I'm not a monarchist. Seems to me Americans gave that up in 1776, and we've been none the worse for wear since (though this country is in bad, bad condition). Plus, I've always wondered what it would be like to be a "subject," which is the word used to designate citizens of monarchies. Subjected to what? (We've been subjected to ex- for four years. That's plenty enough.) But Great Britain and America have been excellent friends for almost the whole time after the War of 1812, so it's worth speculating upon the death of Queen Elizabeth II recently, given that she was so beloved by so many of the British. Her importance to them cannot possibly be equivalent to us, but importance nonetheless deserves to be reflected upon.
I'm not sure how much I care about the British monarchy, either, especially in the wake of having watched the cable series "The Crown." What it's supposed to represent, and what it actually does, cut to the essence of image and its maintenance vs. reality.
One of the best, and most recently shattered, examples of this was the dicey progression of then Prince Charles and his stunning wife, Diana, through a marriage that he didn't want but felt forced to accept by his Mr. Uptight father and then, due to jealousy, pretentiousness and disloyalty for which royals are known, made sure she didn't want it, either. Both acted unethically but within a kind of by-law that dictates that if you do that, you try very hard to make sure nobody in the public knows--except people do.
This time, though, having been one-upped by his recalcitrant wife and thus thoroughly embarrassed because the female took it upon herself to violate the Male Prerogative of having something on the side, Charles forged forward and broke up the hypocritical union. He quickly re-connected, or perhaps publicly connected so as to avoid all doubts, with the one woman he always clearly adored, Camilla Parker-Bowles.
Diana? She got around. One of those liaisons led to her very premature death, one that has been lionized and practically drowned in obsession--the 25th anniversary of which has just been observed.
When the basis of one's life and the solidity of one's future has clearly been shattered, when getting up in the morning becomes one's major challenge, one is likely to do some things that amaze and shock some and cause others to wink and grin gently, when feeling better in the short run wins all hands and feeling better in the long run can't be foreseen under any circumstances. When one is faced with survival, the survival mode is anything but normal and regular, conventions be damned. Maybe one gets over it, like Charles. Maybe one doesn't. Diana might have, but we'll never know.
But poor Charles. He's still attached to Diana as the bad guy, even though he tried to address the reality of the matter and set things straight, to do the right and honorable thing, not to maintain what others might call the right and honorable thing, except that the right and honorable thing doesn't always ring true and genuine, especially after having done what nobody thinks is right and honorable. Divorce has pain and inevitable labeling to it, normalized in western culture now to such an extent that it is no longer considered all that unusual--which may be the route that we've taken to decadence, whether we like it or not. We continue to go through the trappings of marriage and all its celebrations, hoping that all who have done so will fulfill its challenging hopes, but quite aware that they often don't.
Diana lives on in immortal legend, though she became just as guilty in proclivity to put her vows in some dusty room and help herself in deserved but very tricky revenge. But because she came off as much less the fuddy-duddy to Charles' traditional snootiness, she is practically worshipped now. Magazine publishers bring her back every so often to raise their coffers. She would have wrinkles by now, but nobody dares create a projection of that.
All this provides ready-made tarnish to the inevitable succession of Prince Charles to being King Charles III upon the passage of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, who (according to the TV series) stood to accept at least part of the blame, through inertia, for the aforementioned, doomed union.
Charles is doing his best to fall into the grooves that tradition and practice demand. Yet most people will view him in opaque terms. He is tainted regardless. He will do his best to rise above it, but that's not his call anymore. When one is out in front of the public, the public applies the label. That can be cruel, but it is nonetheless true.
This will hamper Charles like a leg brace, or an operation that didn't go entirely well. It can be viewed as not even his fault anymore, but it always can be referred to. He enters this batter's box with a strike against him.
There's a way he can salvage credibility, though, and restore some of the monarchy's dignity. Time and service will be one, and he will doggedly apply himself to it. But he's getting on, too, and the status of outliving one's enemies can't be guaranteed. The anti-monarchists will have fresh meat to chew, and the forces that dubiously introduced Brexit can be a mighty force if given a new grist for its mill.
So maybe he should do this: After, say, a year or two in which the presence of the British monarchy has been re-established and noted by both pro- and anti-mavens, he might want to abdicate the throne and give it to his first-born son, William, who seems to be perfectly happy with his beautiful wife, Kate, a traditional, unabashed mom, enjoying a relatively happy family life, and appears to be royal in all things he has done and will do with his calm bearing and ease of representation. It might be viewed as the restoration, if you will, of what anyone who likes that particular monarchy would be waiting for upon Charles' ultimate demise, but wouldn't otherwise get it for twenty years or more. William has only turned 40. His reign might be another four decades, maybe more.
Charles could cut a better deal than Prince Edward, the planned successor to the throne that opened up after George V's death in the 1930s. But he ran headlong at his American, divorced lover, determined to marry her, ran away from the throne because he knew what it meant and couldn't fight the feeling. Of course, according to "The Crown," he turned out to be a genuine Nazi sympathizer and overall leech upon many people's doings. I don't think Charles III would do that.
But he might become something of a royal consort himself, kind of what lawyers of counsel become once their time has passed an nobody knows what else to do with them; they get the last phone call, but they do get one. Edward tried to do that, but upon his own invitation, which proved to be every bit the annoyance that had been predicted. Charles might insist upon consultation, but might also, with that sense of history, avoid meddling.
So Chuck, it's worth thinking about. In yielding the trappings of privilege (or at least the bulk of them), you might in fact be bringing a stamp of legitimacy upon the scars of what you earned in a street fight that has long since passed, but never forgotten. Okay, it happened. But okay, you hung in there and understand that only with a fresh start can your beloved monarchy have, or earn again, the luster you crave for it. You have a son who seems to guarantee the respect and honor that you can never completely regain. Better to step aside and watch it soar again, if it possibly can.
If a monarchy stands for anything, and I'm doubtful about that, it should stand for whatever it can claim to be good and decent. William's succession to a throne abdicated by Charles III might just do that. Worth a try, anyhow.
Sometimes, you have to give something up so you can go on, unburdened. Divorce is like that. Charles knows that, too. It's humbling, but it's also liberating and presents the possibility of a future one can be proud of. He should think about giving up something else that, in so doing, might more closely guarantee him an honored place.
Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment