February 13, 2005
Who cares?
I'm continually amazed at how much the comings and goings of the British Royalty are dutifully reported and commented on in the Australian media. Tis hardly the stuff of fairy tales. loved by those Anglophile monarchists out of sorts with a multicultural Australia.
Steve Bell
Who cares whether Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles will tie the knot?
Maybe, it is because the news is really about celebrity and style with its classic love triangle narrative about jealousy, heartbreak, loneliness and tragedy?
People care for two reasons. Firstly, Charles will (presumably) one day be our King. Like it or not (and I'm happy to tie my standard to to "not" post) we still live in a monarchy, and for various arcane reasons, the choice of partner of the future monarch is a matter which has legal significance -- the fact that his marriage will require special legislation by the British parliament is interesting in itself.
Secondly, in many ways this story is not about Charles and Camilla, but Diana. People (mostly the women's magazines) have always been interested in Diana and her tragic (melodramatic? operatic?) story. This is another chapter in that story.
The constitutional and personal are of course not unrelated. If it weren't for the silly rules governing who the future king may or may not marry, Charles probably would have married Camilla 20 years ago instead of entering a sham marriage with an attention-seeking, petulant, probably well-meaning but desperately naive Diana. Charles and Camilla would be our slightly absurd King-and-Queen-in-waiting, and Diana would still be teaching Kindergarten in Soho.
The whole story, tragic, farcical and cruel as it is, casts a sharp and unflattering light on the monarchy and our system of executive government. Both they and us are disadvantaged by this nonsense, but neither they (claiming duty) nor we (claiming 'it ain't broke, why fix it?') can escape the bind.
So while we can roll our eyes at the gossip about the size of the ring or the nature of the planned ceremony, or tut-tut the media fascination with reporting every detail, this is a story which is relevant to us. Whether we like it or not.
Posted by: Paul Kidd on February 14, 2005 06:59 AMPaul,
points taken. Tis a good argument.
On the first point:is not that a matter for the British Parliament, rather than Australia's?
On the second point:is it not also about the secret lives or clandestine romance between the two that has lasted 30 years?
What you point to is the absurd Church of England position on divorce and the refusal to allow Charles to beceme head of the Church of England.
I reckon church and state should separate here.
Do we not hear the ghosts of Eward VIII and Wallis Simpson rattling around?
Or Pincess Margaret not being allowed to marry Captain Townsend.
Posted by: Gary Sauer-Thompson on February 14, 2005 10:25 AM