If you’ve read this space for any length of time, you’ve probably twigged to the fact that I’m a bit of an Anglophile. One of my life’s highlights has been a visit to England, and one of my dreams is to visit again. My favorite bit of history? British monarchs. My main exercise these days is to virtually walk across the country from Windsor Castle to Thornbury Castle. Now a hotel, it’s famed for being a place where Henry VIII stayed with Anne Boleyn on one of their progressions across his realm. If I do get to go back to Britain, I’ll want to stay in the suite they stayed in (presumably with a different mattress).

And so it follows that I don’t watch anything with a Kardashian, or a Real Housewife. No, I stick to the oldest running soap opera in the world: the British royal family. I was a big fan of Elizabeth II. I have read *everything* about Edward VIII (that’s the Duke of Windsor if you are keeping score at home). And don’t get me started on Mary of Teck.

Years ago, when WHO WAS CHARLES GOING TO MARRY was a thing, I followed Diana closely, mostly out of morbid fascination. I saw nothing appealing about the prospect of marrying that guy, as I intuited that he was a wimp with big ol’ ears who was sitting around waiting for his mother to die so he could have a job.

Even at age 22, I knew that was a bust.

And if you followed Diana, you followed Camilla. Another way of putting it: if you followed Charles, you were really following Camilla, and so was Diana, whether she knew it or not.

I always watch the royal family’s events, for the most part. I generally skip the weddings, for some reason, but I got up at 2 am to watch Diana’s funeral live (six months’ pregnant and sobbing throughout, thank you hormones!); now that we’re in The Age of YouTube I watch everything on delay because I value my sleep more than I value royal watching, so I caught Elizabeth’s funeral and this past weekend, Charles III’s coronation.

Observations:

  1. While I was/am a big Elizabeth II fan, I don’t know what anyone was thinking when they named the heir apparent Charles. Were they thinking that he’d pick something else as his regnal name? What could have possessed them to use the name of the one king that got himself deposed and beheaded? I thought that they’d avoid anything that reminded anyone, especially in this day and age, that it’s entirely possible to bin the whole monarchy thing and sell off the Crown Jewels in the process. Speculation abounds these days that the monarchy is heading to the bin anyway; I fear that a reign that starts out with a Charles of any number is not going to end well.
  2. Right upfront: I was Team Diana back in the day. It was insane of Charles to marry her if he didn’t love her, and it’s ridiculous that he just couldn’t outright marry the one person he wanted in the first place. I know that the entire family was terrified he was going to pull an Edward VIII/Duke of Windsor out of his crown and abdicate, and if you think that through then you realize that ANDREW would be king now and what a cluster foxtrot that would have turned out to be. (Pro Tip: if your best hope for a decent reference is Ghislaine Maxwell, you’re not doing well.)
  3. But for Chuckles that would have been infinitely preferable to what did go down, back in the late 80’s/90’s and has been carefully documented for his grandchildren to read about over and over again.
  4. And while I was Team Diana, I have to think that this is a rough spot for Camilla. I know that the country is, at best, divided on the topic of her being crowned. Imagine knowing that you are doing poorly in popularity polls (the only coin a royal is really paid in, or at least the only coin they care about, once their limo fees are paid), coming in only better than Andrew and the Sussexes. Right before the coronation, when asked to name the royal they thought most favourably of “just 39 percent of those surveyed had a ‘favourable’ view of Camilla, with the King’s wife just managing to beat Prince Harry and Meghan Markle and Andrew.” For context Elizabeth is still the leader at 76%, William is next at 64%, and Diana’s ghost is next at 63%, and Andrew is the bottom-dweller at 7% approval, leaving you to wonder who could approve of him and what kind of person does that?
    • In case you were wondering, Charles is for the fence sitters: he scored a 54%.
    • For most of us, all we can do is suspect we’re unpopular by comparing Facebook likes and Instagram followers and counting who comes to our parties. Lucky Camilla: she gets to know precise numbers, along with a confidence rating!
    • And everything she feared would happen, did happen: public opinion would always be with Diana and not with her. She would not be able to win, or worse, not even be able to compete with a dead woman. If she were living in Pennsylvania, she would have lost a public office to someone who died in 1997.
    • So on the one hand, good on Charles for committing to the bit; he is riding this horse (his love for Camilla; for the record, I am not saying that Camilla is a horse) right into the wall, even as 60% of his subjects watched that coronation and muttered, “Shoulda been Diana” into their tea for two hours. On the other hand, Charles’ commitment to the bit is committing Camilla to scrutiny and unfavorable comparison; hardly a gift for the woman you love.
  5. But the fact that Camilla is going through all this says a lot about her love for Charles. Yes, there’s the part about living in palaces and limos and international travel and all the jewelry and tiaras, but we’ve seen that all the bling hasn’t been enough for a lot of people when love is on the line. How many of us could endure the international public scrutiny and commentary (and yes, I realize I’m part of that merely by writing this) and the indignity of public polls telling us how unpopular we are?

That must be some imperial-sized love.

© E. Stocking Evans 2023