The Unofficial British Royal Family Pages

Sunday 8 May 2005

Sorry, Will. You're Up

From a historical perspective, Spring 2005 will be recognized as having marked two important events. The first is that Prince Charles married Camilla Parker Bowles in a misguided attempt to force her legitimacy upon an unwilling public.  The second is that Prince William completed his degree at St. Andrews.  Fortunately for the monarchy, the two events coincided.  For with marriage to Camilla, Prince Charles has finally achieved his lifelong personal goal. Ironically though, in forcing a cloak of legitimacy upon Camilla, he has unwittingly cast off his own.  Enter Prince William. 

Prince William is far from ready to take on the mantle of �Saver of the Monarchy.� He has shown a deep ambivalence to his role, in the truest sense of the word. Alternating between silent accomplice in Prince Harry�s decision to �go nazi� for a fancy dress party in January, and master handler of the media in the press call of 31 March, William stands on the precipice of crossing over from reckless youth to more deliberative adulthood.  It is, many have noted, a transition that his father has yet to make.  Yet the contrasts between father and son cannot simply be attributed to public comportment.  Nor can they be fully fleshed out in a short paragraph. Suffice it to say that with each passing year, William increasingly projects an almost tangible self-awareness that far transcends mere birthright.  On an especially optimistic day, one almost gets the sense that he could be more than a beloved monarch; he could become a beloved leader.   

His love for his father is without doubt.  He stood by him as he married the woman who inarguably made his mother�s life a misery.  And yet, he managed to deftly mediate between public supporter of his father, and public endorser of the marriage.  For few who were watching could miss his friendly but steadfast refusal to stand alongside the newlyweds on the steps of Windsor Guildhall for a public photo op,--despite the repeated, willful gestures for him to step forward by the new Princess of Wales.  A weaker man would have complied.  A weaker man would have married her, come to that.  And one did.  At the best of times, we see William drawing from both the incredible savvy of his mother, and the more contemplative understatement of his grandmother the Queen. And despite some emerging differences between he and Prince Charles in the personality department, his loyalty to his father remains unfaltering. So we await with cautious optimism his actions and choices as he leaves St. Andrews.   

And for those of you who are outraged by the fact that a clear majority sees Prince William as the obvious choice to succeed the Queen, there is but one person you should hold accountable.  So please don�t shoot the messenger - And anyway, what would be the point?  After all, she passed away eight years ago. 

- Elizabeth W. King

Mail Bag:
Thank you for your emails. Note: If you do not wish your email to appear in a future column, please so indicate in your message. Letters may be edited for space.

Mixed Messages Part I

A thousand or more accolades to you for writing this brilliant article about Camilla Parker Bowles.  Your superb analysis strips away the shoddy veneers that perpetuate the false public images that are portrayed of Camilla Parker Bowles.  Your insight is appreciated and should be heralded from every rooftop in England, Wales, Scotland and throughout the British Commonwealth.  Does Her Majesty, the Queen, realize the tarnishment of the monarchy that is occurring?  Could she not have stopped the marriage? Is it just me, or is there a very real possibility that the sullied marriage of Prince Charles and his consort could possibly lead to the abolition of the monarchy? 

J. Ford

One of your best.

K. Elliot

Accolades to you.  Send this to the Queen and put it in the paper.  May Elizabeth live one day longer than Charles. 

C. Joslin

Anyone who can write that spiteful, biased and inaccurate article and refer to another woman as a bitch or dog - doing the coy "oh excuse me" thing - shouldn't be writing anything more than a shopping list.  

S. Hubbard

I LIKE it!  The references especially to the rottweiler are priceless.  I get really tired of hearing the spokespeople for the royal family saying one thing and meaning another.  Wouldn't it be nice if they could be up front with the public for a change!  I grew up fascinated by the British Royal Family, watches the princes and princess grow up (Prince Charles was born the same year that Charles and I was born the same year as Princess Anne.  Charles should have married Camilla in the 1870's and saved Diana a whole lot of grief.  They both present themselves as selfish, self-centered individuals and they deserve one another. Unfortunately, the British people do NOT deserve to be stuck with either one of them. Wouldn't it be nice if Charles for once honored his threat that, if the government banned fox hunting, he'd move to another country?  Problem solved! 

S. Guckert

What a nasty, spiteful, and malicious column on Camilla & Charles.  If you meant to be funny it failed.  If you were serious how can you treat a middle aged woman with such venom?  I pity you and the way your mind works. 

S. Lane

Mixed Messages Part II 

A few months ago I found (the etoile website) and have been slowly reading through all of the columns because I find other peoples opinions on subjects interesting.  As I read through your columns, I noticed that you do not even try to be unbiased.  That is not bad, you give your own opinion and that is what your column is for.  But I would like to ask why you seem to throw in unnecessary comments that are demeaning to Americans. "That's "costume party" for all of my fellow, horrid, lousy Americans out there" from True Crimes and Resultant Misdemeanors from January. There are also other times.  I am an American but I don't feel that these comments are necessary or promote good will.  You say my fellow leading me to believe that you may also be an American.  Americans are generally hated around the world as you probably know and sensible people should come to realize that an entire population should not be defined by a stereotype. 

J. Goldstein 

EWK: You�re right. I am American. The over the top insults towards Americans are meant in a tongue in cheek way.  There are more than a handful of people who believe that an American has no business opining on the British royal family.  While the insults hurled at Americans can at times seem desultory, they are as you observed, a reality.  In a nod to the snickers of those abroad who find it unpleasant for someone �from the colonies� to opine on anything outside of the US borders, I have tried to illustrate the absurdity of that point of view by piling on.  Admittedly, it has at times (yours is certainly not the first letter I have received on this subject) raised the ire of Americans who like you, are not cocooned in a US-centric view of the world.  I supposed I have been hoping that those from other countries who read the columns might appreciate the irony. After all, if Christopher Hitchens can write about our country, I give myself permission to write about his.