As readers of this wretched writer are well aware, while being a U.S. American from a family that has been in America since the 1600s (not Puritan, mind you, but Scotch-Irish and Welsh), we here at Bloody Nib Manor (Lady Nib is Japanese) are rather Anglophile. We like and appreciate English history, literature and English culture (of the pre 1960 variety). One of our favorite British authors is Jane Austen, and we feel that the King James Bible the plus non ultra translation of the Scriptures, as well as being a model for the writing of the English language despite the fact that this writer has not lived up to that style or clarity of writing.
And we both like Queen Elizabeth II. She has had, so far, a long reign and has shown herself to be an almost perfect monarch in a parliamentary/royal system of government. In reality, the queen is a figurehead and symbol more than she is a person with power. She opens sessions of Parliament, approves the new Prime Minister, gives a Christmas and New Year's Day address. Other than those things she supports charities, encourages businesses, and acts as a living symbol of what Great Britain is, was and should be. Born to wealth and privilege she worked as an Army mechanic while a princess during World War II. And while, during the dark days after the War when Britain was going through an economic rough spot, instead of swanning as a Royal, she did what she could, considering her position, to identify with the normal working class Limey while not becoming Bolshie or silly. She knew, and knows her role.
Her sons, on the other hand, have been a disappointment as symbolic heads of state. Prince Charles has shown himself to be a rather dim and silly man with not very good ideas and a mouth that he cannot control. His best pronouncements have been against modern architecture. But most of his public ideas are rather silly and not based on reality. Probably, despite popular opinion, was marrying Diana Spenser simply because she was not royal material. The world loved that silly woman because she was rather attractive and wore a gown well, but she was not of the type to hold back her vanity for the benefit of the nation. But Diana was cool and with it and made friends with people one would not want one's children to make friends with, so that made her the People's Princess. What many people do not realize, or will not admit to, is that the people -- themselves -- can be awfully silly and stupid. The people would have thought it great if Prince Charles had married Barbara Windsor because she was pretty and had a nice figure. Charles has not shown himself to be a great thinker or a serene highness. He comes across as a tweet clad twit who Bertie Wooster would have looked askance at.
And, of course, his brothers are no bargains. Andrew seems, if one is to believe the gutter press, a bit of a sex monkey of the Edward VII type, and who has been linked up, for better or worse, with J. Epstein. And Prince Edward is a bit of a dud who nobody really knows what is up to besides his trying to live a "green" life.
So we come to Elizabeth II's grandsons; William and Harry. William seems o be, despite his father and mother, seems to be a responsible and sensible young man with a sense of duty to the nation. He married a woman who seems to hold the values of Britain and the U.K. He and she, whether they are happy about it, do their duty as they see it for their nation. They seem to want to hold Great Britain together no matter what the religious or ethnic make up of the nation presently is. They seem to hold to traditional British values, and to be ridiculous, would much rather see West Indian immigrants take up Morris dancing instead of Welshmen take up twerking on St. David's Day, or Muslim read Dickens instead of al-Bagdadhi. They try their best despite their youth.
Prince Harry, on the other hand, is not so much a wild card as he is a bit of a termite. He probably cannot help himself. Despite his service in one war or another he seems to have gotten the silly gene. This is evinced by the fact that he married Meghan Markel. The problem is no that she is bi-racial or that she is an American. The problem is that she seems to have the whip hand over him. In other words, it's the old story of a warrior brought to his knees by a bit of fluff.
When Elizabeth II dies Charles will become king, and when happens the British monarchy will in fact, though not in name, end. When Charles ascends the throne he will not be declared as the defender of the Faith, but by his own wish, be declared the defender of faiths.
Since Henry VIII the British monarchs have been the heads of the Church of England, a Christian and Protestant church. The Church of Rome may have condemned the Church of England as an apostolic movement, but considering the current state of the Roman church under Francis there is no room for criticism on Rome's part. The modern Church of England, as silly and foolish as it is, is no less Christian than the nonsense spewed out by the Vatican and Frannie. But the point is that the monarch of Great Britain is supposed to be the defender of the Christian faith, whether it be Protestant or Catholic in Great Britain. This is not to say that he is to oppress Mohammedans, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists or pagans. What he is supposed to do, by his traditional title, is defend the Christian faith against attacks. It's a defensive stance protecting the gates of the nation.
But Charles is a dopey guy and once he becomes monarch he will destroy the monarchy because he really doesn't believe in it and really doesn't believe in Christianity. He will prove himself to e a man who stands for, well nothing except his own privilege and wealth while playing a "go along to get along" game.
And whether his reign is two years or twenty years, he will destroy the monarchy for himself and his descendants because he does not hold his present position and his future role as nothing but a mouthpiece for his whimsies instead of being a rock or tradition in a nation that hates tradition until it' gone and destroyed.
No comments:
Post a Comment