as usual, I'm somewhere in the middle
Tuesday, Apr. 12, 2005,

As far as I can see, comment on the recent royal wedding has two major themes (three, if you count "who the fuck cares" as a theme).

Theme 1: How dare he! Diana will be forever the Queen of Hearts!

Theme 2: Oh, I think it's sooo sweet that he finally gets to marry his true love of nearly forty years!

Well, I am not the world's biggest Diana fan, and I think that she had her own enormous batch of problems. That marriage certainly didn't do her any favors, but it's not like she wouldn't have been pretty effed up anyway. I think, if she'd lived, that she'd be a pretty sad case by now. I think the divorce was something she wanted as much, if not more, than he did, and I am smart enough to know that she was never going to be the Queen of England.

But on the other hand, let us face some facts about Charles. The man has never wanted for anything. He has never had to sacrifice anything, never even had face the loss of a loved one. He even got to keep his Grandmother until he was 53 years old!

He didn't have to go without legitimate offspring, because he was able to snare, wed, and impregnate a virgin, a relationship maintained in parallel to his relationship with Camilla.

He has not had to give up his right to the throne, despite being divorced, because he was spared the inconvenience of a living ex-wife. In the eyes of the Church, he is considered a widower. Her death also assured him full custody of his children.

Any 56-year-old who can act as much like a spoiled, petulant child as he does, obviously IS a spoiled, petulant child.

SO. I really cannot find it in my heart to pity a 56-year old man who has never had to do without anything in his life--including Camilla. He has never had to do without her, because she has always been there for him, through her marriage, through his marriage, through four decades of opposition. Look at the damn photographs, people, and listen to the recordings of phone calls, and realize that these two have never had to give each other up for any significant length of time. These lovers were not star-crossed, just occasionally moderately inconvenienced. So I am not particularly impressed that they finally got married--especially when the only appreciable difference, for now, is that she gets to sit beside him, rather than behind him, in public.

As for the whole "Queen Camilla" brouhaha, I think it's just adorable, how the world press go along with the sweet little fantasy of Charles eventually ascending the throne. I don't believe it for a minute. If his mother doesn't flat-out outlive him, she may at least last until he is incapacitated. Judging from his choleric complexion, apoplexy is imminent.

And if he continues to act as he always has, it is entirely possible that he will end up a king without a realm. Just the Camilla marriage alone has been enough to start a serious republican movement in Australia, and Ireland has been working that for years. The establishment of Scottish Parliament, the House of Lords Act in 1999, and the European Union moving toward a Constitutional rule of member states, all point to the looming extinction of the monarchy.

There you have it--my opinion of the royal marriage.
I'm in the middle, again. I don't love it, I don't hate it, but--I can't quite bring myself to ignore it.