous by the fact that many people said Camilla's husband was sleeping with Princess Anne while Camilla was hopping in and out of bed with Charles. Whatever the truth of that, it is certain that Camilla cuckolded her husband and Prince Charles was a sexual willing partner in the deceit.
The upper class and royalty have always done as they pleased.
But it's interesting after the Diana years and the tragedy which ended her young life, to see the way that Catherine, or Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge, is coping with marrying a British prince. She has the advantage of being 30, of course, and she lived with William for years before marrying him. He appears to be genuinely in love with her. And Kate certainly seems more confident than Princess Diana did in the early years and yet she's facing almost as much public scrutiny.
I have a friend who tells me that there's a fierce campaign being conducted by Clarence House - Charles and Camilla's people - to denigrate the future queen Catherine and rehabilitate Camilla's image since she is seen as a scheming adulteress and yet wants to be queen of England (or Britain I suppose.) According to my friend, Charles's supporters feel they have to disparage Kate in order to try and get British people to support the idea of Camilla as queen.
I don't know about that but I do know that, as an English woman over 80, I'd far rather see Catherine as queen in England than Camilla. Catherine, like Princess Diana before her, is a young woman in love. She will no doubt have children with William and she conveys a sort of innocence, and happiness, to be married to her prince. A lot of unpleasant things have been said about her middle-class background but it seems to me that every time she appears in public she looks smart, she behaves well and she seems to enjoy herself and enjoy meeting others. More importantly, she has done nothing as far as anyone's aware that is deceitful or openly hurtful to others. She is not an adulteress and she has not befriended a young woman while bedding her husband. The same can never be said now of Camilla. Camilla and Charles also have the ridiculous phone epsiode that they can never live down where he said in a phone conversation that he would like to be reincarnated as her tampax. The image is rather revolting but even worse is the fact that Charles and Camilla were gaily and routinely committing adultery while Diana was pregnant and then at home looking after the young princes, William and Harry. There is no excuse for Charles' behaviour and none for Camilla's either.
The next queen of England/Britain/the Commonwealth will be a head of state, of course, but more importantly (since that's a fairly formal role) she will be an international ambassador for Britain. Whether one likes royalty or not, or approves of royalty or not, Britain will continue to have a royal family for some time. Their relevance, if they have any, is as ambassadors for their country. They play a role not unlike the role of Obama and his wife or Cameron and his wife, but without the political power. That is, they present an image of their country to the outside world as well as within Britain.
So what kind of royal ambassador do the British want to have once the queen is gone? Charles and Camilla would present a pretty wretched image. Charles has a reputation for being grumpy and eccentric. He and Camilla both have their history of adultery. Camilla also has the air of a scheming mistress determined to get Diana's husband at any cost. And I believe she now has the air of a woman determined to get her hands on the queen's crown as well. Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge on the other hand are untainted. They are newly married and project a certain innocence and hopefulness. They do not divide opinion in the way Charles and Camilla do. And they don't offend people in the way that Charles and Camilla, with their history of extra-marital sex and cruelty to Diana, often do.
To see how differently the two women are viewed, think for a moment about the jewellery they wear. It was reported the other day that Camilla went to the races at Cheltenham very publicly displaying on her coat a brooch that was worn by Diana, a wedding gift. Lots of commentators said how insensitive it was of Camilla, who pinched Diana's husband, to pinch her jewellery too. Almost like she was brandishing a trophy in public: "I get whatever want. And I wanted what Diana had." There will always be a sleazy aspect to Camilla and her relationship with Charles.
Now think about the engagement ring William gave to Kate. It was the diamond and sapphire engagement ring Charles had given to Diana. And that was a lovely gesture from a young man who, as he said, wanted to find a way to include his mother in his forthcoming wedding. It was a also a gesture of hope made by a young man who clearly hopes that he can in some way make up for his mother's unhappy marriage by having a happy marriage himself. Giving Kate Diana's ring was a way of trying to make right what Charles and Camilla inflicted on his mother. As Kate showed the TV cameras the ring, the couple were smiling and at ease. There was nothing to be ashamed of, no sleazy past to be skirted round. It was a gesture which was perfectly pure, in contrast with Camilla slapping Diana's brooch on her lapel and heading off gung-ho to the races.
So although the monarchy is in essence hereditary, this English woman thinks it will stain the country's reputation if Charles becomes king and Camilla becomes queen. I don't much care about the constitutional argument which says that Charles' marriage to Camilla was illegal and bars him from being king and her from being queen. I just think that the pair of them can't have it both ways. They decided to cheat and sneak in and out of bed with each other while they were both married to other people. Well, all right - that was their choice. But they shouldn't then be accepted as King and Queen. They should keep a low profile, try to keep out of the way and let William and Catherine take the throne when the queen dies. "But they can't - it's the monarchy" their supporters cry. "It's hereditary." Yes, it is the monarchy and titles are hereditary. But monarchs can abdicate the throne. Many people say Charles should, and he certainly could. In my view, when the time comes, he ought to.
I clearly remember Charles and Diana's wedding day. I've never been a terrific fan of royalty and I don't much care forPrince Charles, but I watched the wedding as most English people did and I remember being struck by this tiny figure, such a young girl, dressed in a huge flouncy wedding dress and almost swamped by it. She looked very apprehensive, very inexperienced and rather overwhelmed. People say that by the day of the royal wedding she had an idea what she was in for as she had begun to suspect Charles and Camilla might still be having an affair.
Diana of course was from the English upper class, from an aristocratic family, and perhaps Charles and the other royals expected her to take it in her stride when she discovered that Mrs Parker-Bowles was still sleeping with the newly-married Charles. The seceret affair was not very secret and Diana was expected to tolerate it. But at 19-years-old, Diana was perfectly entitled to be in love and be idealistic. She was too young and inexperienced to understand what was tacitly demanded of her: give birth to the royal heir and a spare and turn a blind eye as your husband beds Andrew Parker-Bowles' wife. The story was only made seedier and more incestuous by the fact that many people said Camilla's husband was sleeping with Princess Anne while Camilla was hopping in and out of bed with Charles. Whatever the truth of that, it is certain that Camilla cuckolded her husband and Prince Charles was a sexual willing partner in the deceit.
The upper class and royalty have always done as they pleased.
But it's interesting after the Diana years and the tragedy which ended her young life, to see the way that Catherine, or Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge, is coping with marrying a British prince. She has the advantage of being 30, of course, and she lived with William for years before marrying him. He appears to be genuinely in love with her. And Kate certainly seems more confident than Princess Diana did in the early years and yet she's facing almost as much public scrutiny.
I have a friend who tells me that there's a fierce campaign being conducted by Clarence House - Charles and Camilla's people - to denigrate the future queen Catherine and rehabilitate Camilla's image since she is seen as a scheming adulteress and yet wants to be queen of England (or Britain I suppose.) According to my friend, Charles's supporters feel they have to disparage Kate in order to try and get British people to support the idea of Camilla as queen.
I don't know about that but I do know that, as an English woman over 80, I'd far rather see Catherine as queen in England than Camilla. Catherine, like Princess Diana before her, is a young woman in love. She will no doubt have children with William and she conveys a sort of innocence, and happiness, to be married to her prince. A lot of unpleasant things have been said about her middle-class background but it seems to me that every time she appears in public she looks smart, she behaves well and she seems to enjoy herself and enjoy meeting others. More importantly, she has done nothing as far as anyone's aware that is deceitful or openly hurtful to others. She is not an adulteress and she has not befriended a young woman while bedding her husband. The same can never be said now of Camilla. Camilla and Charles also have the ridiculous phone epsiode that they can never live down where he said in a phone conversation that he would like to be reincarnated as her tampax. The image is rather revolting but even worse is the fact that Charles and Camilla were gaily and routinely committing adultery while Diana was pregnant and then at home looking after the young princes, William and Harry. There is no excuse for Charles' behaviour and none for Camilla's either.
The next queen of England/Britain/the Commonwealth will be a head of state, of course, but more importantly (since that's a fairly formal role) she will be an international ambassador for Britain. Whether one likes royalty or not, or approves of royalty or not, Britain will continue to have a royal family for some time. Their relevance, if they have any, is as ambassadors for their country. They play a role not unlike the role of Obama and his wife or Cameron and his wife, but without the political power. That is, they present an image of their country to the outside world as well as within Britain.
So what kind of royal ambassador do the British want to have once the queen is gone? Charles and Camilla would present a pretty wretched image. Charles has a reputation for being grumpy and eccentric. He and Camilla both have their history of adultery. Camilla also has the air of a scheming mistress determined to get Diana's husband at any cost. And I believe she now has the air of a woman determined to get her hands on the queen's crown as well. Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge on the other hand are untainted. They are newly married and project a certain innocence and hopefulness. They do not divide opinion in the way Charles and Camilla do. And they don't offend people in the way that Charles and Camilla, with their history of extra-marital sex and cruelty to Diana, often do.
To see how differently the two women are viewed, think for a moment about the jewellery they wear. It was reported the other day that Camilla went to the races at Cheltenham very publicly displaying on her coat a brooch that was worn by Diana, a wedding gift. Lots of commentators said how insensitive it was of Camilla, who pinched Diana's husband, to pinch her jewellery too. Almost like she was brandishing a trophy in public: "I get whatever want. And I wanted what Diana had." There will always be a sleazy aspect to Camilla and her relationship with Charles.
Now think about the engagement ring William gave to Kate. It was the diamond and sapphire engagement ring Charles had given to Diana. And that was a lovely gesture from a young man who, as he said, wanted to find a way to include his mother in his forthcoming wedding. It was a also a gesture of hope made by a young man who clearly hopes that he can in some way make up for his mother's unhappy marriage by having a happy marriage himself. Giving Kate Diana's ring was a way of trying to make right what Charles and Camilla inflicted on his mother. As Kate showed the TV cameras the ring, the couple were smiling and at ease. There was nothing to be ashamed of, no sleazy past to be skirted round. It was a gesture which was perfectly pure, in contrast with Camilla slapping Diana's brooch on her lapel and heading off gung-ho to the races.
So although the monarchy is in essence hereditary, this English woman thinks it will stain the country's reputation if Charles becomes king and Camilla becomes queen. I don't much care about the constitutional argument which says that Charles' marriage to Camilla was illegal and bars him from being king and her from being queen. I just think that the pair of them can't have it both ways. They decided to cheat and sneak in and out of bed with each other while they were both married to other people. Well, all right - that was their choice. But they shouldn't then be accepted as King and Queen. They should keep a low profile, try to keep out of the way and let William and Catherine take the throne when the queen dies. "But they can't - it's the monarchy" their supporters cry. "It's hereditary." Yes, it is the monarchy and titles are hereditary. But monarchs can abdicate the throne. Many people say Charles should, and he certainly could. In my view, when the time comes, he ought to.
