Charles And Camilla

[poliphilo]

The heir to the throne marries his long-term lover in a registry office. The ceremony has been pushed back a day to make way for the funeral of the Pope. The population at large is more interested in the outcome of the Grand National horse race.

It's not exactly a hole in the corner job, but it's a far cry from the pomp of the last royal wedding.

We English had our revolution in the mid 1600s. Afterwards we brought the royal family back, but on the understanding that there'd be no more of that Divine Right of Kings nonsense. Monarchs from Charles II through to William IV were servants of their public, not particularly feted, but key elements in a cobbled together Constitution. When they were dull or ridiculous (as some of them were) they got laughed at.

This changed at the end of the 19th century. Britain was now an Empire and needed a glorious figure-head. Traditions and ceremonies were invented to elevate the monarchy and for the next 100 years or so the kings and queens- most of them spectacularly dull as people- were accorded a quasi divine status and respect. It became bad form to laugh at them. This was the golden age. These people had no power to speak of, but they were very ornamental. They couldn't fly, but their tail feathers were gorgeous.

The coronation of Elizabeth II was the high spot. Fittingly, symbolically, it coincided with the "British" conquest of Everest (by a Sherpa and a New Zealander.) Then began the decline. Britain no longer had an Empire and the imperial trappings were looking increasingly irrelevant and silly. Respect and deference seeped away. The media began to treat the royals the way they treated other celebs. Then came the scandal of Charles and Di....

There is lingering respect for the old Queen, there is a feverish excitement surrounding the boy-band glamour of the young princes, but the wedding of Charles and Camilla is a sure sign of the way things are going. We care less and less and, while it's unlikely that we will ever axe the monarchy (once is enough), we are now going to let it fizzle and fade. It will return to what it was before Disraeli reinvented Victoria as Empress of India and maybe, not so very long from now, we'll be seeing the royals riding their bicycles down the Mall.

That is, if we can be bothered to turn our heads and look.

Comments

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

On a silly note, it didn't help that Camilla wore grass on her head. For the record, I didn't watch any of the festivities (I was busy alternating writing with laying in bed), but I kept getting to see the pictures every time I got online.

[idahoswede.livejournal.com]

You may just end up along the lines of the Scandinavian royals, such as they are, with the bikes and flats of their own downtown and there are worse things that could happen, certainly. I thought she was dressed in a very understated style, most appropriate not only for a divorcee who's a little long in the tooth anyway, but considering they've been having it off for the past 35 years, it was very tasteful, unlike the crushed giant meringue that passed for a wedding dress at his first marriage.

[ibid.livejournal.com]

In some ways I think we had our revolution too early. It happened before the more egalitarian zeitgeist of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and therefore did very little, people still accepted a monarchical way of doing things. the French revolution was far more influential, partly -I believe - because of the time in which it took place. France is still only just recovering wheras our system has remained basically static since 1700.

[besideserato.livejournal.com]

I just cannot stop marveling at the way you word yourself--your journal is really one of the better reads on my list.

Though I missed the wedding (and don't foresee doing any media perusing on the topic), I am pleased for Camilla and Charles. All I can say is: it's about time!

[halfmoon-mollie.livejournal.com]

Oh my goodness, NPR has been all over the story. According to them the wedding was attended by a "throng" of well wishers. Civil ceremony first then blessed by the Archbishop of Canterbury (who, to me, has always seemed like a mythical figure, a Very Important Person). I sort of giggled at Camilla taking her vow, all that stuff about keeping only unto him and hearing her say "That is my intention and with the help of God..."

Charles may be embarassing- but you know, everyone deserves to have some happiness. I hope this brings him his. And the unfortunate Camilla, who will forever be compared to the sprightly (and savvy) Diana.

I've never quite figured out exactly *what* the royals do or are to your government. And I've always wondered why Canada ALSO celebrates the Royals when they are an independent country.

[airstrip.livejournal.com]

I have an inherent dislike of monarchies. I can understand how the English monarchy was essential in the 17th century, because the world system wouldn't have given proper respect to elected heads of state and the presence of monarchists, but wonder if it could have been done with an elected king of some sort who might rule for life.

Almost like the Pope, who's corpse is more important than the heir to the throne's wedding.