Rather than go all David Brooks on the complexity of my relationship with the idea of monarchy, and how America harbors deep-seated royalist fantasies, I think I can do my five-person readership the favor of brevity and show my feelings a bit more graphically.
It turns out that my sister -- who made sure the family was up at 3a watching William's daddy marry his own fetching commoner, lo these many years ago -- still has some streak of royal fascination left in her, because last weekend she gave my wife a mounted poster that looks like this..
..and it's been sitting in front of my desk in the home office I share with Kim ever since.
While I think I understand the inspirational charm of this royal advice, I was however, in the course of my somewhat eclectic work researches (ha!) impressed by the re-use of the same graphical form that I've been staring at all week. The same form with a somewhat related piece of royal advice, delivered with a couple layers of commentary.
It occurred to me that this artist (sorry, I don't read tags very well so I can't give credit..) said an awful lot of what I was feeling last night as I drifted off to sleep.
To all of those still wondering, um, nope, I didn't watch the wedding.
6 comments:
Different time and place I know, but as a child I was encouraged to, at the very least, respect the royalty. I know so much has happened to put that into a hazard zone but I still enjoy watching the pomp and circumstance that they do so well.
As a Canadian I can royal watch without any angst; as a woman of a certain age I can forgive them their foibles because it seems I have made my glitches in life too and wish the same from others.
I liked your gentle touch in your title...there is something about a wedding and a new baby that always fills me with hope. It is a new day!!!
Oh yes, about you not watching...you needed your sleep more than you needed Westminster Abbey. Your Pa woke me up to make sure I saw the ceremony, mumbled something about maaarrrrwiggge...and fell back to sleep.
It was just another insert into history...well done.
A few thoughts to share, from the royal freak of the family...
I can see how the crown leads you to see the Keep Calm and Carry On as a "royal sentiment," but it was actually the third part of a propaganda campaign by the Office of Information during WWII (and one that was actually not widely seen, as it was only to be used if Germany invaded England).
And... Diana was a commoner by the technical definition, but by no means AS common as Kate--Di's daddy being a Viscount and Earl and her growing up at Althorpe pretty much puts her in a different class than the daughter of a airline pilot and stewardess-turned-party-props entrepreneur. Go commoners!
All that is to say, you really should have stayed up. It was lovely. And your tiara is in the mail! ;)
Sherilee, you are not alone in the royal appreciation club...though I did not get out my tiara or my glass slippers.
I was raised by a mother and a sister who filled scrapbooks with pictures of the royal family from magazines. Wonder what happened to them. They would be wonderful treasures now.
You are right about Diana...she was actually of bluer blood than her husband. She could date her English ancestors waaayyyyy back whereas Charles has German and Greek and maybe other blood that muddies his lineage. though of course, he is a prince.
So I am not sure that you would technically call her a commoner. A very blue one, at the least.
The book I am just now completing on the Duchess of Devonshire is about one of Diana's ancestors. Georgiana was a Spenser and was born at Althorp also. This is like mid 1700's.
I think it is good for the royal family to once in a while get themselves some common blood to strengthen their blood lines. Are we talking people here or horses? No disrespect meant...just the way it is.
Oh yes, by the way, Shelby...I would imagine that a DVD of the lovely occasion will soon be produced, your mother will buy it and you will be able to view it all!!!
Nice comments! I'm getting an education.. heh heh!
I thought to myself -- as I was looking up the rules for what is and isn't a "commoner" -- that the real question was: why would the English royal family want to limit itself to marrying inside such a narrow circle..?
And then it occurred to me that for a good stretch of European history, when monarchies mattered politically, English royals would marry other royals, esp. non-English royals, as a part of a deliberate foreign policy. So I guess it used to be a big deal -- the people were mad or worried?! -- when a royal would waste this political capital on a "commoner" for something foolish like "love".
Then I remembered that Eddie Eight pointed out the fact that the political impact of marrying a commoner is practically nil now, and since Wallis it looks like it's been pretty much the norm.
Royal sentiments notwithstanding, Henry Five via Shakespeare utterly rocks IMO, hence the potst title..
Love the title...
Post a Comment