A Royal Pain
Washington, DC. Nov 5, 2005 ---- In England November 5th is called "Bonfire Night" when the effigy of Guy Fawkes is burned on the top of bonfires around the country. Not as eagerly as in years gone by, as the desire to burn Catholics for trying to blow up the Houses of Parliament is not as intense.
This Bonfire Night we see the end of a Royal Visit by Prince Charles, and Camilla. Despite all the political spin by the Palace it's hard not to compare the visit to the earlier one with Princess Diana.
Despite 40 servants, 4 hairdressers and enough dresses to stock a department store in tow Camilla still looked her windblown rustic self. The American public likes celebrity, but when they look the part. It's alright for an actress to play the part of a dowdy farm girl in a movie, but not at the Awards Banquet afterwards. The polls showed a staggering 19% had any interest in the visit, compared with the huge interest when Diana swooned Washington, and danced with John Travolta. Camilla would have been more at home talking to the polo ponies down in Virginia. A very nice lady, but not for this role.
But the gossip channels, such as Fox and CNN rolled out the Royal Watchers, who nobody had ever heard of, or cared a damn what they thought. The suggestion by one that sleeping with Camila was like sleeping with his mother was quickly ended by a cut to commercial.
The concept of a constitutional Monarchy as head of State is a good one. Same with the French system of a President. It means there is someone to look after the affairs of state, and oversee the government without being directly involved, or profiting from the wholesale corruption as in the United States. It's hard to think about Queen Elizabeth hitting on the Saudi Royal Family for a donation to her library, as did Clinton. Or ordering all military and law enforcement to look the other way as the family and associates of their business partner were flown out of harms way, after he demolished the World Trade Center on 9/11.
But what about King Charles and Queen Camilla. It may be a good time to revisit the way Britain chooses the Monarch. It's happened several times before. In the days of democracy, and especially as Britain is part of a European Union anyway, then it would be appropriate to consider jumping a generation and going straight to William as a new kind of democratic monarch. Forget the idiot Harry, he has proved there is an occasional faulty gene.
Seeing Royals touring homeless shelters is somewhat in bad taste these days. Granted Prince Charles does do a lot of good charity work, but the US sees enough of fake staged political events with President George W Bush without having to import them. In fact there are many parallels between the two weak sons of a strong father and dominant mother. Maybe that's why they got on so well this week. George and Charles could swap stories about their mothers.
But Camilla and her 4 hairdressers. She needs to ask for your money back.
Nobody lost, nor won here. Just a insignificant diversion to the bad news out of Iraq, and the plight of homeless and workers who can't afford 40 servants.