Prince Charles...

[fajrdrako]

I am a monarchist. I am maybe the only monarchist I know. As I see it, monarchism is only one of a handful of institutions and symbols that remain to us virtually unchanged from the middle ages - others being the Christian version of marriage, the Church as it became after the Gregorian reform, and arguably some holiday traditions. Monarchism seems to me to be pretty benign, comparatively.

And I always like Prince Charles because I've always thought, rightly or wrongly, and without paying much attention, that he's the kind of person I can relate to. Princess Di was a beautiful enigma and as foreign to me as a Martian, but I could see - can see - something of my own temperament (and possibly values) in Charles. Insofar as one can see anything beyond the wall of paparazzi and paparazzi-blocking that surrounds Buckingham Palace and everyone connected to it.

So: today's paper has a rather confusing piece about (if I understand it) Prince Charles might be bisexual because someone once asked whether he was (and was told 'no'), and because someone implied that there was some terrible secret about someone.... Not very meaningful, no, but typical of the broadcast whispers around the Royal Family these days. I can't help thinking that royal princes who seduce chambermaids are boring and passé, and it takes princes who seduce stable boys to get people to buy newspapers these days.

My whole point being, if he's bisexual that's a good thing, and certainly not a bad thing, and nothing to be horrified by per se, not worthy of either scandal nor coverup, and when will the media - or the world - stop acting like Victorians or children when it comes to sexual orientation?

Pfaugh.

The article also said that the British populace didn't want Charles to become king - or at least, an equal number wanted the crown to go to William as to Charles - and this reminded me of the recent stories along the lines that the Pope should 'retire' since he is dying and can't do his 'job'.

Seems to me this is putting the wrong sort of thinking to these things - a sign of how the world has changed in its conception and reality. Being a king, or being a pope, was never a job or a position: it was an identity. Not something you could retire from, or hand off to someone else. It was what you were.

And goodness knows, if not being straight was a disqualification when it comes to being King of England, then the English monarchy would have ended way back when William the Conqueror died.

Comments

[squashed.livejournal.com]

I'm enjoying your musings today.

I'm not a monarchist per se, but I've always enjoyed the royal family -- I remember getting up at 4:30 am to watch Prince Charles and Lady Di get married. And I've always felt very sorry for Prince Charles -- he's got a very tough position.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I'm enjoying your musings today

I'm glad! I tend to fear I'll bore people if I wander off on my various topics.... But then I do it anyway.

I've always felt very sorry for Prince Charles -- he's got a very tough position.

The problem is - and it's back to the 'identity' thing I was talking about - he's attacked because of who he is, and there's not much he can do about that. He'll be the centre of controversy whatever he does. He could live like a monk, doing nothing, and he'd be attacked for that - or there'd be threatened scandals over exposure of lapses in his monkishness.

It's an absurd notion too that members of the royal family should be virtuous, but that's another problem.