...and is probably as jealous as hell. While Chuck is a distant relative (and I'm not all that sure that's even true. When they started poaching from the German Houses for future Kings and Queens of England, the family tree starts getting a wee bit fuzzy.) you have to think that Henry's as pissed off as all get out that this wimp is the one who finally gets things the way he wants them and doesn't have to take any guff over it. That and the fact Chuck actually produced some sons and secured the line has got to be causing some chapping.
Unlike some, I'm not a royalist. But I have to take issue with one thing Robbo said about the House of Windsor's purpose:
{...}But in a constitutional system where the Royals serve in a strictly ceremonial capacity, it's all the more important that they set an example, presenting an absolutely unimpeachable face to the public. {...}
That's just bull. Good behavior is one thing. While it should be commended when and where it is found, but it's entirely another to say that they have to present an "absolutely unimpeachable face to the public" when absolutely nothing is at risk if they don't.
They're glorfied ribbon cutters. Why does anyone care what they do/whom they sleep with, etc. It's not like the future of the country hangs on it. We've come a damn long way from the days when the English monarchy actually ruled the country---and the better part of the Earth. In terms of wielding power, it's not really that big of deal to be King anymore, is it? Poor William (and Chuck) are being asked to devote all of their time and effort to make the country feel good about itself and are getting not a whole lot, in terms of job satisfaction, in return. No wonder they goof off as often as they do. Who in their right mind would want, to be a prince nowadays? Other than Blackadder, that is?
If you want better behavior out of the Royals, well, far be it from me to suggest it, but actually give them a job where they have to work and their reputation means something and they just might surprise you. Elizabeth's kids are no better than, well, children. Nothing great is expected of them, so why shouldn't they goof off as much as possible? There's no "with great power comes great responsibility" going on with the modern English monarchy. They cut ribbons. They open hospitals. They don't formulate policies. They don't wage war. They don't do a damn thing other than provide good PR for the monarchy they would like to keep intact.
Posted by Kathy at February 10, 2005 02:43 PMThere's no "with great power comes great responsibility" going on with the modern English monarchy. They cut ribbons. They open hospitals. They don't formulate policies. They don't wage war. They don't do a damn thing other than provide good PR for the monarchy they would like to keep intact.
But that's exactly my point, except that I look on it as setting a national tone, not just drumming up PR and tourist dollars. Beyond a sense of historical legacy, that's their only reason left for existence. To me, that increases the responsibility to behave, because their behavior is all that they have left that is of any value to the nation. And if they can't stand up to the thankless task of maintaining such a position, they ought to abdicate. Really, I'd far rather see the Monarchy retired with dignity than dragged down to the standards of tabloid celebrity.
Posted by: Robert the Llama Butcher at February 10, 2005 04:53 PMDo any of the taxes that British citizens pay go to support the monarchy? That's perhaps the only reason I could see why the English would get their noses out of joint at any unseemly behavior.
That aside...I think it's high time we establish something similar in the U.S. I would be quite good at living in a palace and slicing a few ribbons in half now and then.
Posted by: Cathy at February 10, 2005 05:00 PMRobbo: I guess I didn't get it across what I was trying to say very well. I edited a big chunk, meaning to rewrite it and I didn't because I got distracted. My bad ;)
Anyhoo...yes, they should behave well. We agree there. But as far as their good behavior being the only reason they have their jobs as far as setting the tone for the nation? Well, no, I don't think so. I don't think that's their motivation at all and if so, it's a very poor raison d'etre.
I think the monarchy is only around because it's a tradition---plain and simple. While it grates at the nerves to admit this (particularly when we're subjected to stories about Chuck telling Camilla that he wants to be reincarnated as her tampon. UGH!) I believe they're being held to a standard that never existed in reality. How many royals actually have behaved well over the ages? Very few. Victoria springs to mind, but that's about it. For the most part, that lot was a pack of degenerates. We're talking lovers galore, syphilitic princes, the entire Restoration...today's royals aren't doing anything differently than their ancestors did. The only difference is that we know about it. In the past there was court gossip. Today, we have the tabloids.
My question (s) to you is this: how many people in Britain actually follow the supposed good example set by the Windsors? How many care at all? Charles will be the spiritual leader of the Church of England when he becomes King----and he will do this having been divorced and remarried outside of the Church. Does it seem like many people in England today are ticked off about that? I don't think so. A representative from the Church will be at the wedding to bless it, which just goes to show that even the Church doesn't care all that much. Tony Blair said he was "delighted" Chucky and Cammy were getting hitched. If this were the big deal that you say it is, shouldn't he be worried about this potential threat to the legitimacy of the monarchy, let alone the potential threat to legitimacy of the Church of England? It seems a moot point to me.
Posted by: Kathy at February 11, 2005 12:27 AM