The Unofficial British Royal Family Pages

Monday 8 March 2004

A Princess by Any Other Name

When Princess Anne married Captain Mark Phillips in 1973 and chose not to accept any honorary royal title for her new husband, she became the first modern royal to voluntarily forego the aggrandizement of her commoner husband and her future half-commoner children.  

Her intention, of course, was to grant her children the independence and freedom of choice very rarely associated with the children of royalty. She also wanted to preserve their privacy and eliminate the pressures of press attention and criticism. In short, Anne wanted her children to be normal people living normal lives. 

Unintentionally, Anne’s step showed her to be a wise and unpretentious woman, whose only aspirations for her children were that that they live happy and fulfilled lives. Anne believed that, without the burden of royal titles, they would have a chance of achieving this. 

Accordingly, when Peter – the Queen’s first grandchild – and Zara Phillips came along, they were both born commoners. They remain today the Queen’s only grandchildren without titles. Prince Charles, however, made sure his niece did not go unnoticed in the royal family circle. He came up with the name Zara, after a Greek name meaning, “bright as the dawn.” Perhaps he also had in mind that the name means “princess” in both the Arabic and Hebrew translation.   

Today, Peter and his sister Zara are living proof that Anne’s strategy has worked. They are two of the most attractive, well-balanced and independently successful members of the royal family, all without the cache of royal titles. Peter has a successful career as a hospitality manager in the auto racing industry and Zara is vying for a place on the equestrian team that will compete at the Athens Olympics. Both have even been recognized by People magazine… Peter as the “sexiest royal” in 1998, and Zara as one of the “50 most beautiful people” in 2002.  

And while Peter and Zara are, respectively, tenth and eleventh in line to the throne, in my opinion, they are two of the best candidates for the job (along with Princess Anne and Prince William). In fact, both Peter and Zara are said to have been good friends over the years to their younger cousins William and Harry, and it would seem that Harry, in particular, could take a lesson or two from them on how to behave.  

That said, I for one am tired of seeing Zara constantly labeled by the press as a “royal rebel.” While Peter gets the occasional notice – usually for whomever he’s dating at the moment – the press see Zara as fair game and follows and criticizes her every move. As children of a princess, some of this is to be expected, but despite her lack of a royal title, the press seems to hold Zara to a much higher standard than that of both her royal and non-royal peers. In other words, she is expected to be perfect, and each time certain member of the media – in all their wisdom – deem she has done something unconventional, they call her a rebel.  

The whole situation has gotten to the point where Zara herself has had to defend her behavior to the press and has said that she wouldn’t wish the glare of publicity on anyone. You might say that she has all the disadvantages of being a royal and none of the advantages. Well, I have news for the press: Zara is neither “royal” nor a rebel. While the press grasp at every bit of juicy news regarding Zara and blow it out of all proportion, I have attempted to scratch beneath the surface and have found that the truth behind the stories to be far less sensational than what they are reporting.  

Zara first displayed her intelligence, athleticism and lack of pretension when she attended boarding school at Gordonstoun in Scotland. Keep in mind this is the same school that Prince Charles professes to have hated for its structure and coldness. There, Zara was a model student who achieved high marks and did not behave as a prima donna. It was at school that she discovered she shared her parents’ interest in horses and equestrian sports, as well as other sports like field hockey and gymnastics. 

Her transgressions at school? It would seem that she was once caught in the boy’s dormitory (goodness, what is the world coming to when girls and boys attempt to fraternize?), and she had her tongue pierced while on summer holiday in 1998. She reportedly removed the tongue stud before she returned to classes, as school rules only allowed ear piercings, although she was spotted wearing it as late as 2000. This seems to be the extent of the “rebellious” behavior that first earned her the press label of royal rebel.  

After those “tumultuous” school years, Zara decided to spend part of her gap year in Australia and New Zealand. It was there that she turned really bad… doing such shocking things as bungee jumping and participating in local nightlife. Horror! Most salacious of all was when the press reported that topless photos of Zara were circulating, although apparently no newspaper or magazine would print them. Of course, what the press failed to indicate was that the alleged photos – surreptitiously taken, of course – featured a topless woman who looked like Zara sunning herself on an Australian beach, but that they were too blurry to identify her for certain. 

Back in England, Zara enrolled at Exeter University, where she later qualified as an equine physiotherapist, and focused on developing her equestrian career. She also managed to cause a news sensation when she flipped her Land Rover while driving on an isolated country road. Jumping to conclusions, the press speculated over whether she was driving recklessly or under the influence of alcohol, despite the fact that the road she was driving on was notoriously hazardous and the routine breath test police administered on the scene was negative.  

Around the same time, she began dating jump jockey Richard Johnson, who she moved in with for a time. It was here that Zara made a critical mistake, selling an interview and pictures of the couple in their home to Hello! magazine. While it was probably done in an attempt to eliminate some of the expected unwanted press intrusion, this simple act did precisely the opposite and was deemed by the press as a free admission ticket to report on the ups and downs of the couple’s relationship. 

The culmination came in 2001 when it was widely reported that Zara and Richard had a very heated and public argument on the side of a road. Some publications were extremely critical of Zara, saying her behavior was unbecoming in relation to the example set by the Queen. The fact of the matter was that her “behavior” only became an issue when the press decided to make it one by callously reporting to the world what was really only seen by only a handful of people. As it was not witnessed first hand by an accredited member of the media, how would the press know whether her behavior was unbecoming? In any case, Richard has been an on-again, off-again part of Zara’s life that has undoubtedly suffered from the harsh glare of unwanted publicity.  

Most recently, Zara’s been charged in the press with a variety of assorted transgressions. Among them… she gave her boyfriend a congratulatory kiss in public, changed her clothes in the public toilets at Royal Ascot, shopped at Ann Summers, evaded the press for a “secret” holiday in New Zealand, and is rumored to have dated a good-looking rugby star.  She’s even broken her maternal family tradition by dressing in a fashionable, appealing and innovative manner. Whoa! Someone better rein her in, she’s outta’ control. 

Seriously, though, I’d say that these are all pretty run-of-the-mill activities for a 22-year-old woman who has every right in the world to enjoy herself as people of her own age do. After all, when she’s not busy training for her equestrian competitions, she serves as the president of Club 16-24 at the Cheltenham Racetrack and is involved in a variety of other sports and activities that would make any parent proud.  

Frankly, when the press criticize Zara and call her a royal rebel, they are in engaging in outright double speak.  On the one hand, they claim that the Queen and the monarchy are outmoded and out of touch with the modern world and recommend a shake up of everyone and everything. On the other hand, when a young member of the royal family, who is a product of a forward-thinking royal parent, comes along and behaves in a manner that is consistent with the modern world, they criticize her, too.  

I say the press should make up their minds and get off their high horses. Far from being a “royal rebel,” Zara Phillips is a bold, bright and talented young woman who’s a credit and an asset to her family and an example to young people. I guess Prince Charles was right after all in choosing her name.  She may not be a royal princess, but, as her name implies, she is certainly a bright light in the royal family and a true princess among royalty.  

Until next week,

- Tori Van Orden

 

Thrown off the Throne?

Shortly after last week’s column – Courtly Love: An Introduction – was posted, I received a lovely e-mail from Tina, telling me that she loved the column, but… there was one “glaring typo.”  

“Oh great!” I thought to myself, “a huge error in my first column – wonderful!” 

I continued to read Tina’s e-mail and learned that the error was as follows, “For instance, why a king had to give up his thrown to be married to the woman he loved and, on a surprisingly intellectual level for a juvenile, was it really just because he loved her?”  

Whoopsy daisy! Of course, what I meant to write was “throne” not “thrown.” What a silly mistake to make. I guess I just had a moment of writer’s blindness when I went through my editing process. I alerted Geraldine to my error and she corrected it right away, allowing me to show my face once again.  

But the more I thought about the typo, the more it seemed ironic, especially when you consider that I was referring, of course, to King Edward VIII, who abdicated the throne in 1936 for the American divorcée Wallis Simpson.  

Something of a Freudian slip, perhaps? I mean, did he "give up his throne?" or was he "thrown out of his throne"? I know what I think, how about you?