America wallowed in the escapism of the sheer pageantry and fairy tale wedding of Prince Harry and his American commoner Princess, Meghan Markle as the Monarchy's changing attitude on societal norms was on display. Everyone was only to keen to put the squalid American “stuff” out of their minds -, be it only for a day. All the major networks and cable news channels flew their top anchors across “the pond”. They provided, with gusto and transparent joy, wall to wall coverage on every aspect of the celebrations. In addition there was much American about the hoopla although not of the fare Americans were accustomed to. Ironically, the audience in North America viewed, for the first time, the blending of African America religious practices with traditional conservative Christian worship, on a British stage .
There has always been a fascination by the former British colony subjects for the majesty of the monarchy. In case anyone has forgotten Jefferson considered the major political threat to his Republican democracy Hamilton’s and President Adam’s desire to appoint a blue blooded king to be in charge of the newly liberated country. This sentiment has apparently lingered on in the unconscious.
SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OCCASION
It would be remiss not to reflect on the social significance of the festivities where the United Kingdom’s ninety - two year old Queen Elizabeth 11 stage managed and blessed the most momentous changes in societal norms in a century. Ironically, the genesis of this revolution of that conservative traditionalist’s world view had begun in the very same city where the societal metamorphosis was now being enacted - the City of Windsor. For Her Royal Majesty was ensconced at her beloved Windsor Castle when she learned of the tragic death of Harry’s mother, Princess Diana and initially was highly resistant in leaving her retreat to take part in the nation’s mourning.
ELIZABETH AND HARRY’S MOTHER DIANA
Britain’s monarch is the standard bearer of the propriety of all matters British. That job definition includes being Defender of the Faith, i.e. the head of the Anglican Church, in addition to being responsible for protocols and the behavior of the landed gentry. She had been faced with an upstart Princess, her daughter in law Princess Diana for over a decade. The latter had behaved, to put it in the terms of Elizabeth’s world view, “very badly”. This even after she had divorced Charles. Besides her open flouting of conventional morality, even cavorting with a Muslim playboy, she had taken on the Royal Establishment by being actively involved in causes . All this had resulted in her being more popular than them and being labelled “The People’s Princess”.
Diana had had, on the face of it, all the credentials to be the next Queen. She was a virgin, a prerequisite in those days, and was bred in the purple coming from older aristocracy than Elizabeth herself. On the surface she was perfect to fill the role of consort to Elizabeth’s eldest son and heir thereby continuing the royal tradition of the monarchy of the British Empire. However, Diana Spencer rebelled as she was not prepared to grin and bear the fact that Charles had continued his relationship with his real and only love, Carmilla. She balked at a destiny that would assign her to be the breeding cow of the heir and the spare to the British crown. Furthermore Diana was not going to tolerate just opening bazaars and smile dutifully two steps behind Charles, she wanted an identity and a purpose of her own. She achieved this all. Her worst sin however was she blurped publicly what went on behind the palace closed doors.The publication of “Diana’s Story” was the last straw.
Understandably the Queen, on learning of Diana’s tragic death in France saw no reason to leave her sanctuary Windsor Castle, where she was vacationing. The errant Princess had after all divorced herself out of the family. It was enough that Charles, against her advice, had gone to France to accompany her body back to England. The Monarch’s stance became more and more out of sync with the body politic as the spontaneous outpouring of grief of her nation became evident. Buckingham Palace, Elizabeth’s official residence, became plastered with flowers and messages as her subjects openly wept at their heroine’s passing. Daily the mourners increased mounting pressure on their Monarch to return to London to lament with them. Finally, after Prime Minister Tony Blair had implored her to leave Windsor and return to the nation’s capitol thereby acknowledging the tragedy did she consent. From then on her public acceptance that times were changing begun.
ELIZABETH’S HISTORY WITH SOCIAL NORMS
It was not as if England’s longest reigning monarch was, through the years, winging her response in maintaining the existing social order. She had been through a baptism by fire as to what the social norms should be. Elizabeth’s attitude had been ingrained from a young age when the royal family had felt betrayed by her uncle Edward VIII who abandoned his responsibilities in favor of marrying an American divorcee, This thrust her father into the monarchy and her into the immediate succession, a prospect she neither envisaged or wanted. She blamed the premature death of her father on this turn of events and never ever forgave her uncle for what she considered an unforgivable dereliction of his duty in order to meet his own needs.
She had not been the Sovereign for long before facing a painful dilemma. Her sister Margaret, whose love affair with a divorced commoner, Peter Townsend, was common knowledge sought her approval to marry him. The Queen, as the head of the Church of England, demurred at the marriage request as Margaret required her permission as she was under the age of twenty - five. Nor did she intervene when the Government vetoed the betrothal after her beloved sibling and closest friend turned twenty - five. Like her Uncle, Margaret had to choose between duty and love. For both of the sisters there was no doubt as to what her answer would be.
WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME
Times were a changing and Elizabeth had to witness, over the years, the ongoing havoc that Margaret’s decision wreeked upon her life as she smoked and drank herself to death. Besides Charle’s disastrous marriage, which in retrospect was forced upon him, two other of her offspring Anne and Andrew also divorced. She had allowed her other children to tie the knot with commoners, as presumably their partners were not divorced and the progeny would be distant from succession.
So Elizabeth was coming to terms with the fact that in the second half of the twentieth century divorce was acceptable if the marriage had proved unsustainable. However, as far as Diana was concerned she believed that she had had a far greater responsibility and as a royal herself she should have known better. She should have sucked it all up for king and country. It was only after the British Prime Minister persuaded her that her aloof stance towards her former daughter in law’s memory would in fact do grave harm to the monarchy that she relented and returned to London to pay her respects with everyone else.
So when it came to Prince William’s choice of partner she was ad idem with society in embracing his choice of a popular commoner Kate Middleton. Nobody seem to care anymore if the future monarchs would not have pure royal blood pumping through their veins.
AND THEN CAME MEGHAN
Harry met Meghan in July 2016 on a blind date. What boggles the mind is what their mutual friend thought the two might have in common. Obviously the friend new them both far better than anyone could have imagined. From then it was gangbusters and within a month they were off on a camping trip to Botswana. Their privacy held for about half a year but the fact that the liason was serious was reflected in the fact that within six months the American divorcee had been introduced to Prince Charles, Harry’s father. The meeting was accompanied by a formal announcement by the Prince of the relationship with a furtive plea to the media to “cool it”. Needless to say that entreaty was ignored. What followed was a disgusting food fest, which explained why Harry’s two previous serious liaisons had backed off. Meghan Markle handled it all with aplomb, dignity and professionalism of some - one bred for the role.
It was round about this time that the Queen, not noted for her rash statements was quoted as being fully supportive of the affair stating that she, “was delighted to see Harry in a loving relationship”. The two were seen more and more together, in the knowledge that the matriarch of the social and religious norms of the country was onsides.
THE QUEEN TAKES OVER.
Many families face the challenging situation where both parties are marrying “out of the faith”. The situation that faced the Monarch was a circumstance where the social and religious situation was totally out of whack. Meghan was not only divorced she came from a background that was bi racial and a family situation that to put it kindly was troubled. In addition the prospective royal bride was entering an institution where the custom was to be apolitical when she like Diana was both distinctly political and an activist. She had even openly attacked her controversial President. Her profession, namely a celluloid star did not quite fit into the resumes that prospective partners to the royals might present. Ms. Markle was not Anglican either but rather Episcopalian which had to add to the woes of those organizers of protocols who have to put the show on the road. Finally, this marriage on its face challenged every taboo and prejudice that had dogged the royal family since time immemorial.
The nonagenarion Elizabeth II attacked the "challenge" with relish and resolve. Firstly, the wedding would not be a State occasion but a Windsor family one putting her in total control. The fact that as it was not a State affair would mean that she would have to pay for it as well as the security, which sum amounted to over forty - five million dollars. While she was known to be tightfisted this did not deter her a jot.
So what better venue was there than the town of Windsor with the formal reception in her beloved Windsor Castle and the ceremony in her place of worship of her choice, the Saint George’s Cathedral of Windsor. The problem of the presence of Trump would be resolved by not inviting any politicians, including the British Prime Minister, flaunting convention in yet another dimension. The personality and culture of her future granddaughter in law would not be drowned by the pomp and circumstance of the high Anglican tradition. Rather her background, religion and traditions would have equal exposure at what would become the most televised spectacle of the decade.
So the world including America learned of the rich powerful African American Episcopalian heritage. They listened spellbound to the histrionics of the moving sermon delivered by the first African American Head of the Episcopalian Church. Reverend Curry quoted the civil rights icon Martin Luther King’s words where he aptly argued that love conquered all. The sedate solemn Church was shattered by the Negro spiritual “Stand By Me” as the Queen visibly lapped it all up.
The traditionalists were not disappointed as there was plenty to discuss in relation to who was there and what they were wearing. Then of course there was the bride in her non ostentatious yet stunning bridal gown - the delightful children entourage - the gallantry of the groom’s father who accompanied the new Duchess of Sussex half way down the aisle and the confirmation of Meghan’s individualism as she walked a stretch on her own. While every couple to a lesser or greater extent exhibit their love for one another on this momentous occasion, Harry and his bride’s sincere absorption in each other was a joy to the most cynical of observers.
AT THE END OF THE DAY
So the Queen had done it and didn’t even look exhausted. Not only was she not lagging behind the social and religious norms of her society she was defining and leading them. The media, both traditional and social, echoed this conclusion. The hundred thousand enthusiastic spectators that lined the streets of the tiny City of Windsor was further evidence of approval of the festivities and what they signified.
Her Royal Majesty had made the adjustments that were necessary for the monarchy to survive for the foreseeable future, albeit in another form. The social revolution that Princess Diana had pioneered and the independent role that royal consorts should play had been enshrined by the very Monarch that had opposed them. It was only fitting that it was “The People’s Princess” son's fierce individualism that had been the nidus for the transformation.
What with the rape of the Constitution by the “democratically” elected leader back home Jay. H. Ell is beginning to muse that Alexander Hamilton just may have had a point…
AMERICAN REALITY
It is only five days since eight children and two teachers were killed while attending school and it has already been forgotten. This was the two hundred and eighty - eighth school shooting in the US since 2009. In the same period the combined total of school shootings in Canada, Germany, Italy, France, UK, and Japan was five.
No comments:
Post a Comment