For my fellow Anglophiles, as if they already didn’t know: Royal wedding this Friday at 11 am London time, 5 am Houston, 4 am New York…
And for those who aren’t English fanboys or are wondering what is all this fuss about…
This is big. Really big. I mean massive on a scale many of us Americans just can’t comprehend. This is a Royal Event that I think will overshadow even the wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana so long ago. Not in terms of cost, or grandeur, but in its symbolism and political placement.
What makes England so ‘dependent’ on Royalty, when it has a Cabinet and Ministers to run the logistics of government on a daily basis?
I’ve grown up on English culture through books, plays, music, movies and study (no I don’t count Austin Powers) and have spent a fair amount of time actually living there, and still maintain friendship and work colleague relationships with the English. So I think I understand what this wedding means to the country.
Royalty – to England – is its Heart. Especially the immediate royal family. We’ve teased the UK for being a ‘nanny state’ but that kind of is true – England is seeking to have a whole family again in the form of its King, Queen, and prince(s) and princess(es) – just like any family would.
We in the USA do this too – we try to create this by making up celebrity couples of our TV and movie stars (Brangelina, anyone?) and Presidential family. That’s the end goal of many of the fantasy ‘swords & sorcery’ movies – to put back the rightful family arrangement on the throne… fanciful but a core part of many of our stories. I think it’s probably in our cultural DNA to create a family where we haven’t one.
To put this particular wedding in perspective, a proper royal family arrangement hasn’t been in existence since before the invention of audio cassettes were invented. Actually, King George VI passed away in 1952, ten years before even that.
The current and reigning Queen today, Queen Elizabeth II, has come through wonderfully since then. I mean think about it – she was a 26-year-old young lady when she had to take on the weight of this cultural – and legal – responsibility. The entire world has always been watching the English family, but at that moment, it was all on her. Especially since her coronation was the first ever televised in the entire world (TVs had just been invented). Sure, she had support and experienced counsel. But she, as well as England, knew there would be no King for a very, very long time.
And she continues to reign with grace and dignity, as well as work to keep in touch with the people she supports and loves. I overheard she has her own ‘tweets’ – and whether or not it’s actually her fingers on the smartphone is not important – she makes sure the people of England know she’s there for her.
I could imagine then that at the wedding of her son Prince Charles and Lady Diana she (as well as England) was a bit relieved. There was then hope that England would again have a King and Queen to hand soon. The Queen was then 55 years old – not old by any means, but by then it had been nearly 30 years since England had had a ‘whole’ royal family. That’s a long time to wait.
This was – for those who have read this far and aren’t old enough to recall – the biggest, baddest, most talked-about wedding ever. Kings are head of the family, but this was all about the ladies. This was a story about Queen Elizabeth II – a popular, gracious, beautiful lady who was sharing the limelight with another radiant – if shy – royal in the house. And Princess Diana blossomed in this light, fed the media what it needed to help keep everyday English (and for some of us outside of England) hopeful that a storybook Princess and her Prince would become reality.
So when proverbial things hit proverbial fans in the ’90s with all that Charles and Camilla stuff, and talk about some of Diana’s own affair, the hope for a King and Queen on the throne with little kinglets and queenlets scampering about was also lost. I wasn’t happy (not that it matters, ha) with the Princess’ decisions to date as she did after the divorce but I know from personal experience that one’s not in a right state of mind during the mourning process. I can only imagine then that England in general was asking itself ‘WTH’ (as it could, since the internet had been public for a couple of years by then).
Then, the work that Princes Diana did to endear the country – and in some cases, the world – to her and her causes was shattered a year later upon Princess Diana’s death in 1997. We (and I count myself amongst the English here) lost so much when that happened. How and why it happened is not what causes the emptiness – it’s that this was a bitter reminder that we lost a dear part of a hope to regain a proper family structure on the throne.
So here we are, fast-forwarded 14 years from that moment in time, from the murderous crash in Paris on a dark night inside a tunnel.
The beautiful young lady who took on the title of reigning ruler of England at age 26 has now just recently celebrated her 85th birthday. She now rules 16 independent countries.
Her son, Prince Charles, is still naturally next in succession to the title of King as and when the Queen passes away (or gives up her title) – he’s 63 years of age today, and if he’s long-lived like his mother, could also live into his eighties.
And then who’s next in line?
Well none other than Prince Charles’ and Princess Diana’s eldest, William. Who is, incidentally, the one who’s getting married this Friday. Yep, that one of the reasons this particular wedding is really really really important.
But again, to be honest, the focus of this wedding is again on the ladies – guys, lets face it – when it comes to weddings, no one does politics like the fairer gender.
Miss Kate Middleton isn’t just facing the Queen on Friday to marry her grandson – she’s facing an entire genertions’ memory of the Pricess of Wales, Diana, by marrying her son.
This of course is no surprise to anyone, as I’m certain this had been discussed behind closed doors and a troop of advisors have given their input on the matter to the royal family. But this enormous pressure is there nonetheless.
And it’s not all just for the ladies… there’s of course Prince Henry (aka Harry to the media) who is in line for the throne after his older brother. He’s currently a soldier with battle experience, and whose youthful indiscretions have been played upon heavily by the British press. It would be fitting for him to be present at his brother’s wedding, so this in itself will be interesting to watch – not what happens at the wedding ceremony but how – and if – his life is changed by this.
So if you’re one who likes a good real-life drama and don’t have the stomach for ‘Jersey Shore’, this will be one to keep an eye on.
Remember, this Friday, 29-Apr-2011, 11 am London time, 5 am Houston, 4 am New York… loads of news affiliates here in the States will be covering this as well as (naturally) BBC America on cable. Youtube also, if I’m not mistaken.
