Tag: Meghan Markle

OPINION

THE HOUSE OF WINDSOR

Camilla’s Coronation Quiche, Catherine’s Headpiece, the Princess Diana’s Shadow, the Coronation Rain, and No Tiaras

The post-Coronation notes on the margins

By Elena Vassilieva

“Honores mutant mores.” – The Queen’s Life Guard. Photo by Elena Vassilieva.

“And fragrant oils with ceremony meet…” – John Keats, Lamia (1820)

Rainy days are made for lovers, of course, but evidently also for the British kings and queens on their Coronation days. It rained on the day of the Coronation of Her Majesty The Queen Elizabeth II on June 2, 1953, but judging by the photos and the film, the rain didn’t seem to matter at all. On the contrary, it added a very romantic touch of tenderness and love to the event. The 27-year-old Queen, escorted by her husband, Prince Philip, was smiling and waving inside the Gold State Coach, and people were joyously greeting them on the streets. Inside Westminster Abbey, somehow, it was arranged for eight thousand guests to be seated. The partakers were clad in their ceremonial robes and fur mantles, also wearing hats and diamonds. Despite the “heavy smell of mothballs,” as Lady Glenconner, one of the six maids of honour, recalls, the reigning air of this highly religious ancient ceremony was similar to that of the theatrical spectacle. The young Queen dazzled the world with her innocence and beauty, generously, yet, very tastefully, bejeweled with all the historical articles once worn by her predecessors, for the sake of tradition, but also for good luck. It was the day and the rare occasion for the unbounded Royal splendour.

But then there was also the moment, when she was sitting in that ancient Coronation chair, still without the crown on her head, but with the most innocent look on her face that betrayed her fear. That moment will stay forever with many who watched the Coronation. One could feel the Queen’s sincere desire to be a committed and selfless servant of God and her Queendom. It was the turning point in her life, the Rubicon, from where there was no way to look or to go back at all. It’s the destiny of the strong, not of the weak, and she knew it, despite her young age. There haven’t been many of those who were to be crowned and who would be defeated by their own weakness and turn back. Most recently, only the King Edward VIII, who abdicated in 1936, without ever being crowned. At that instant, one could also see the young Queen’s fearful anticipation of the future, as at that crucial moment in her life, she entrusted herself, before God and her subjects, with the duty of being at their disposal as long as she lived, of placing the needs of others always before her own. Of course, she was an ideal and natural fit for this very honourable but also burdensome role, displaying these qualities already as a child. After cooking with her friends, during the war years at Windsor Castle, nobody wanted to clean dirty dishes, writes in her Diary the Queen’s childhood friend, Alathea Fitzalan Howard, but the then Princess Elizabeth seemed to enjoy it, always volunteering to do all the dirty work. It must have been the joy of being conscientious, responsible, and in charge, without shying away from thankless chore, but setting a good example for others to follow instead. And so she stayed this way throughout her whole life, leaving the Crown, I thought, in safe hands.

The Royal Guessing Game of ‘to Invite or Not to Invite,’ and the Coronation Rain of 2023

Prince William crossed his fingers, pleading for no rain on the day of the Coronation, when he and his wife were greeting the well-wishers on the Mall the day before. But, alas, on Saturday, May 6, 2023, the rain didn’t fail to embrace the King and his subjects, only confirming that the weather caprices are now part of the Royal tradition. Despite it, the well-rehearsed coronation procession to Westminster Abbey exuded high spirits and was warmly welcomed by the gathered crowd on the streets. Many had been camping on the Mall for days, guarding the space to have the best view on the day of the event. The Abbey was filled with more than two thousand guests, nearly four times less than in 1953, due to husbandry of the ‘slimming down’ monarchy. To invite or not to invite had become quite a Hamletian conundrum for the King, causing His Majesty a head-splitting migraine, a controversy in the media, and probably a huge disappointment for many. Thus, the King didn’t send an invite to even not very distant blood relatives, his own goddaughter, India Hicks, who was a bridesmaid at his and Princess Diana’s wedding in 1981, and Ms Hicks’ 93-year-old mother, Lady Pamela Hicks, the late Queen’s cousin and friend, and the daughter of the Lord Mountbatten. On Instagram, Ms Hicks shared that “The King was sending his great love and apologies, he was offending many family and friends with the reduced list. [I]nvitations to the coronation were being sent based on meritocracy, not aristocracy.” Lady Pamela said that she wasn’t offended at all, in fact, she was “pleased to see this change.” But I thought such an unexpected turn of events very sad and harsh, after all, the Coronation is also a family affair, almost like marriage, and to exclude blood relations, especially those who played a significant role in the lives of the King’s parents, is incomprehensible, let alone a very regrettable personal act.

The Coronation invitation appeared on the Royal Family’s website on April 4, 2023. The heraldic artist and manuscript illuminator, Andrew Jamieson, was chosen to design and paint it, and he performed the task splendidly, highlighting the King’s humour and love of the countryside. The cheerful card was much to the liking of both the public and the environment-friendly and eco-conscious King, who is said to talk regularly to the flowers in his garden. The unostentatious and jolly design of the invitation was then reproduced and printed on recycled paper. But there was one thing to meet the eye on the card that neither the mischievous unicorn and the lion, nor the Green man, nor the pretty cornflowers and the roses could possibly make one miss it. There the King’s wife was styled as Queen Camilla, instead of Camilla, the Queen Consort, as she had been officially known in the recent months. The waves of surprise, bewilderment, and even indignation crashed onto Twitter. Who would have thought that the King would disobey the wishes of his late mother that soon and make the change? Even the title of the Queen Consort was only tepidly supported by the public when the official announcement was made by the Royal Family on February 6, 2022. The Queen’s gracious move to bestow the honourable title of the Queen Consort on the then Duchess of Cornwall had taken off guard quite many Royal followers, myself included.

But after pondering over it, I found the Queen’s decision fair. The then Duchess of Cornwall had been escorting her husband to so many engagements of his, in addition to promoting cultural, educational, and social values on her own, with a special focus on literacy, books, dance, theater, and domestic abuse of women. In spite of these successful endeavours of hers, I didn’t expect that the title of the Queen Consort would be changed to that of Her Majesty the Queen Camilla that soon after Her late Majesty’s death. It seemed the King was in a rush to drop the word ‘Consort’ from the given title, and one can comprehend his feminist logic. After all, his wife has been his faithful companion and partner for so many years, therefore the wish to appreciate her efforts and make her officially his equal is only natural, and his actions are perfectly justifiable. However, the matter isn’t entirely uncontentious and should have been handled with greater care and tact. First of all, the late Queen’s last word differed a great deal from what had been decided lately, and it can be perceived as a disrespectful act towards Her late Majesty and even towards the King’s subjects.

Secondly, the King was once married to Diana, the Princess of Wales, with whom he has two sons. Hence, it’s rather insensitive towards the Princes to bestow Camilla with the title of the Queen. The Princes conceded once already, when their father made a decision to marry their mother’s rival. According to Prince Harry, it felt like an utter blow. Clearly, both women aren’t in competition any longer, and the convoluted love triangle isn’t something we should be discussing here, nonetheless, Princess Diana’s persona should have been given more love and kindness, out of respect for her, her sons, and for all her admirers. Even more so, because the love triangle was resolved to Camilla’s advantage. Here, on Earth, she is the winner. It’s no secret that Princess Diana’s feelings for the King were intense and deep, but unrequited towards the end of their relationship, and that alone is the reason why the King should have acknowledged his first wife. Also, it’s a pity that the King seemed to have consigned to oblivion the fact how much in awe and in love with the Princess he was once, even if he eventually found Diana unbearably hard to please. To reprove him for the latter would be unwise, as Princess Diana was an extraordinary and rare woman, strong and numinous. It’s hard to imagine anyone who would match her and who would be her equal. Little wonder that her persona invites a metaphorical way of speaking about her. She could easily be compared to a divine woman, a goddess, who came to Earth by pure chance, for a short visit only, but, unable to find her true love and happiness here, dismayed by the cruelties of this world, had to leave this place way too soon, rising above the calamities and unfairness of mankind, up to the stars.  

But the most disappointing thing, in my opinion, is that Camilla herself hadn’t objected to the elevation of her title. I thought it was out of character. But maybe I was mistaken all this time, overrating her sensibilities and moral proprieties? Last summer, while reading Robert Lacey’s Battle of Brothers, I found one particular remark about Camilla rather unsettling. He maintained that, “[a]ccording to Stuart Higgins, a royal correspondent in the 1980s and later editor of the Sun, Camilla Parker Bowles provided him with regular off-the-record briefings about the state of the royal marriage from 1982 to 1992.” Reluctant to believe it, I put the remark aside in my mind, but now, I fear, it might be true. Why couldn’t Camilla have refused the title out of consideration for Diana, just as she did in the past with the Princess-of-Wales title? All this time, Camilla seemed to be uninterested in the Royal regalia at all, all she wanted was the love of her husband, and that’s what made the couple not only romantic and adorable, but also quite inspiring in affairs of matrimony. Their mutual fondness made people forgive them the unpleasant intricacies of their love triangle in the old days. In addition to her hairdo, Camilla’s (seeming?) humbleness and lack of the apparent ambition to be in the limelight were her most powerful weapon. She also seems to know the boundaries and how to position herself physically in public, so that the view of the King remains unobstructed. And she’s been doing it effortlessly, projecting an image of the down-to-earth, unaffected, contented, and self-assured woman. I admired that attitude of hers, so, upon the title change, it felt as if my perception of her public persona hadn’t been entirely accurate. By no means, it’s a good feeling.

On Camilla’s Inclusiveness

The King’s wife’s widely praised inclusiveness should have been questioned and revised by Camilla herself more often than not, because ultimately any unrestrained inclusiveness just backfires. Think of the Lady Susan Hussey affair at Buckingham Palace, at the end of 2022. The woeful incident on November 29, 2022 could have been easily avoided, had Camilla been more selective as for whom to invite to the party. Less would’ve been obviously more. The place was swarming with just too many guests, there was no room to swing a cat. One can only imagine what ran through Lady Susan’s mind when the whole absurdity of the situation erupted. She had provided the monarchy with 60 years of loyal service. Yet, her tireless volunteer work had been unjustly questioned, after the unscrupulous Londoner opportunist, Ms Ngozi Fulani, eager to exploit the event at any cost, played dumb with her, pretending not to understand the innocent question about her origins. As if that weren’t enough, Fulani victimised herself, dragging the incident into the political realm and claiming publicly that she was racially abused at Buckingham Palace. So, if one is of no Caucasian origin, she may not be asked about her ethnic heritage? How preposterous is that! Not to Fulani, she is an overnight self-made sensation, with her own Wikipedia page now.

How much sense does it really make to invite and include those who are disloyal, perfidious, and venal? And to exclude and not to take into consideration the one who used to be the King’s wife with whom he has two children? What kind of inclusiveness is that? I wonder how many members of the Spencer family were invited to the Coronation? Earl Spencer didn’t get an invitation, he said, but he wasn’t expecting it, either (The US Magazine, May 6, 2023). But all the main members of the Middleton family were invited to the event. They proudly paraded their self-regard, while walking to their seats in the Abbey. On what exactly merits of theirs had they the honour to be there? Only because their daughter and sister is the King’s daughter-in-law? But that’s not a merit. And if it were a merit, why Lady Pamela Hicks wasn’t treated equally? The Mountbatten family is directly related to the Queen Victoria, with plenty of good deeds of their hands. As for the Spencer family, they had been faithful servants of the Royal Family for centuries. The meritocracy isn’t far away from the mediocracy in this case, I fear, and it leaves a rancid aftertaste. The aftertaste of the new era Royal nepotism? I certainly hope not. How odd that the new Princess of Wales, who unceremoniously took Diana’s title, didn’t feel a single ounce of shame that her family was at Westminster Abbey, but the family of her late mother-in-law wasn’t. So much for the eulogized politeness of the new ‘meritocratic’ Princess of Wales, and so much for the inclusiveness of the ‘meritocratic’ King’s wife, and so much for the cult of kindness of His Majesty himself.

The Glimpse of the Ceremony inside Westminster Abbey

Goodness gracious, but I’ve nearly left out another main character of this coronation fairytale, the new Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Do you think this charming chap with the energy of a teenager conducted the ceremony behind the scenes, reducing the number of guests and ordering no tiaras at the event? I wouldn’t be surprised if he did. That indefatigable proponent of mediocracy and wokeness in Great Britain is propagating his own views with such ease that the King seems all ears. But if the historical diamonds were unwelcome at the ceremony, luckily, the music made up for that miss. If not for this magical feature of the Coronation, I would have dozed off. But there were also the fairy-like Princess Charlotte and the Spring-like Lady Louise who both looked lovely, unwittingly bringing hope with them, as for the future of the House of Windsor. Penny Mordaunt’s Valkyrien solemn beauty was eye-catching throughout the ceremony, what a right decision it was to entrust her with the sacred sword. She is said to have been vigorously exercising for the task, in order to excel during the event. Only paralleled by the Prince of Wales’ solemnity, whose part in the ceremony was particularly invigorating. His expressive, stately voice, bestowed with the power of persuasion, is enough to convey his message the most prevailing way. The Prince was wearing the Ceremonial dress uniform of the Welsh Guards and his Garter mantle. His pledge had been prepared ahead of time, but at the moment of speaking, he cast a sort of see-through glance at the King, as if he meant to say that he will be the King’s faithful servant, but only if the King himself is a faithful, trustworthy, and sensible partner. It was the pact of reciprocity, and that is a very important point. Unlike the Queen Elizabeth II on her Coronation day, the King isn’t in his roaring twenties anymore, he is in the glory of his maturity and, undoubtedly, he will appreciate greatly the help of his heir apparent during his reign. The King was a very successful Prince of Wales, with many laudable enterprises, which he enjoyed a good deal and earned a solid reputation for his causes. It makes one hope that he is going to be a very good ruler. For Prince William, in turn, it’s worth considering with thoroughness and care how he should best approach his new role of the Prince of Wales in order to achieve as much success as his father.

The Princess Diana’s Shadow and Catherine’s Headpiece

As for his wife, Catherine, alas, she hasn’t withstood the test of vanity and joined Camilla in accepting the elevated title without any doubts or scruples. Kate Middleton quite boisterously appropriated the title of the Princess of Wales on the next day after the Queen’s death. Who encouraged and advised her so poorly? Her husband? But it can’t be. Why would he disregard his own beloved mother? The speedy decision came across almost as a ploy to undermine the Princess Diana’s legacy, whose ring she has been wearing since 2010. The world (at least my world, every single one of my friends!) gasped when Prince William had proposed to Kate Middleton with Diana’s sapphire ring. Not because of the woman he chose, not at all, but because of the Princess Diana herself, whose public persona, to this day, radiates sacredness. “And how could he possibly give his mother’s ring away that soon after her death? Shouldn’t it have been locked in a museum or in a vault, for the next generation, for his children?” – Some wistfully sighed. The sacred memory of his mother didn’t stop him from giving the ring to his girlfriend, although she had the chance to accept the Prince’s hand and heart, but politely to decline the ring. The latter lost Diana’s magic touch forever the minute it was put on Kate Middleton’s finger. In the same fashion, unyieldingly, Kate accepted the Princess-of-Wales title, acting with such an astonishing swiftness and arrogance, and showing a total lack of thoughtfulness for Princess Diana. Yes, of course, it was hard to resist the temptation to have the title all for herself and, at last, to play the role of the princess in an official capacity, but ethically speaking, it was very unkind to Diana.

Soon after, as if to prove to be qualified, Kate Middleton sent a rather presumptuous message to the world through an unidentified source. “She appreciates the history associated with this role,” said the source, “but will understandably want to look to the future as she creates her own path” (The Daily Mail, September 9, 2022). What is the meaning of the message? I’m afraid it might have revealed more than was intended, namely, her excessive self-confidence and even superiority over the previous Princesses of Wales, and also, perhaps, her self-seeking, secret desire to leave her mark on the principality of Wales. Every step of hers is being recorded by the media with the speed of light, and they construed her choice as her unwillingness to live in Diana’s shadow. Although few would argue that Catherine hasn’t been an assiduous working member of the Royal Family lately, many would agree that, despite her sufficient popularity, for which she should thank her Royal status, and many years of her apprenticeship at the House of Windsor, she is still poorly prepared to win the race with the Princess Diana, despite her best intentions to take her own road.

Marrying into the Royal Family is the main prerequisite for the stardom. Didn’t Prince Philip famously say to Catherine that it’s her role and her status, not her private persona, everyone is after? But, paradoxically, to reach the stardom isn’t enough to compete with such extraordinary historical figures as the Princess Diana and the late Queen. She must have realised long ago how difficult it is to escape from Diana’s shadow, simply because Princess Diana is more than just a Royal star or an icon. The key to Diana’s uniqueness is her personality along with the circumstances of her life, but this isn’t something new to anyone. Unlike Diana, Kate Middleton is an aggressive self-promoter, and she believes, apparently, that such are our modern times, one just needs to be this way, even at the House of Windsor. The mass and social media are all saluting her strategy, because it’s profitable for them, and she seems happy to play along. Praising every move of hers, the media have been turning her public persona into a well-vendible Royal product for a dozen of years now. But any self-promotion, read ‘boast’ and ‘boastfulness,’ in the Royal context is a tricky business, just like Camilla’s all-embracing inclusiveness (forgive me this awkward phrase!). It’s very easy to cross the line here or there, and one ought to be extremely cautious, in order to avoid public faux pas. I must add that I don’t concur with the view that self-promotion is necessary for the members of the Royal Family at all. On the contrary, it appears to be cheap and tacky, creating the impression of disingenuousness. To me, the very notion has a negative connotation in the Royal etiquette, as it inevitably lowers the Royal standards of their members’ public behaviour, even when a self-promoter is advertising good deeds.

As an example, I’d like to mention one well-intentioned deed done by Ms Middleton a couple of years ago. In March of 2021, in the troublous times of pandemic, she kindly brought flowers to memorial of the murdered woman, Sarah Everard. When you look at the photos, nearly everyone was wearing a face mask, as it was mandatory at that time, but Catherine had no mask on. The striking contrast between her without a mask and all the people around with their masks on made me wonder why on earth would this usually prim Royal woman disobey the rules? And one other example, when, on May 13, 2023, the Eurovision Song Contest 2023 video was released by Kensington Palace. Elegant in her blue silk dress, sitting at the piano, in the airy Crimson Drawing Room at Windsor Castle, Catherine engagingly played Stefania, last year’s Eurovision champions,’ Ukrainian Kalush Orchestra’s, song. That was a great tribute to Ukraine, an excellent deed of the Royal member’s hands. But despite the best intentions, the excessive luxuriousness of the place from where she sent her message felt quite insensitive. In the context of war, the splendour is just as incongruous as accepting the Princess-of-Wales title.

She would have won more praise, had she decided not to take the title, letting the world know how much respect and love she has for her late mother-in-law, Princess Diana, and how little she cares for the Royal regalia. That and only that should have been the starting point for her own honourable path. In fact, it would’ve been the best self-promotion ever, in my view, if the latter is so desperately aspired. Instead, she has invited unfavourable comparisons and criticism from the Royal observers like myself. It would have been a very wise decision from the geopolitical perspective, too, as the title is being contested. By rejecting it, she would have gained more appreciation in Wales. More people would have wanted to address her as their princess there. Besides, after the Coronation of the King, she would have been officially a queen-in-waiting, anyway, so why this self-indulgent greediness instead of modesty and humility? “All that cometh is vanity?” Probably.

She is a competitive woman beyond doubt, quite often walking or rushing to greet people before her Prince during their shared engagements. Whether it’s just a playful competition between the two or her mishap, it’s hard to know exactly, but her body language suggests that she, at the very least, wants to be on the same level as her husband, not an inch behind him. But is such an obvious aggressiveness really necessary, given the traditional setting? Look at the Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, how delicately she moved, with her lovely petiteness, showcasing a grace of swan and self-confidence of lioness. She warmly and earnestly greeted their well-wishers and artfully complimented her King. To change the ground of the “competition” between Catherine and Prince William, why is there a banner on their joint Twitter account only with an advertisement for Catherine’s project, Shaping Us? I gather Prince William doesn’t mind at all, and needs no advertising, remaining a gentleman, but it still gives one food for thought. At the moment, I’m afraid, she is inept to compete with someone like the Queen Elizabeth II or Princess Diana, or the Princess Royal. The bitter truth is they are all streets ahead of her, no matter how much pampering she gets from her social media followers and from the media. It’s nice that she has her supporters who instill confidence in her, but, from time to time, she may want to look at herself not in their looking glass, but in her own, preferably the one that has no Royal frame, if she doesn’t want to end up competing only with people like her sister-in-law, Meghan Markle. Today, Kate Middleton can throw her hat in the ring, but only if the other player is someone like Meghan Markle. They didn’t get along on the same territory, not only because of their cultural differences, but, foremost, because of a very similar bourgeois mindset of the aspirational competitor. Besides, both seem to lack a very important ingredient of the late Queen and Princess Diana’s essence, – humility.

Humility is, sadly, rather underrated nowadays, and someone like Kate Middleton could have cultivated it, given her social status and popularity with the media. This is exactly what both the late Queen and the Princess Diana were doing, without allowing boast to become a social norm. She had joined the Royal Family as Kate Middleton and, it seems, underneath the robe of the Royal Victorian Order, she has remained Kate Middleton. And that’s perfectly fine, as it must be her true self, a tough cookie with an infectious laugh and a tall frame with the additional 10 cm of Gianvito Rossi heels, comfortable to overtower even stateswomen and statesmen. She is eager to be as tall as her husband, I think. It’s ironic that she doesn’t want to be in the Princess Diana’s shadow, but how come she appears to be craving to be the shadow of her own husband? Is it because she is afraid to be in his shadow, too? But her eagerness to emulate him isn’t going to save her from this, unless she is, suddenly and miraculously, as bright a star as Princess Diana. In either case, the imitation is never going to be as good as the original. However, there is hope for Kate Middleton: her absolute normalcy, at times to utter ordinariness, her goal-oriented and determined public persona, her enthusiasm of the polished self-promoter seem to be just the right ingredients for the Royal type the masses and the media would support today. If only, in addition to that, she had acquired the late Queen’s ethical skills: genuinely thinking of others and placing others before herself in all circumstances, even if that requires letting others shine and herself often stepping into the background. Luckily, there is still time for her to learn the late Queen’s ways of being and living, while she is a queen-in-waiting.

Concluding Remarks

Sadly, the two Royal women, Camilla and Catherine, had reduced themselves overnight to “the merry wives of Windsor.” And I dare jump to one conclusion: when it comes to the Royal affairs, love is not enough, the burning desire for power will always lure the players and eventually tarnish their ethics. As for the Royal well-wishers, they will kindly accept everyone or anyone who owns or gains the Royal title, regardless of their behaviour. Without this pivotal logic of the masses, the monarchy is doomed to non-existence, and this is in no one’s interest. The new tendencies of the slimming down of the monarchy and unreasonable frugality are life-threatening for the venerable institution, I’m afraid. It’s a game with so much at stake: the reputation and the future of the monarchy, but also well-being of ordinary people. To a good many, the Royal Family is the source of inspiration, pride, and even happiness. It’s hardly wise therefore to avoid the extravagance of the traditional pomp and ceremonies. People expect to be dazzled by the Royal Family, with their historical dresses, diamonds, palaces, gardens, recipes, their charities and good causes, their traditional codex of rules, let alone their love affairs. Entertainment and distraction from the dreariness of the everyday are generously offered by the Royal Family, often at the expense of their privacy. And it’s clear as day that the monarchy is too precious an asset for Great Britain to lose. The whole world will grieve if the British monarchy vanishes.

Sources:

Hicks, Lady Pamela (2012): Daughter of Empire. My Life as a Mountbatten. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, New Delhi: Simon & Schuster.

Howard, Alatheia Fitzalan (2020): The Windsor Diaries, 1940-45. My Childhood with the Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret. New York, Atria Books.

Glenconner, Anne (2020): Lady in Waiting. My Extraordinary Life in the Shadow of the Crown. New York: Hachette Books.

Lacey, Robert (2020): Battle of Brothers. New York: Harper Collins Books, p. 94.

Prince Harry: The 60 minutes Interview with Anderson Cooper, January 8, 2023.

[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11197975/Kate-Middleton-Princess-Wales-Dianas-death-1997.html]

[https://www.royal.uk/news-and-activity/2023-04-04/the-coronation-invitation]

[https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/did-princess-dianas-brother-charles-attend-kings-coronation/]

(Written during the post-coronation weekend, May 13-14, 2023, in the Sky Control Room, on Cape Cod.)

Copyright © 2023 by Elena Vassilieva. All rights reserved.

THE HOUSE OF WINDSOR

Prince Harry And The Golden Dog Bowl

Or in cauda venenum

A fairytale*

By Elena Vassilieva

“O tempora! O mores!” – Cicero. Image is by Elena Vassilieva

“The night was well advanced, when he reached his own house, having met no interruption on the way, proud of his well-planned stratagem, elated by success, and flattered by the hope that he had extricated himself by his own energy from all the perils which had of late appeared so dark and difficult to shun. Duri magno sed amore dolores Pollute, Notumque furens quid faemina possit [Virgil].” – Henry William Herbert, the old Etonian, in The Roman Traitor (1846).

Once upon a time, Harry was a dashing British prince. He must have caught Meghan Markle’s eye on May 9, 2013, when the Prince was warmly welcomed by the First Lady, Michelle Obama, at the Mother’s Day tea party, at the White House. One needn’t be present there to feel the pleasant atmosphere and all the waves of fascination for the guest of honour, since all the TV channels seemed to be wrapped in a cloud of giddiness while broadcasting the event. Mrs Obama herself looked very jolly and lovely, clad in a romantic floral dress that matched her mood and hairdo. Enjoying the Prince’s company, the First Lady kindly invited children to the party, and the British Prince didn’t fail to charm them. Harry’s team’s win at the charity polo match, at the Greenwich Polo Club in Connecticut, only added to his success on this week-long visit to America. Prince Harry was also well received at the Russel Senate Office Building. The flock of giggling girls were delighted to be in such close proximity to the prominent guest. In fact, the young ladies were over the moon and, of course, they wanted to take home a souvenir that would mark the occasion. They photographed the Prince, who was sent on the Warrior Games mission to America, from all angles, but they also were eager to take a selfie with Harry. At that precise moment, the Prince had caught my eye as well because he happened to say to the girls, disapprovingly, that he was very much anti-selfie. He believed the quality of selfies was very low, and that one would get much better results if one asked someone for help. Not only was his remark reasonable, I thought, but he also made clear that he wasn’t afraid not to confirm to the fancies of contemporary fashion.

Meanwhile, Meghan Markle, about whose existence the world happily knew nothing, must have desperately wished she were at the tea party and most certainly envied Mrs Obama for being such an elegant First Lady who was to receive the Prince. Moreover, Ms Markle might have produced sigh after sigh after sigh, after all, Harry was out of reach at the time, the Prince was in a relationship with the beautiful and levelheaded Cressida Bonas, with whom the unknown American actress stood no chance to compete. Nonetheless, Prince Harry’s charming and smart manners at the White House inspired Ms Markle and boosted her aspirational power to get what she wanted. Precisely then, she must have started making her plans and tedious preparations for the future. Her notes on logistics would begin with the elementary, such as how to make herself visible to the Prince and how to meet the most eligible bachelor in person, how to present herself to him right after, and, finally and most importantly, how to dazzle him. She pondered what type of woman she would rather be and what she would rather not be for the Prince, dismissing the Duchess of Cambridge as a paragon of virtue resolutely and absolutely, but seriously considering Diana, the Princess of Wales, as a helpful book to study from cover to cover, so she decided. Also, she found in Wallis Simpson’s predatory brazenness an invaluable source of inspiration.

Ms Markle’s own hunting instincts dictated to her that, in the beginning, it would suffice to be perceived simply as American as apple pie: sweet and funny, outgoing and poised, practical and unceremonious, and, like a teenager, flashily in love with her Prince, clinging on to him as if he were about to be grabbed by an invisible other woman, the villain. But she’d better be in good standing, too, with as many good deeds on her resume as possible, even if the deeds would be done in a hurry and one time only, so she thought. Later on, however, she might want to shed the image of the cute and awesome American apple-pie-like woman, replacing it with that of the flamboyant femme fatale, who is capricious and demanding, ambitious and desirous of power and attention to such a degree that she would dare seriously think she could dismantle good old House of Windsor in a trice.

To everyone’s amazement, she showcased her inexhaustible stratagemical energy par excellence, when she had deployed every means available to her to reach the unreachable. She, somehow, connected with the right people who knew the Prince. She arranged an engagement at the UN (there weren’t too many details about it in the Netflix docuseries, just a photo of her at the UN headquarters was shown for a second so that we would know she set a foot there to corroborate that instance on her Curriculum Vitae). She also didn’t shy away from less credible enterprises that might have helped her get closer to her goal. Thus, she paid a visit to one wizard who emboldened her by predicting a grand wedding in the near future. It certainly makes one wonder whether the wizard’s job hadn’t ended with his prediction? Perhaps, he did more than that, who knows? Naturally, these are pure speculations of my silly mind, and for now, let us follow the Shakespearean logic of all is well that ends well.

Time will tell sooner or later what really happened. A love potion or not that might or might not have been prepared for the Prince, it shouldn’t matter at all, especially when people genuinely fall in love with each other, one reckons. But one thing that matters is how utterly busy Ms Markle must have kept herself before our Prince came to visit America for the second time, in 2015. President Obama was exuberant to have Harry as a guest of honour in October of 2015, in the Oval Office: “It is a great pleasure to welcome His Royal Highness Prince Harry to the Oval Office. I’ve had an opportunity to spend a lot of time with so many of his family members, but this is the first time we had a chance to talk directly. He has gotten to know Michelle very well, for a range of reasons, but in particular, he’s here to talk about the Invictus Games, an initiative that is bringing together the wounded warriors around the world, under the leadership of Prince Harry and others, to make sure that we see not simply the sacrifices they’ve made, but also the incredible contributions, strength, and courage they continue to display.” (President Obama’s speech is quoted as in the USMagazine, October 28, 2015)

Again, Meghan Markle must have been quite envious of the delightful Mrs Obama who visited the USO Warrior and Family Center at the Fort Belvoir military base in Fairfax County, VA with the Prince and seemed to have had a good rapport with His Royal Highness, as the President himself jokingly noted. During that visit, President Obama and Prince Harry had a private conversation about the 2016 Invictus Games, which were going to be played in America. Ms Markle must have realised precisely then that she ought to act, and fast, because Harry, then single and free as a bird, was publicly expressing his despair and concern whether he was, perhaps, doomed to carry on as an eternal bachelor, as there seemed to be no woman on this planet who would be willing to marry the poor thing. And to order and fetch a bride from another planet had still proved quite difficult, albeit the engineering genius, Elon Musk, had already, no later than since 2012, been sleepless while working on his beloved Spaceship-project. But Harry had no patience at all to walk on this planet as a lonesome bachelor till the day the Spaceship would be built and equipped to make interplanetary bride deliveries. Searching and waiting for the right woman, even for two years, seemed to Harry unbearably long. As it turned out, the Prince had a far more complicated task than Mr Musk. Little wonder that this period of bleak solitude quietly drove poor Prince if not to insanity, then definitely to desperation.

Now, in the circumstances, one would think nearly any woman would appear to a man as sweet and delicious as Turkish delight, no? So when, one day, out of the blue, Ms Markle had landed on Harry’s screen, disguised as a dog (sic! Cave canem!), our Prince couldn’t help but think she was heaven-sent. Despite the disguise, the dog-woman intrigued him at once and took his breath and sleep away. Hence, he didn’t hesitate to ask the friend through whom the dog-woman’s image flew to him: “Who on earth is this?” Not quite extraterrestrial, no, but rather appealing in her own trivial and bold way, he reasoned. He already imagined her being the incarnation of the promised bliss, not knowing that later, he would learn firsthand that ‘what Meghan wants Meghan gets,’ and that he himself would soon make not a very soft landing on the dog bowl in Nottingham Cottage, when his sensible brother would try to dispel the dense fog that had enveloped Harold’s impressionable mind. Prince William also hoped to shake off Harold’s naivety and gullibility, for the good of Harry himself, alas, to no avail.

This account comes from the Prince’s book, Spare (2023), so we can’t fully rely on it. The scene might have been dramatised by Harry’s ghostwriter, J.R. Moehringer, for the sake of the Shakespearean tension, which the melodramatic and gossipy book would have lacked completely, despite the Prince’s quite intolerable tendency to overshare. But if there had been any other purpose of that histrionic, blood-and-thunder scene, such as exposing his brother as a steadfast man who doesn’t suffer fools gladly, Prince Harry succeeded in doing so, but he also, embarrassingly, placed himself into the dog bowl, not only making a laughing stock of himself but also presenting himself to his reader as a distrustful and immature man who, clearly, is in discord not only with his Royal relations, but also with his conscience and reality.

Prince William, on the contrary, if the wrangle occurred indeed, earns respect and even admiration from the reader like myself, because he chooses to stand up for all those who were callously reduced to tears by Harry’s wife, whereas Harry adamantly refuses to believe it. The argument should have been left behind the scenes, of course, but the book needed some sensationalism, after all, what was Harry paid for? Definitely not for his Hamlet-musings in the Frogmore gardens. “Good money can make one say anything at all, regardless of whether certain events happened or not, if the one is desperate enough and doesn’t play by the rules,” was the conclusion of the majority of Britons and a good deal of Americans, too. But if Harry just entertained his newfound home, America, with his opus, the prodigal son slapped his good old motherland, Great Britain, on the face, leaving their relationship at daggers drawn. By all accounts, not a very wise chess move. “Check, Harry!”

When the two Princes had disagreed at Nottingham Cottage in 2019, Prince Harry must have already been going through a rapid transformation from the Prince everyone used to be fond of into someone entirely different. The old Harry had been vanishing into thin air by the day. The dog bowl, metaphorically speaking, was turning into a gold-making machine and as well a trap for him into which he lured himself because of his poor judgement and estrangement from his brother who had dutifully looked after him ever since they were children, even if Harry diminishes his significance now, although, ironically, still looks up to William. Who would forget that moment when Prince William, while volunteering in Southern Chile during his gap year, in 2000, had Harry on his mind all the time? He said to the journalist that, after he had been done with his chores (at the moment of the interview, he was cooking and then cleaning a toilet), he would write a letter to Harry. Prince William has cared for his brother, probably no less than their mother, who was as strict as loving, not rarely at all scolding Harry for his naughtiness.

The Princess Diana’s reflection in the Prince William’s behaviour towards Harry is hard to miss. To this day, William handsomely resembles her looks, and that is, of course, merely a genetic coincidence, which, by no means, should be emphasised by Prince Harry, as if it were the wormwood and the gall to him. Harry allowed this rather fatuous comparison to see the light, but he blundered again, showing his own rough corners, not his brother’s. It might be that his ghostwriter either insisted on the passage or didn’t think it was awkward. I certainly thought it was maladroit. But, again, maybe those aren’t Harry’s own remarks? Has Harry been really that jealous of his brother’s looks? And if so, how preposterous! Didn’t Princess Diana joked once that William is destined to be a king, whereas Harry has more freedom of choice, and, besides, all the girls would be his?

But Harry didn’t want all the girls or any girl, he wanted ‘the List,’ ‘the love of his life.’ Fair enough, it’s his choice, but how could this love of his possibly dare to demand from the Royal Family to change their traditions for the sake of her vulgar caprices? Aside to being Harry’s wife, who is she, anyway? The book would’ve been more attractive, had it not contained various comments about Harry’s relatives, who, understandably, would dread any invasion of their privacy and intrusion into their personal space. And who wouldn’t? It does sound a trifle as if the Sussexes might have even resorted to chantage to negotiate the Megxit deal. They even expect the Royal Family to offer them an apology now. Most believe, however, that it should be the other way round. But the Sussexes, I daresay, have been debilitated by their wondrous gold-making dog-bowl-machine so much that they have completely forgotten which one is the left foot and which one is the right foot.     

Unfortunately, that wasn’t the only instance in the book when Harry’s candid verbosity was hardly endearing but very much repugnant, despite some truly touching moments of self-reflective contemplation, e.g., in the preface-essay in Spare. There, he is sharing his emotions and thoughts from the gardens at Frogmore, on April 17, 2021, right after the funeral of Prince Philip. He is conflicted with Hamlet in himself. Oddly, he doesn’t pay enough attention to Prince Philip, given the circumstances, while waiting for his brother and father. I think it is as sad as the fact that Harry’s memory seems to deceive him, and his recollections are often truly equivocal. It’s unlikely, therefore, he would remember the care and love he received from his brother and father. Not now, after he had married not only ‘his List,’ his ideal woman, that is, but also, as some braved to utter, his ‘mother.’ I disagree with this point of view. Harry didn’t ‘marry his mother,’ he married an impostor with excellent calculating skills and with an ardent desire to reincarnate Princess Diana for Harry, in order to open the doors for them to everything they had been denied before.

But who said Diana wouldn’t disapprove of it and would support Harry’s wife’s demeanor? That’s very unlikely for a number of reasons. And it’s a great pity that Harry’s wife has misconstrued Princess Diana’s personality so grossly, and Harry allowed it. Despite her rebellious nature and just one or two public incautious moves, which by no means imperiled anyone’s life, Princess Diana was a conservative enough woman. She knew how not to cross the line and what was good and what wasn’t, unlike Harry and especially his wife, who sees the world through a very peculiar lens, that of her looking-glass self, which isn’t her true or authentic self at all. If one saw the Netflix documentary, one might have noticed how she is (re)imagining herself all the time, here she is the wannabe Gwyneth Paltrow, there the wannabe Julia Roberts, but rarely if ever her own self. Princess Diana didn’t have such a conflicting personality at all, she might have had a self-deprecating humour, but she knew who she was, and she fearlessly, to the heart’s core, defended her true original self, Lady Diana Spencer, not permitting others to influence her self-perception and identity. Harry’s wife wants to be this and that, and that’s fine, not fine is the means she chooses to achieve her personal goals. Hysteria and blackmail are favourite devices used by those who want, consciously or unconsciously, to harm others and make them suffer. The consequences thus from Meghan Markle’s actions are dire for others, but even more so for Harry and Meghan themselves. By the way, when one derives enormous pleasure from cruelty, what is one called, then?

Harry’s identity as a prince began to crumble the minute he met Meghan Markle. He, all of a sudden, became an enthusiastic selfie-taker, as the Netflix documentary paraded a bunch of selfies taken with his wife. Of course, it’s too miniscule a thing to mention even, compared to the fact that he abdicated himself as a prince, thus distancing from his blood relations, which Diana would’ve never done. She was proud of being Lady Diana Spencer, but she was also very proud and honoured to be part of the Royal Family. “I’ll never let you down,” she said to Her Majesty The Queen Elizabeth II. Her divorce from Prince Charles was a crushing moment for her, but not for her identity; she stood up bravely for herself, resisting negative emotions as much as she could, cultivating and elevating her kindness to the highest degree possible. And, as time tells us now, she didn’t cause any damage to the Royal Family at all. Also, it’s very unlikely that Princess Diana wouldn’t have noticed right away how manipulative Meghan Markle is. Would she have accepted it? I think not. There would’ve been an inevitable confrontation between the two women. Then, Harry would’ve faced the Hamletian dilemma of ‘to be or not to be,’ indeed.

Moreover, given that Princess Diana is not only Harry’s mother, but also Prince William’s, and that she is a beloved historical figure, it’s a Gargantuan carnivorousness not only to usurp Harry but also Princess Diana’s persona, commodifying her figure for their only benefit. But at the same time, Harry’s wife depreciates Diana’s significance (read: ‘unconscious bias’!), degrading her publicly to the role of Harry’s mother and their children’s grandmother exclusively, choosing to disregard that Princess Diana is a cultural phenomenon, an icon and an inspiration for others, and has been that for decades. I’m thinking of the moment in the Netflix documentary when Meghan Markel is holding their baby in her arms and looking at the portrait of the Princess in their Montecito house, cooing to the baby: “It’s your Grandma. Yes, it’s your Grandma.” She is enticing herself through this pseudo-mother construct into Harry’s personal space in the hope of replacing Harry’s memories of his mother with her own daily self, making him depend on her (not positively!), instead of his mother, the ideal-like, dream-like, mythical almost, human being, who had been, in fact, quintessential to Harry’s existence and personality, for Princess Diana could also be viewed as his conscience. He said it himself in the preface of Spare that she is to him like the Morning Star that has been guiding him. And attempting to take it away from Harry completely, is very dangerous for him, it would mean that part of his personality would suffer tremendously from this loss, a second time round, which he shall regret later. Of course, this gives Meghan Markle the opportunity to exercise her power over Harry, enslaving and even colonising him this way. She would prevent any other person to enter that space, where Meghan is striving to replace Diana for Harry, so that she could never lose control over him. And if that makes Harry happy, why not, after all, it’s his life? The problem is that the new guiding star of Harry’s, despite some good qualities, has serious shortcomings, most of them are of ethical nature.

It appears to be an attack with a vengeance on all levels of Meghan’s consciousness on nearly everyone whom Harry had known prior to meeting her. And bringing the class shifts into their relationship this way, she imagines herself and acts as Harry’s quasi-Empress, while publicly denigrating him and disregarding nearly every single one of his relatives, never mind their rank or historical and cultural significance. Harry, the slave, becomes a mere source of fame and material enrichment for her and that of notoriety and scandals for his Royal Family. The late Queen Elizabeth II is just Harry’s Grandmother to her, Prince William – ‘your brother,’ as she barks indignantly in the documentary, after Harry had showed her a text message from Prince William. One might forgive it if it’s done in a private conversation, but she does it publicly, as if she wanted to prove her superiority to the Royal Family. What would give her the right for such an unheard impertinence, many wonder? And what would ever justify such an insolent conduct?

However, it’s time for a flashback. When the Prince had found out that the dog-woman had also an interest in meeting him, he was oblivious of festina lente, alas, and rushed to hold on Fortuna’s hair as tight as possible, in order not to let the chance slip by. And if the wizard provided Ms Markle with a certain love potion (a rhetorical figure here only, God forbid!), the latter seemed to work like a magic wand. Prince Harry didn’t think twice, he just seemed to know instantaneously that she was that woman who knew how to charm him, and, sadly, she also knew how to mislead him, and, eventually, to destroy him as a prince, lowering him to her own level of incessant ruthlessness and never-ending acquisitiveness. Besides, she also knew how to stir the pot, out of jealousy, malice, Schadenfreude, fun, and what not, while trying tirelessly to glamourise and popularise her own image, making it a household name. One isn’t surprised at all, then, why Ms Markle was a professional social media influencer. And I object to this a great deal, because she happens to undermine the cultural and social values I had been introduced to as a child.

But then, in 2016, Harry found himself under her spell, having encountered ‘the love of his life,’ at last. To confirm his feelings, Harry took out of the drawer the list of all the traits he wished to see in his dream-woman and thoroughly went through it, making sure that the woman was not going to end up a mere mirage for him any minute. After studying the list carefully, he ticked all the boxes on the list and decided that the American actress happened to fulfill all his requirements, besides, she appeared to remind him of his mother, he said. The awesome American, apple-pie-like, woman was shortly offered the Prince’s heart and a ring that he designed for her by himself, the lavish wedding followed, the bride, yesterday’s divorcée, was even given permission by the ever gracious Queen Elizabeth II to wear a white dress and a veil, after all, Harry had never been married before. The couple seemed to have the endless train of all kinds of stories and demands surrounding their wedding preparations: the wrong tiara, the ill-fitting bridesmaids’ dresses and missing stockings, the bride’s father’s overjoyed heart that suddenly commanded him into hospital, the bride’s stolen letter to her father, her niece that was abruptly uninvited from the wedding, etc., etc. (One wonders what Shakespeare would have thought about this eventful Windsor wedding?) Our newlyweds started their married life at the historical Nottingham Cottage in the grounds of Kensington Palace, and at this point, the fairytale should have ended with the usual ‘And they all lived happily ever after,’ not this time, however.

‘Love wins,’ triumphed their supporters. ‘Harry is ruined,’ sighed their adversaries. ‘She’s a manipulative gold-digger!’ cried one half of the world. ‘No, she is Harry’s saviour!’ cried the other half. And all this time, with the poor Royal Family in the middle! One can rest assured that the Royal Family haven’t seen anything of the sort ever since the King Edward VIII’s abdication. Only it has turned out to be a much worse saga that seems to have no end. Neither its historicity nor the splendid entourage of roses around Nottingham Cottage were good enough for Harry’s wife, and like all nouveaux riches, she wanted more, much more, something that is larger than life, something that is colossal and ostentatious, something that would have her name on the deed to the house. Did it matter to her that good old Nott Cott is probably one of the very few properties in London that is still sui generis and has the original bones? Of course, not. Why would she care about that? Especially after the brash remarks of her dear friend, Madame Oprah, who, after visiting the Cottage, surprised by its modest size, exclaimed: “No one would believe it!” “No one would believe it!” repeated our heroes in tandem in their Netflix documentary shortly before Christmas 2022.

But the most likely truth is that, in a century or two, no one is going to believe how on earth such a petty individual with such low ethical standards became a British Duchess who wrapped the prince around her little finger, disrupted all his relations, and took him away from his country, blaming the British media and the Royal Family for all the sins of the world. And while Prince Harry and his wife try continuously to invalidate the Royal Family’s mantra, ‘Never complain, never explain,’ their own mantra seems to be ‘Stir the pot and cash in as much as you can’ at the expense of those whose credibility, nobility and kindness they are shamelessly exploiting. Responsibility of being a historical figure that had been instilled into Prince Harry’s mind ever since he was a little boy has been overturned by irresponsibility of his wife’s irreverent attitudes towards History. Somehow, they convinced themselves that, despite their scurrilous conduct, History would still grant them a privileged place when the time comes, forgetting that History can be as ruthless and unforgiving as they are themselves, when it comes to settling accounts with the historical figures. They also seem to be oblivious of the fact that glory, which may be gold and roses for them now, will eventually turn into historical soot and dust. Thus, they have already reserved a place for themselves in the chronicles of Time, and it’s not the most prominent or pretty one, in the Perifereia of History, thanks to all the noise they are making today. Also, the Hamletian dilemma of ‘to be or not to be’ has never been a matter of crucial importance for Harry, except on the first pages of Spare, because Harry’s new guiding star, his material girl, thought he’d rather be consumed by the conundrum of to have or not to have. And he chose ‘to have,’ of course, to Meghan Markles,’ great satisfaction.  

*This postmodern fairytale is a work of fiction. All the characters, events, incidents, and discourses are fruit of imagination and under no circumstances should be perceived as real. Any resemblance to actual events, places, names, or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.

(Written on the rainy night of January 14, 2023, in the Sky Control Room, on Cape Cod.)

Copyright © 2023 by Elena Vassilieva. All rights reserved.

REVIEW

The Foibles of the American ‘Prince’

Or the faux pas of the HBO Max series “The Prince”.

By Elena Vassilieva

“S’il vous plaît soyez bon prince !” “Oui, ma princesse !” Image and words by Elena Vassilieva

On 29 July this year, the HBO Max aired The Prince, a new series about a royal family. I’m deliberately using minuscule letters in a phrase ‘a royal family’, so that it’s clear from the start that this animated series has nothing to do with The Royal Family of the House of Windsor. Of course, Gary Janetti, the creator of the series, might have had them in mind while writing the script, as he had brazenly appropriated their names, and it may delude one in the first few seconds as if it were simply a cartoonish take on the Royals. However, any cartoon, particularly a satirical one, is based on good, solid humour and fine, substantial wit, and at least a vague resemblance to the reality that is being spoofed. But none of this you will find in The Prince, an idle fantasy that isn’t bright and sparkling, but rather dull and utterly unfunny.

Besides, it seems to rely heavily on the creator’s background, his own life philosophy, behavioural modes, ethical codes, and preferences rather than those of the Royal Family members’. Also, it’s so conspicuously un-British, in spite of the involvement of a bunch of the UK actors (Alan Cumming, Orlando Bloom, Frances de la Tour, Iwan Rheon, Lucy Punch, Dan Stevens, Sophie Turner) in the series, that one is left guessing why Mr Janetti hadn’t chosen one of the fabled American families, say, the Kardashians, these relentless publicity slaves, or even one of the crews of the White House (Donald Trump would do, but so would Joe Biden), instead of bothering with the House of Windsor? The utter un-Britishness of the discourse and manners of the supposed royal characters are so striking a fact here that one can’t possibly take this creation seriously, and even less so as a comic piece. The mode of the contemporary American popular culture, whose hegemony on the global scene is hardly deniable and whose social dress code of the ubiquitous and infectious ‘look at me’ and ‘gimme’ self-exposure, combined with the urge for everything royal, are very oppressive in The Prince, ad nauseam, indeed. And if there had ever been the spirit of the British monarchy in the creator’s mind in the phase of conceiving the series, it got quickly evaporated in the process of its preparations for the audience. I would be afraid to call it even a translation, possibly, “lost in translation” would be a better phrase in this context. Please forgive me the banality of this comparison.

Even Prince Harry, whose every article of value has been contaminated by Meghan Markle’s system of values, wouldn’t say things in real life the way he is uttering them in the cartoon. For instance, in the episode where he is sharing matter-of-factly, yet in a lazily detached fashion, his astonishment of how unlike all the palaces he had ever been to the dwelling in LA is. It does sound flat, doesn’t it? And it’s a factual inaccuracy, as Harry, clearly, is fond of his new home, but it’s also a psychological distortion of reality, because he is very proud of their beautiful house, and he stated that himself in the infamous Oprah-interview, unless the creator knows something we don’t know yet. Regrettably, the series is filled with such truly sad discordances throughout: the cartoon’s characters, very American in every imaginable way, absurdly, have the real British Royal names; the children, e.g., Prince George and Princess Charlotte, sound as if they were teenagers already, on top of the fact that it’s rather tacky, vicious even, and done in poor taste, having presented the children of that young age as very unlikeable and spoilt characters, who in true life are nothing of the sort, on the contrary, they are as good-hearted and lovely as any child of their age. If it’s an animated satirical film, naturally, the characters are allowed, in fact, supposed to have some features of exaggerated proportions, but they ought to be truthful to the nature of those who are being portrayed, they can’t be forged and reimagined as the creator pleases. If the latter is the case, it’s not a satirical or even comedic enterprise anymore. All of the heroes of The Prince without exception are ill-conceived, in my view, and don’t therefore meet that criterion.

One also is puzzled, for what audience precisely the series is being made? Since it fails to release comedic effect and a crystal clear concept of the series seems to be absent as well, it can’t possibly excite imagination of any adult who possesses at least minimal intellectual curiosity, and, at the same time, it’s way too nasty and unenticing for a child, even a teenager. Though the music (by a British composer Rupert Gregson-Williams), which might be here the only thing that deserves a round of applause, suggests the younger generations of viewers. Perhaps the cartoon was thought to suit someone who is consumed by any royal topic and who would be triggered to watch it, once he hears the word ‘prince’, sort of the Pavlov’s dog bell reflex? Maybe the writers (Gary Janetti, Alain Bala, and Tom McDonald) just tried to offer their, strictly American, view of the royal everyday where the nuances got carefully filtered through the American mentality of a typical well-to-do middle-class man, a bourgeois, and a prince-wannabe? But for the lack of the appropriate circumstances, this can happen only on the very primitive level of the creator’s imagination, of course. Not surprising is hence that the only characters that are being spared from the creator’s repugnant vision are the bourgeois members of the Royal Family, Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle, for instance. Janetti’s sympathetic attitude to the women could be explained through his capability of grasping their mentality, because they share the same or similar social background (and a bourgeois mindset).

I also have difficulty to define the series as for its genre. It doesn’t appear to be a comedy because it isn’t funny. Acidic as it is, it lacks all the sharp, fair points and all the right angles of the societal peripeteias to be regarded as a good satire. Travesty would probably be the closest notion that would do justice to the series. Willingly or unwillingly, the Royals have been the centre of attention and a magnet for creative minds continuously throughout the centuries, but until now, the discourse had probably never been instilled with so much unforgivable balderdash, if not to say rubbish, and tastelessness. The latest pop-cultural ‘royal’ endeavours, such as The Crown and this HBO Max series The Prince, confirm and exemplify it so poignantly. One only wonders which one of the innumerous Royal commentators and experts has consulted The Prince?

(Written on Sunday, 22 August 2021, the day of the hurricane Henri, here, on Cape Cod.)

Copyright © 2021 by Elena Vassilieva. All Rights Reserved.

OPINION

To Be or Not to Be a Famous Person in the Wax Museum at School?

Can there be a place for a moneyed celebrity with questionable work ethic in the Living Wax Museum’s inventory?

By Elena Vassilieva

“And may we, like the clock, Keep a face clean and bright, With hands ever ready To do what is right.” (From The Real Mother Goose, 1916; © Rand McNally & Company) Image: “What grade are you in?” “Kindergarten.” “Lucky you! My folks said once our boy is a 3rd grader, he’ll be officially out of his lying stage.” © By Elena Vassilieva

The other day, a 3rd grader and my dearest relative, excitingly shared the news with me about the Living Wax Museum, his new project at school. “It’s about a famous person who has a great influence on people. I’ll need to prepare a costume, three props, and a speech about his life. When I deliver the speech, I must pretend that I’m that person.” Naturally, I was very happy about the enthusiasm of the boy who made me take a look at the list of all the influential people the children were given. This year, he said, it included celebrated personalities from all over the world, not only from Massachusetts as in the past. The 3rd grade teachers at the Mullen-Hall School in Falmouth were allowed to use their discretion in adding the names. And they did a very good job enriching the list with 66 names.

I was glad that they haven’t forgotten the pillar of the pillars, William Shakespeare, the Ritz loving Ernest Hemingway, and the advocate of the unfortunate, Louisa May Alcott, among the authors, but was surprised not to see there the beloved J. K. Rowling. Perhaps, the evil fighting Harry Potter is out of fashion nowadays? The list of scientists appeared to be very well-balanced: Marie Curie and Rachel Carson are standing here hand in hand with Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. And who would dare to disagree with such an excellent pairing? Equally smart was the list of the chosen U.S. Presidents, which included Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, George Bush the first, Barack Obama, and JFK. The happy memories of the economic well-being of America during the Clinton’s presidency were preferred not to be recalled, very likely, the Monika Lewinsky scandal was considered a highly sensitive material for the young brains, and, taking the age of the Wax Museum’s participants into account, it was probably the right decision. Never mind Clinton’s new book with James Patterson, “The President’s Daughter” (2021), that had just been published. The second Bush and Donald Trump were both happily omitted.

The category of the Firsts has Bill Gates’ name in it, with the remark: one of the Microsoft founders “that became the richest man in the world.” But for some reason, the extraordinarily popular and brilliant engineering mind, Elon Musk, who, according to the Forbes, is richer than Bill Gates at the moment, was left out. The fact that Mr Musk, a fellow of the Royal Society, very active with his space projects and Tesla, which makes him a good caretaker of our planet, doesn’t seem to be enough to win a spot on the list, alas. The British would be delighted to see John Lennon on the list, but Sir Paul McCartney isn’t among the chosen ones, although he is in his finest and busiest creative mode, having recently, in December 2020, released his new outstanding album, “McCartney III,” a cookbook (2021) with his daughters, Mary and Stella, in memory of Linda McCartney, children’s book, “Hey Grandude!” (2019), and another one along with a memoire, “The Lyrics 1956 to the Present,” underway. Despite their artistic differences, John Lennon and Paul McCartney are unthinkable and unimaginable without each other as creative personalities, especially in their early years, hence it seems rather odd that they aren’t mentioned here at the same time. Martin Luther King Jr is rightfully on top of the list of all the activists along with Sojouner Truth, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosevelt, and…Oprah Winfrey!

Frankly, I thought my eyes were playing tricks on me when I saw Oprah’s name on this expansive list. Why is she there? What kind of activism is she promoting? No doubt, it is very easy to assemble her costume. Just find a pair of funky round glasses, a cashmere sweater in the girls’ favourite pink or purple hues, combat boots, and voila you are Oprah Winfrey. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, sort of her homemade puppets-friends, would make tremendously good props (stiff cardboard and construction paper would do to replicate these two). Then, all a child would need is to interview them, making sure the ‘waxed’ Ms Oprah encourages her puppets-interviewees to tell all the untruths, then indulges in them profusely, and gasps here and there for a larger effect.

But joking aside, it is the most serious thing that makes me wonder how on earth the status of the moneyed celebrity with rather questionable ideals and beliefs (say, hypocrisy and mercenariness in the name of social awareness) that she is propagating to the society can make her eligible for the public school’s Living Wax Museum? How can such a celebrity inspire our children in a positive way and be a worthy role model if she, so brazenly, in broad daylight, encourages (or shall I say extracts?) lies from those whose memory is unreliable and who conspire against their own family? Wouldn’t it be more sensible to recommend only those personalities whose moral compass is in good working order, especially to the children of that young age? And why not consider someone local, too? For instance, I would rather see the name of Emma (née Moore) Barrow on the list, who started her teaching career in 1935 in Alabama, and then, in 1959, became the first black teacher and principal here, at the Woods Hole School. She ardently advocated women’s and civil rights, especially the right for education for everyone, and fiercely fought against racial and gender discrimination. Emma Barrow believed that a woman shouldn’t be discriminated and denied a job if she chooses to bring up her children without nannies and, after they’ve grown up, return to work. The woman who spent 50 years of service in education and was given the 1985 Human Relation’s Award, one would think, surely deserves a spot on the Living Wax Museum’s list at the very school where she taught. I had the honour of meeting Mrs Barrow, and she was one of the most beautiful and loved people on Cape Cod, not only because of her intelligence, but also because of her genuine kindness and her utter dislike of hypocrisy and lies.

According to Dr Forster Cline and Jim Fay (1990, 2006), “most children, from kindergarten through about the second grade, go through a lying stage,” so why should the 3rd graders then, fresh out of their “lying stage,” be introduced to those social role models who have integrity problems? Yes, of course, there is also parental guidance, and one can count on their control and their own social filters as to which personality from the list to choose, but in a child’s school life, a teacher is automatically assigned a very special role and granted authority to guide him. After all, the child spends most of his day at school. An 8- or 9-year-old would probably think that everything that is being told and mentioned by his teacher should be regarded doubtlessly as right and correct. In fact, the child may agree with his teacher rather than with his parent, with as simple an argument as this: “My teacher said so, therefore it must be true.”

Isn’t it the Wax Museum’s main idea not only to broaden children’s horizon and stimulate their intellectual and creative curiosity, but also and, foremost, to give them the right direction as for their social awareness and responsibility? This way children will form a very strong sense of right and wrong, which will help them, when they are teenagers, resist all the ill-informed influences, generated by social media, and other social upheavals, much more successfully. So it’s worth thinking twice, in my view, who may and who may not be on such a list. On June 11, the First Lady, Dr Gill Biden, whilst with the Duchess of Cambridge at the roundtable, at the Connor Downs Academy in Cornwall, England, said that “early childhood education is so important to lay the foundation for all of our students.” It’s hard not to agree with her on that, and I hope this message won’t just stay in the realm of political rhetoric but, first and foremost, will resonate in a classroom.   

(Written on 21 June 2021 in the Sky Control Room on Cape Cod.)

Copyright © 2021 by Elena Vassilieva. All rights reserved.

The Books and the Duchesses of the House of Windsor

Books for sale! Books for sale! Or the Royal case of assorted goods.

By Elena Vassilieva

Image: The Honeymooning Couple: “What are you in the mood to do next, honey?” “I just feel like whining again.” “Me, too.” © Elena Vassilieva

All those, who are interested in Royal affairs, have been offered so much food for thought lately by some of the duchesses of the House of Windsor that I don’t know where to begin. The hard-working women had to transform themselves, even if temporarily, into true Cinderellas, probably sacrificing their beauty sleep, matcha cocktails, tea with homemade cookies, and God knows what else, in order to add a check on the list of their deeds and to dazzle millions of their loyal social media followers and fans with… the books. Yes, the duchesses nowadays seem to be quite preoccupied with the books, no, not reading, but writing them. I wish they did read first, at least the books, written by their Royal predecessors and relatives, say, HRH Prince of Wales, before taking a daring journey into little-known waters. Had they read, some of them would have known better as for the quality standards set up by their family members.

Of course, some are weathered in the business already, Sarah Ferguson, for instance, as she has so many books of various genres in her collection. The Duchess of York is conquering a new genre now. She is busying herself with royal historical romances. “Her Heart for a Compass” will see the light in a couple of months. But I wonder whether her “The Enchanted Oak Tree” (2020) had inspired the Duchess of Sussex to produce her aspirational, but ill-fitting “The Bench?” There will be more on her book later.

Firstly, a few words about “Hold Still,” a book, curated by the Duchess of Cambridge, who, being the most conservative out of the three duchesses, chose the safest road, taking on a role more of an organiser and curator rather than a creator in a joint venture project with the National Portrait Gallery. Also, “Hold Still” is not a work of fiction or art, but a photo documentary, “[a] Portrait of Our Nation in 2020,” filled with the moments wonderfully captured by the people of diverse background during the pandemic. Conceptually, the book is a reflection of the ordinary people’s emotions and circumstances at that or this instant during the challenging year. To her credit, the Duchess had also interviewed them, showcasing organisational skills of a businesswoman. No wonder that the book turned out to be a solid and soul-stirring photo album. Another notable and laudable fact is that the proceeds from the sales will go to charities. The only disappointing and very puzzling thing is the title. Why would anyone think of the title that had already been taken? The same title belongs to Sally Mann’s memoir book with photographs (2015). I know that musicians steal titles from each other occasionally, often from their commercially more successful fellows, presumably, to draw attention, and although I cringe every time I see it, I can understand them. But the Duchess of Cambridge’s project isn’t seeking commercial success. Instead, the book’s social message, to document how people cope and support each other in hard times, is the main purpose of this endeavour. So it’s hard to follow the logic and logistics behind such a rushed and inexplicable decision, especially when one considers the seriousness of the project’s theme. Of course, there is no copyright for titles, but, nevertheless, there shall be nearly a natural desire to avoid the sameness at any cost. After all, the prospect of earning a reputation of copycats, God forbid, is quite daunting.

Now, back to the duchess who, unlike her sister-in-law, is as unpredictable as a loose cannon, and exhibits the most erratic and contradictory behaviour to the degree that at times it seems that ‘that woman’ is driven entirely by her impulses. Her drive to compete and overshadow the other duchess, to daze the public and to make profit is so strong and overwhelming that I wouldn’t be surprised if she hasn’t been able to sleep well at all lately. There is also much ado about her noble title, which she doesn’t want to lose, after all, it’s her ‘Pushmi-Pullyi’ that opens the doors for her to all kind of lucrative enterprises, but also a sacred cow (thanks so much for reminding me of this, YRH Prince Philip!) that shelters her, at least, on her home soil from dire straits of criticism. In a frenzy, during her many PR actions, Ms Markle often forgets that shamelessly using her Royal title and displaying it like the ‘Pushmi-Pullyi’ in a circus for self-advertising purposes requires certain social obligations as for her behavioural style in public, even when under American sky. It’s about time that she gets reprimanded by the Firm’s “grey men in suits” whom she mistrusts and despises so much as she had admitted herself in the interview with her friend Oprah Winfrey. Perhaps, it isn’t a bad idea either to ask her for the royalties for exploiting the Royal title, which adorns her opus and which is, in my view, the only extraordinary and remarkable thing in the whole book.  

“The Bench” is written for children of age 3-7, according to Ms Markel, but its social messages are so aggressively promulgated here that the book doesn’t come across as a children’s book at all. She says one of the main ideas of the book is “inclusivity,” and that is, no doubt, an honourable idea, but this is exactly where the book as a children’s book becomes fatally flawed. The author proclaims equality and the feministic stance of the father, but she fails so miserably to include the main reader, a child, that is, for whom the book was made for. The book doesn’t seem to excite the child’s imagination at all, nor does it awaken his curiosity. And since it lacks humour, imaginativeness, and playfulness, the key features that define a good children’s book, I doubt it will circulate for a long time, if at all. Although the illustrator made efforts to revive it, the lack of the literary input from the author leaves the book very disengaging and non-organic.

As a side note, today, in my archive, I’ve found some silly poems by Fiona Trumbull, a relative of mine, who was 7 years old when she wrote it at school. I’d like to cite one of her poems here in order to illustrate what kind of rhymes a child of this age finds fanciful, even if it’s only a case of one particular child. And although Fiona isn’t a little girl anymore, she’s a teenager now, her lovely rhymes still make me laugh.

The Bees

Do bees wish they were trees?

Do they want to jiggle like keys?

Do they want to be green like leaves?

Do they hate to be yellow?

Do they have a nice fellow?

Have you noticed the colours, sounds, and even a tiny bit of philosophy and social critique in her poem? I wish Ms Markle took a field trip to school in order to learn how to write for children and what exactly children of that age prefer, if she had failed to read the most inspiring Scottish tale “The Old Man of Lochnagar” (1980) by the Prince of Wales. The tale that has withstood the test of time.

While she offers a catalogue of different benches and fathers with their children in the book, one bench remains in focus, the one Ms Markle had gifted to Prince Harry and their son, with a very daring inscription-poem: “This is your bench/ Where life will begin/ For you and our son/ Our baby, our kin.” It’s hard to miss her self-importance, resentfulness, and an instructive tone of a prophecy-monger here. ‘Where life will begin’: might it be that she implies her Prince had no life before they had met? Most likely. Given that Harry hadn’t had the foggiest idea that he was a poor prisoner, trapped inside the House of Windsor, until his saviour, Meghan Markle, arrived on the scene, falling from the sky, out of the blue. And thus, beyond the shadow of a doubt, Prince Harry got the surprise of his life. We all heard that in the Oprah-interview. Now we also know that many statements from those friendly conversations contained numerous inaccuracies and lies. Hence, everything that had happened to Prince Harry before his ‘saviour’ appeared shall be erased? That, too, we had displeasure to witness in one of his other public faux-pas-moves. In any event, Ms Markle is taking a lot of risky responsibility on her shoulders. It’s her nearly maniacal desire to emaciate the Prince’s memory of everything that doesn’t have to do with her and give him instead tabula rasa. There is something deeply and frighteningly Shakespearean in this strategy of hers, remember how some of the heroes in “A Midsummer-Night’s Dream” woke up and had no clue how on earth they were able to change overnight that much that they couldn’t recognise themselves? Therefore, the Prince’s past shall be deleted and replaced with everything that refers to ‘our kin,’ Ms Markle probably decided. Out of all words to use such a heavily loaded word ‘kin’ can only be dictated by resentfulness towards Harry’s former home. She is saying that she is giving him a new home where she will be the ruler and Commander-in-Chief and where Harry will be a liberated, happy-go-lucky father-babysitter and occasionally a businessman. Luckily, the ‘Pushmi-Pullyi’ won’t let the Duke and Duchess dine with Duke Humphrey too often.

The striking oddity of this poem upsets and unsettles the reader’s humour (at least mine) because benches are usually given in memory of those who had already departed for the other side. And that subconscious association is so unwelcome and incongruous in this children’s book. However, the bench in the poem symbolises their departure from the Royal Household. In the heaviness of the word ‘kin,’ she inserts all her expectations and ideals, e.g., of their cloudless and dazzling future as a family that ought, in her view, to overshadow all other Royal family members and thus incite their jealousy, a sort of vengeful and spiteful move. And although this deeply personal matter becomes public good, thanks to their own relentless publicity efforts, the conspicuous impudence of this whole enterprise finds its roots in utter hypocrisy on so many levels.

How else to explain the contradicting behaviour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when they show their bitterness and utter displeasure about the Royal Family and the Firm, accusing them of many things that have never occurred, and yet, they aren’t shy to take advantage of their Royal affiliation and benefit handsomely from it? Frankly, how many writers who submit such a low-quality work would get published? The only answer is no one, I sincerely hope. Of course, now every other writer must think he is a genius, after having read this awkward piece. The fact that by publishing the work of such a substandard quality the publisher automatically lowers literary standards and devalues the work by other writers, and that is quite disturbing. Many aspiring children’s writers would probably find such practice appalling and very exclusive. So much for the inclusivity the Duchess of Sussex is trying to preach. But most importantly, why shall we let our children read books written by the people who, instead of introducing literary work of outstanding merits to us, bring double standards and exhibit unscrupulous behaviour? The people who let their phantasy go wild in their interviews and have no single ounce of phantasy in their work of fiction. Yes, most certainly, we are blessed with the freedom of speech here, and anyone can utter whatever s/he pleases, but it doesn’t mean that it gives them the (moral) right to make us witness how they follow their gold-digging instincts so blatantly, at the expense of others, in front of our children, in such an aggressive way. The hypocritical neutrality of some of the media and even support (e.g., I was appalled by the NPR piece on “The Bench”) for her project is disheartening, as if the whole thing weren’t about children, culture, and our society in general. Are you telling me, Ms Markle, that the snow is black, the grass is blue, and that this is all true? It reminds me of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” by Hans Christian Andersen where the little child perplexedly gasps right in the midst of the bogus praises from the crowd: “But he hasn’t got anything on.”

(Written on 25th June 2021 in the Sky Control Room on Cape Cod.)

“The Bee” by Fiona Trumbull was cited here with her permission.

Copyright © 2021 by Elena Vassilieva. All rights reserved.

The Cultural Dissonance between the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and the House of Windsor

Notes on the Oprah Winfrey’s Interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle

By Elena Vassilieva

Image: Lion: “Que dites-vous là ?” Licorne: “À qui a jouer ?” Lion: “À moi !” Licorne: “Memento: clavum clavo pellere.” © Elena Vassilieva

Last night something utterly unusual and peculiar happened. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex walked into my dream. Prince Harry, while taking care of chickens at their new beautiful house in California, rather concernedly and earnestly said to his wife that they ought to apologise to his grandmother, the Queen, and the Firm as well. To which his beloved wife replied, appearing also concerned and moved almost to tears, “Oh, honey, you are so sweet, so caring and selfless, you really are. And I’m so proud of you and I appreciate it, you know I do. It’s so cute you would have such thoughts, hon, but don’t you think they ought to apologise to me, to us after what we’ve been through?” “You know, Meg, I sort of regret we had that interview with Oprah. Now we are berühmt-berüchtigt more than ever, and how I wish we never went there. I said too much. And you said even more, often pointing at me as your source of information. What’s gonna happen now? How shall I look them in the eye?” Harry was putting his hands on his head and seemed to be genuinely embarrassed and distressed, Meghan rolled her eyes, then said firmly, “Don’t you remember, honey, how much I suffered there? We suffered? Don’t you remember how trapped we were there? And they didn’t care! We are so happy now. We have everything one could wish for. Didn’t you say it yourself that the main thing we have each other?” Harry seemed to agree, yet, looked frustrated and stricken with sadness. At that point the dream was interrupted by a rooster.

Thank God, the rooster was that loud that he woke me up in the middle of the night and took these heroes away from my dream where they didn’t belong at all. Mea culpa. The evening before, I watched their infamous interview with Oprah Winfrey. My friend, a human geography professor, agreed to keep me company, although, after seeing only a quarter of the interview, he excused himself and left. He thought it was boring and, frankly, he couldn’t understand what Meghan Markle was talking about. A university professor and a native English speaker, whose ancestors sat at the same table with Abraham Lincoln, asked me several times what Meghan meant. Then, giving up completely, he just said how oblique her speech was and how hard it was not to notice her sense of entitlement. “If she was like that inside the royal circles, she must have made a very unfavourable impression. She seems to lack humility, too. And who has time to read and listen to the tabloids, anyway?” was his verdict. Oprah herself at times looked as if she struggled to follow Meghan’s string of words. Although I thought she had, indeed, a very empathetic way of interviewing. Clearly, she was very smart and careful not to upset the pregnant woman she’s befriended over the years. When the Duchess of Sussex said that some members of the Firm were curious about the skin colour of their then unborn baby, taken aback by it so much, Oprah didn’t insist Meghan disclose the names of those who said it. Right now, it seems, anyone at the House of Windsor, except for the Queen and Prince Philip, could be a suspect, and it’s rather unfair. Had she revealed their names, at least, they would have had a chance to defend themselves or felt pressured to make a public statement.

Another thing that makes one’s eyebrows raise was her complaint that she wasn’t assisted in preparations for the royal role at all. What was Samantha Cohen doing there then? Catching butterflies with her perhaps? According to the article in the Harper’s Bazaar, she had invested many hours (for 6 months!) into couching the then future Duchess of Sussex for her royal duties. Did Meghan Markle expect to have a souffleur for every single occasion and in every corner of the Commonwealth? She didn’t arrive at the House of Windsor as a helpless ingénue. She entered the Firm as a woman who had a previous marriage and a career in show business. So how could she have possibly underestimated both the seriousness of her personal responsibility and the load of her royal duties while inside the Royal Family? Didn’t Prince Harry warn her and others publicly, saying that not every woman will be willing to be his wife, given the circumstances (a complex book of the Royal dos and don’ts, let alone the annoying and ever present tabloids)? Why did she take this fact so lightheartedly?

Another comment she made regarding the ones who are not the immediate Family goes back to that same compartment of the ethical codes and norms established at the Royal House. Even if one lacks experience and knowledge as to how to behave in this or that situation, doesn’t one rely then on common sense and intuition guided by kindness, intellect, and basic civility of hers/his? Conforming to the traditional social norms isn’t something as difficult as building a starship, or is it? Also, one certainly shouldn’t have such expectations that, once married into the Royal Family, everyone there from now on would be at his/her disposal night and day. Even if one had in mind the Hans Christian Andersen’s “Princess and the Pea,” it still would work the way it did in the fairytale only if the attitudes and interests of both parties/sides coincided. The puzzle-trap (i.e., the pea) the Prince’s parents prepared for the rain-soaked Princess was effortlessly solved by her, and hence her ‘princessness’ was proved and approved. In other words, her capriciousness was anticipated and even encouraged. Was the same thing expected of Meghan when she appeared on the scene? I doubt it.

Most likely, the elementary ethic (discreetness, loyalty, and diligence, this holy trinity, foremost) was hoped for and required by the Firm. It’s always quid pro quo, of course, as everywhere else: if you follow our rules and traditions, we’ll respect and support you. But if someone believes that as a new member of the Royal Family one is automatically entitled to command at his or her discretion, regardless of the traditional behavioural standards of this house, one will always risk to be perceived as transgressive and untrustworthy, no matter how good-hearted his/her intentions are. And if, for instance, something like this occurred: “Hi, guys! I’m Meghan. I left my country and my career for my prince and for my royal title, so make sure you are my obedient servants. And don’t forget that I’m from a free country: I do what I please, and I’m pleased what I do.” Would it be acceptable? No, very unlikely that this sort of attitude of une femme aux manières hardies would be tolerated. Not in the House of Windsor, in any event, and even in America, it would be rejected in many places. To many it would appear as poor taste and rudeness of a vulgar commoner. My professor friend didn’t approve of such manners, in fact, he found it rather disconcerting and embarrassing that an American woman is a cause of so many scandalous moments and so much stress in the British Royal Household. Obviously, at the institution as old as this one, everyone, including every single butler and cook, has a very strict book of rules, which a newcomer simply must study diligently if s/he would like to be accepted and well-regarded there. Besides, is it permissible to enter someone else’s house as a new relation and then try to transform it right away, turning it upside down, simply because one grew up in a different social setting? That goes back to Meghan’s comment regarding losing her voice there. How naïve it is indeed to expect one’s voice to be heard right away at such a conservative institution as the British Royal House. Shouldn’t one first prove oneself and excel? It’s already a great deal of recognition that the Queen has been so welcoming and kind to her. What an honour to receive an invitation to share a blanket to keep one warm while on duty! What an honour to receive a set of pearls from the Queen.

How come one wouldn’t try his/her best to appreciate it instead of crossing the line? How come one wouldn’t think that the Queen is also a human being who has heart and soul, who has served Great Britain and the entire space of the Commonwealth for 69 years, rain or shine, never making a wrong move and never uttering a single complaint? How come one would forget that Her Majesty is also a mother and a wife, whose husband is at this very moment in hospital? Why wouldn’t Her Majesty need moral support at such a sad moment? The more I think about it, the more bewildered I am how one can be such a devoted husband and father as Prince Harry is, but would be so oblivious to how hurtful his actions may be to someone who is related to him by blood and who is his Commander-in-Chief. Wouldn’t it have been possible to resolve all the issues privately first, without going global and public, without creating that awful Billingsgate effect in the mass and social media in particular? True, it’s the time when people get fancied, loved, praised, crushed, judged, and even “cancelled” in the vast space of social media, but there are also those who were reared having a different system of values. Why would one want to subject Her Majesty to this repugnant ordeal? And if Harry and Meghan found themselves ‘trapped’ inside the Firm, Prince Harry shouldn’t have felt ashamed and should have asked for help for his wife when she needed it so urgently. Why and who would have refused to give them a hand? It would have been utterly inhuman if that were the case. Still, it gives the Duke and Duchess of Sussex no right to show this callous disregard for the Queen who has always respected their wishes and values. Clearly, it’s not a game, but, nonetheless, the Queen is a winner, in my view, for Her Majesty didn’t hesitate to apologise for the things she didn’t do, and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex haven’t.

As Prince Harry in my dream said he wished he didn’t do that interview, I wish I didn’t watch it. It is heartbreaking and dispiriting to see how awkward and bizarre the world is becoming, from the ethical point of view. How egotistical, narcissistic, and insensitive people can be even towards those who love them. Of course, there is nothing new in it, but each time I observe it I would like to fly to another planet. Mr Musk, please hurry up with your starship. And, yes, it certainly sounds as if I were desperate to harangue on the subject of the contemporary moral codes, and I must say I am, indeed.

(Written on March 8, 2021 in the Sky Control room on Cape Cod.)

Copyright © 2021 by Elena Vassilieva. All rights reserved.