The Unofficial British Royal Family Pages

Wednesday 19 May 2004

The Royal Mail - Readers Respond

I have been quite amazed at all the replies, comments, queries and feedback I've had since I started writing this column! Obviously somebody out there in Internet-land is reading it, and that is gratifying. Below is a sampling of your reactions and my answers, for the benefit of all. Thanks again to all who wrote in, and keep those cards and letters coming! N.B. I will not publish anyone's e-mail address, and if you tell me you do not want your comments made public, I will reply to you in private only.

Re: Princess Diana the Secret Tapes (April 7)

A Royal Watcher writes:
I watched the television program and thoroughly enjoyed it. I think your article missed the point which is that after being dead for seven years she is still the most fascinating royal to watch. I've read the books and am quite able to put into perspective the fact that she spoke into a tape in the early 90s about the previous ten years of her life. You doubt the truthfulness of her own words about her own life but yet quote Burrell of all people as one who knew how she really felt. You could have included ratings on the program to tell us how many people are still interested in her story. Personally I loved the video shots and enjoyed hearing her voice firsthand instead of reading Morton's interpretation of what she said. There should have been more of it. She made [these and other videotapes] for a reason. She wanted to make sure that others could not easily rewrite her life story to suit their own agenda. Perhaps she knew she would have to be gotten rid of eventually and so wanted to leave her own story behind in her own words. I think you have discounted this program as irrelevant...

Michelle writes:
I totally agree with every single word you've said. I haven't actually seen these videotapes because I live in England... Knowing Prince William and Harry personally, "because my dad plays polo," I think they are deeply affected by it. Just by the look of their faces, it hurts so much. I think we should all forget about her pain and let her sleep peacefully for the sake of her children!
 

Mel Whitney: Too many people are making loads of money off Diana. I don't think it is right, and said so, but some readers interpreted my column as being anti-Diana. No, actually I just don't think she should be used to sell commercial products like Depends.

Holly writes:
I am an American truly embarrassed that our network television continues to blunder facts about the British royals. I sent an email to NBC addressing this issue before "The Princess Diana Tapes" aired. Did you notice that in a show aired to commemorate Her Majesty's 50 years on the throne Elizabeth Vargas called Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, "Queen Mary"? I sent an email about that also, but it does not matter to them how many mistakes... they make as long as they make money. It is so distasteful. I enjoyed your column.
 

Mel Whitney: Our networks all have correspondents stationed in London, so they should know British culture and get it right! Yet when the Queen Mother died, I heard a local anchorwoman call her "Queen Mum" as if that were her proper name. Yeccchh! I always cringe when American networks cover Britain, because they never get it right, and they pander to stupid stereotypes. Maybe it is because most Americans don't care anymore about the culture of the mother country. I wish journalists (supposedly educated people) would do their homework about the countries they are covering. If we have found mistakes in network coverage of Great Britain, a country with the same language and plenty of historical reference materials available (in English), what kind of coverage are we getting in Iraq?

Re: Can Charles Marry Camilla? (April 21)

A Royal Watcher writes:
What you are suggesting is repugnant to me... It seems that Charles and Camilla plotted his first marriage to get acceptable heirs and with no respect for the sanctity of marriage. Marriage between them could never be sacred.

Mel Whitney: I rather think his parents made him marry. Many sources have them saying in effect to Charles: "You're 30 now, it's time to decide." Evidently he didn't, or wouldn't, and so the choice was made for him.

I suspect that Charles is bisexual and has been promiscuous his entire life. Using marriage to cover up this lifestyle is unacceptable.

Mel Whitney: Interesting!

Both these people have lied and manipulated people through the press to believe one facade after another in order to get whatever it is they want... I believe Charles must abdicate if the monarchy is to continue.

Mel Whitney: A friend of mine here in Texas who went to London in 2002 reported that people on the streets whom she talked to all dislike Camilla. And she said that people still lay flowers and mementos at Kensington Palace, all these years later. Wow.

It is too late for Charles to now appreciate his wife's role in public life since he and his friends have already put so much effort into the campaign to destroy her memory.

Mel Whitney:  That is where William and Harry could object very strongly in public. But Charles and Camilla probably will marry, since the institutions that oppose the marriage are fading away into history. But I have the feeling that if the Queen passes in the next five years or so, there will be a major cataclysm in Britain over the royal marriage. In both Britain and America, there is becoming a greater void between the old and the new. Conservatives vs. liberals, past vs. present, ancient traditional religious views vs. modern informal ones. We are standing at this crossroads, and whether we go backward or forward will depend on the handling of such issues as Charles' marriage (in Britain) or gay marriage (in America). Both issues will be decided, I believe, based on the public understanding of separation of church and state. In Britain the two seem to be growing apart; in America, growing together. And of course in the Muslim world, there is the example of what happens when they are inseparable.

Any institution which involves itself seriously in correcting Charles' image will lose respect and credibility whether it is the established Church or the government...

Mel Whitney:  Royal divorce has always caused trouble, hasn't it? And a monarch who follows a well beloved, chaste, even saintly one will inevitably be compared badly.

Most polls say that yes he can marry her but no she can't be Queen. This makes perfect sense to me. It means that if he marries her he can't be King and everyone is hoping that he does marry her and never becomes King. That's what the public really wants. Should he insist on forcing a marriage on the public and on occupying the throne then the whole institution will be abandoned by the people and a new system of government will have to develop to take its place.

Mel Whitney:  I think he could still be King. It could be a morganatic marriage. It was an option Edward VIII either never got, or refused. Apparently such marriage has no precedent among British royalty, but that doesn't mean Charles couldn't have it now. I think the chasm opposing/supporting it will yawn very wide, with the C of E folks on one side, and the "Cool Britannia" lot on the other. If it should happen within 5-10 years, I think Charles would lose the people. But given world enough and time, 15-20 years from now, public morality will probably be on his side.

A Royal Watcher again:
I think you let Charles off the hook too easily... He was 32 years old and was responsible for any vows he took especially because he had already taken much interest in the spiritual side of life. There is no excuse for his use and abuse of a young bride.

Mel Whitney:  No, not at all. I think he might never have married if he hadn't been made to. Anyone who goes off regularly to male retreats, to an island where women aren't allowed to set foot, clearly doesn't care much about having a wife or sharing a life with one. He might have made a very good monk.

Stephanie writes:
Being a fan of Elizabeth Woodville I have to write in to correct your comment that she was the mistress of Edward IV. Although it was widely believed to be a love match, there is no evidence that they were lovers before they married. In fact the rumor was that she had resisted the King's advances - even at knifepoint - and thus being the only woman who could resist him, she so inflamed the King that he had to have her at all cost even if it meant marriage. Of course there is no proof of this story. But the point is that contemporary sources believed her to have been "virtuous" prior to the marriage. Edward IV was a legendary seducer so Elizabeth Woodville would have been well aware of her fate had she allowed herself to become a royal mistress. Instead she held out for the big "prize" of marriage. Perhaps in this she was an inspiration for Anne Boleyn? Her contemporaries may not have universally loved her, they may have resented the King's impulsiveness which had deprived the country of a perhaps more advantageous marriage with a foreign princess. They may not have liked their lack of ability to control the King and may have felt suspicious of Elizabeth's own ability to influence him. They may have disliked her somewhat parvenu origins and her numerous relatives. They may have thought she must have used enchantments to enslave the King.

Mel Whitney:  You're right. I used the term "mistress" very loosely. I suppose I was thinking in terms of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. She resisted too, probably because of the example of her sister Mary (who was made pregnant by the King and then cast away). But Anne gave in sometime before they were married, because she was pregnant on her wedding day. Maybe Elizabeth Woodville acted similarly, extracting a promise of marriage or "troth" from the King, and then giving in. Betrothal vows were often as binding as wedding vows, and "plighting the troth" was often an excuse to consummate the marriage ahead of the actual ceremony. Also, she was a widow, not a blushing maid, and so who would know?

Barbara writes:
I just read your piece on etoile, and found it very interesting. However, I believe you are mistaken in saying that James II was a monarch when he married Anne Hyde - it was during the reign of his brother Charles II, while he was still Duke of York and her father very much alive and furious that his daughter had degraded the stock of the newly restored monarchy he had worked so hard for. James and Anne's daughters, of course, were Queen Anne and Queen Mary, who with her husband William of Orange succeeded her father on the throne in 1688, at the end of his three year reign.

Mel Whitney:  Yes, of course you're right: James was not yet King when he married Anne. I should have made that clearer. It is debated just who made him marry Anne, or whether he truly wanted to. I have read that his brother forced him to be a gentleman and "do the right thing"; also that her father threatened to expose him. Did he have a choice or not? Did he love her enough to make her Queen, or was she just meant by him to be his mistress? I suppose we'll never know.

The Royal Scribe writes:
Well done... You were brave to tackle that subject, but you did it with succinctness and style that I think leaves little room for anyone who leans towards violent debate on the subject.

Mel Whitney:  I can see now why all the Charles/Diana books sell so well; everybody has a view about those two.


 

- Mel Whitney