Prince William – The Book of the Duchess

OPINION

THE HOUSE OF WINDSOR

Catherine’s September Message and Her Video,

the “Midsummer Night’s Dream” in Norfolk

Late notes on the margins

By Elena Vassilieva

On Monday, September 9, 2024, at tea time, Greenwich Mean Time, Catherine, the earnest wife of Windsor, sent a long-awaited message to the world. Although her supporters had the pleasure of seeing her at Wimbledon this past summer, they didn’t think they would hear from her again that soon. On July 14, 2024, to everyone’s delight, she radiated joy and freshness, smiling and waving to the Wimbledon crowd which in turn greeted her with standing ovations. Her purple tailored dress flattered her sporty figure, and she seemed to have gained weight, but that was only to her advantage. Her long chestnut locks framed her tanned face in her usual fashion. So, when, in September, her lengthy message arrived, it was expected that she would be as fit as in July, and she didn’t disappoint.

Catherine’s recent message on Twitter/X was accompanied by a three-minute video which came as a great surprise and, to some, as a bit of a shock. The good news was: she had just finished her chemotherapy and from now on planned to stay focused on being cancer-free. It was not quite clear whether she got rid of cancer altogether. But the ambiguity around it had been there from the very start. In March, she announced in her first video that she had cancer, yet, the chemotherapy was preventive, she said. Now, in most languages, the word ‘preventive’ is used in the context when something dangerous is still not there, but there is a risk that it might come unless some preventive measures are taken. So, let’s hope that was exactly the case.

Her March video message was filmed in the sunny garden at their Windsor home. She was sitting there alone, on the bench, with chirping birds and blooming flowers in the background. Life in her garden went on as usual, according to the rhythm of springtime. Her pale and makeup-free face betrayed wistfulness, and her casual striped jumper signaled to the viewer that she cared little how she looked and that more serious things were on her mind. The March video struck and saddened everyone. I don’t think there was a single soul who was left untouched. Many thought, myself included, that delivering the sorrowful news directly and by herself was very brave, let alone unprecedented. However, I wondered why she would do that, what for? She could have just followed the usual Royal, ‘never complain, never explain,’ tradition, and that would’ve given her more air to breathe and made her less anxious. The video announcement must have added even more stress to already a very stressful situation, especially because she makes an impression of being an introvert, who is a rather shy public speaker.

The decision to disclose her malady this untypical for the Royal Family way was very likely dictated by her PR team, who may have believed that this tactical move would be an appropriate antidote to the insanity of some vicious cliques on social media, who kept themselves busy circulating falsehoods. Alas, it didn’t stop all the fantastical theories about her which continued to trend on Twitter/X. Therefore, it was her PR team’s huge miscalculation, in my view. They should have known better, but, alas, it seemed like the biblical wisdom, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself,” had escaped their minds completely at that particular moment. Another peculiarity was that she didn’t say what type of cancer she had, while mentioning her preventive chemotherapy treatment. Privacy is everyone’s right, of course, and she stood her ground.

I assumed then, she would give a more detailed account of what has happened to her after she will have finished her treatment, otherwise her disclosure about the illness would make no sense at all, not on a large scale, anyway, other than to satisfy public curiosity about her whereabouts for one minute and to give the bloodthirsty hyenas on social media more food for speculation and fabrication, which should be of no importance to her at all. But having a social media platform with millions of followers from around the globe, and since this, however agonizing, circumstance presented itself, she shouldn’t shy away from it, as this is about the most significant and far-reaching public service she could ever do. Her first-hand experience and her insights would be invaluable to all other sufferers who look for hope and moral support.

Considering this, even her main project about the importance of early years of childhood appears to be rather redundant, especially if one takes into account the material side of her own personal circumstances. Growing up in a sufficiently well-off middle-class family, and, unlike Princess Diana, not working a day in a kindergarten or any other child care facility, and marrying into one of the most prominent families on Earth who can afford a nanny or two and who can invest into their children par excellence, all this makes her very poorly qualified for propagating the idea of a happy childhood for every child. In its hypocrisy, it is malodorous at best and no more than a hollow sound whose only purpose is a glossy presentation. Had she run an experimental school for poor children, the way Count Leo Tolstoy did for all the peasant children on his estate at Yasnaya Polyana, for instance, where she, like Count Tolstoy, would implement all her ideas about happy childhood, it would be different and it would be more than just words. Right now, her project might resonate with the upper echelons of the middle class and well-to-do aristocracy, who traditionally send their children to boarding schools and not rarely leave their offspring scarred for life with this, just read Earl Spencer’s recent memoirs about his harrowing childhood experience. However, ordinary people wouldn’t buy into a single word of the emptiness of her message unless it is solidly grounded. Shortly after she launched her campaign on January 30, 2023, at the BAFTA, in London, she published her op-ed article on the subject in the Financial Times, in March of 2023. I had to read it at least three times in order to fully comprehend the message, and I was still left guessing what it was all about.

Despite the good news that her chemotherapy dark days are behind her, Catherine’s message didn’t contain a single word as for what type of cancer she was fighting and what remedies she used. It must have been very disappointing to all the cancer fighters who have been following her and who have hoped to hear something more concrete for themselves than just the abstract “to love and being loved” and “I remain with you, side by side, hand in hand. Out of darkness, can come light, so let that light shine bright.” Although doubtless good words, those are not enough to win the battle. After people had watched the video, bewilderment was added to their disappointment. With the accent of the pU(r)fect pU(r)son (perfect person), she read her message with care and labor of the Matron of Great Britain, as if her only mission had been to dress all the words into her posh-accented pronunciation, as if it mattered much to cancer sufferers. While she read it, a pleasant music was playing in the background, and one was offered a rare glimpse into an absolute euphoria of the Waleses’ private life in the countryside, or shall I rather say, an idyll? Their jolly children provided the loveliness of the captured moments, but, oddly enough, they weren’t the pièce de résistance. The camera focused on Catherine instead. As if she hadn’t been going through the hardship all this time, she appeared in the movie as a fresh-looking and dazzling star, with her ever infectious laughter and her gorgeous hair flowing in the wind. If only everyone came out of the woods, I dare use her own words, as rejuvenated as she did.

The euphoria that may have overpowered her after, I assume, a successful treatment and nine strenuous and hardest months of her life, is perfectly understandable and justifiable, but nevertheless if one views it in the context of her job as a princess whose main and primary purpose is public service and whose husband’s motto, Ich dien, implies the same meaning, the movie is somewhat bold and transgressive, given all the intimacies thrown into the public eye. And, à propos, the Prince of Wales’ Ich dien should also be considered in the context of the Royal hierarchy, which goes as following in this case: Their Majesties the King and the Queen Consort (thank goodness, they didn’t take part in the movie, either turning down the roles or not being invited), the state and the public, and only then his immediate family and his in-laws who played an important role in the film and, undoubtedly, in the process of Catherine’s healing. Only Uncle Gary, крикун и хвастун, was missing there, at the game table. The in-laws have no formal role as such within the hierarchy of the Royal Family, unlike his wife, with whom the Prince shares his public service and duties.

By no means, Their Royal Highnesses are obligated by their official duties to open the curtains and make the set of their private life bare, and there is no need in it, in fact, not even when illness strikes. Not for fear of losing the Royal mystique, as some would argue, not at all, but for the simple reason of showing poor manners and being inconsiderate. After all, there are so many out there who also suffer from the same illness, but can’t afford the same care, and, very often, have to be waitlisted. Aside to this sensitive issue, isn’t it deemed rather disrespectful and even rude towards their supporters and well-wishers to display their affection for each other in public in such a way that they appear rather exhibitionistic, making, in turn, their viewers almost voyeuristic? No, no, no, Your Royal Highnesses, we do not need your invitation to your private party, thank you very much. Enjoy yourselves, but please be kind, do not involve us!

I also felt quite sorry for all the Prince of Wales’ admirers who had always flirted with him, that is, with his images on social media. I doubt very much that his fans felt particularly good about seeing their beloved prince in such intimate, nearly erotic, scenes, even if he was there with his wife. The Prince of Wales has been playfully, with lots of affectionate emojis, regarded as ‘handsome’, ‘cute’, ‘adorable’, ‘hot’, ‘sexy,’ etc., in the comments on social media. Of course, he wouldn’t know about it and he wouldn’t care about it, but his PR team would and should. How on earth would they not warn him that it’s not princely, but ungentleman-like to offer something like that to his admirers? Not noble at all and rather cruel, I’d say, neither Princess Diana’s boy nor His Majesty the King’s, but whose then? Mrs. Middleton’s, perhaps? It is being often reported how dearly she has ‘mothered’ him throughout the years (for more details see Robert Jobson and Richard Eden). And why wouldn’t Catherine herself think about his fans, and hers as well, especially when she is using the words ‘with humility’? What does she think humility is? Making their well-wishers jealous and even belittled? Or was she trying to tell her husband’s fans that they’d better not forget that he is a married man before they allow themselves such an impossible frivolity on social media? But who would take their perfectly harmless and lighthearted flirting with their own imagination seriously? I bet not even they themselves, yet, the Prince must have hurt their feelings considerably, shutting down their imagination but also love for him, because Love goes hand in hand with imagination, remember?

Isn’t it in the Royal Family’s best interest to keep their private life well-hidden from their fans, in order not to irritate or hurt them? And the monarchy needs its supporters quite badly, more, in fact, than Royal movies filled with distasteful bourgeois intimacies. I didn’t think there was a threat, other than the illness, to the Waleses’ marriage, did you? And if there were, what might it be? Who would dare to break into the golden cage that is under seven locks? Hardly anyone, unless it is Love, of course, as l’amour force toutes les serrures. Or would either of them dare to escape from the golden cage? I don’t know about Catherine, but I think this Prince of Wales wouldn’t even contemplate the nonsensical idea, as the former ones did dare to break free from the cage, but they didn’t fare very well afterwards. Or is the situation, despite Catherine’s healthy appearance, this dire that they have to hire William Warr to document their relationship for posterity? But, happy with the results, on a whim, they decide to let the public see the film now, so that everyone would sigh and say, weeping: “Oh, poor things, oh, poor sweethearts, how much in love they are! Twenty (more or less?) years together, and they are still such lovebirds, as if they were just married”? Releasing the video now, instead of fifty years later, they did quite a disservice to themselves. Today, it just doesn’t feel authentic and, above all, doesn’t make much sense. One can’t stop wondering: what was the reason for staging it all? Why? Maybe they found inspiration in Shakespeare’s “A Midsummer Night’s Dream?” Others on social media thought whoever directed the film had watched quite a bit of “The Gladiator” and “The Twilight Saga.” I haven’t seen those, so I can’t comment on the accuracy of their intertextual relationship.

But it doesn’t matter who or what inspired them, because what matters more is modesty which seems more and more to be missing from the arsenal of virtues and values of this princess. Or maybe she just let all the Royal restraints go away and let the public see her casual Kate Middleton’s side, again? And why not, one cynical voice would say, she is human, after all, isn’t she? Everyone does it, you do it, too, even if only occasionally, don’t be such an insufferable prude, it’s the age of selfies and ‘me-me-mes,’ even in the Royal circles, and sexiness sells better than primness, don’t tell me, you don’t know that. The Royals are free to do whatever they please, especially when the Queen Elizabeth II’s time with her moral compass seems to be an era long gone. Hardly convincing an argument, I would say, because that’s the opposite of what is expected from the Royal Family as guardians of traditional values. They aren’t supposed to follow trends of any kind. How about creating trends? And that depends on the trends.

It is Catherine’s phrase ‘with humility’ that is particularly bothersome, because this Norfolkian idyll and Kate Middleton’s euphoria do come across as a slap in the face for all those who are still going through hell and maybe aren’t seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Modesty, humility, and kind reservation would’ve been more appropriate than the flowing hair that evoked an herbal essence shampoo advertisement in some viewers, let alone the laughing-their-heads-off scene in the movie, the very scene that boldly adorns Their Royal Highnesses’ Twitter/X account now. And I wish I didn’t see that clumsiness in the scene where the Prince of Wales is, in a sort of religious ritual, finding himself on his knees and kissing his wife, as it appears, on the neck (!), with their confused children sitting around. Those are especially tone-deaf and incongruous with the circumstances, but also aesthetically not very eye-pleasing scenes, as this kind of romantic scenery is traditionally reserved for a certain age, say, Romeo and Juliet’s age, shall one wish to go public.

The best thing they could do was making their children the focal point, as they both seem to excel as parents. They would let the viewers feel the love through their children while showing us how much they enjoy parenthood. Had they done it, I would’ve been the first to admire and praise them immensely. To other parents, their parental experience is of greater interest than their intimacy, as there is nothing trickier than to rear a child in these difficult times, whereas the quasi-erotic desire filmed in the dunes is not only superfluous, but also very immodest and, frankly, quite laughable. Love, if it lives in a family or between two people, doesn’t have to be on display at all, as Love can be seen and heard and felt without it. But if it’s not there, nothing, not even a midsummer night’s love potion, and definitely not a movie that advertises a certain lifestyle, would bring it back for one. Had they posted their video on their private social media account, however, I would’ve just said: “Wonderful news! Congratulations to Catherine on completing her treatment successfully! What a cute movie! Great and audacious (!) acting in front of the camera! It’s a true idyll, isn’t it?!” And as a postscriptum I would add: “Hmm, apparently the matrimonial idylls exist in this world, and I thought that all marriages happen in Heaven. In Heaven only.”

Written on September 24, 2024 in the Sky Control Room, on Little Harbor, on Cape Cod.

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

“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 an exceptionally good and memorable sovereign. 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, who 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 rather 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 maybe even her arrogated 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 recent example, from the video released by Kensington Palace on May 13, 2023, for the Eurovision Song Contest 2023: 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 examine 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 in the United Kingdom, 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.)

THE HOUSE OF WINDSOR

Prince Harry And The Golden Dog Bowl

Or in cauda venenum

A fairytale*

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 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, not at all, 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, JR 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 becoming the laughingstock of the world 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 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 joke 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 rather sad as 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 to not 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 Markle’s 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.)

THE HOUSE OF WINDSOR

The Queen Elizabeth II and Her Platinum Jubilee

by Elena Vassilieva

“It almost frightens me that the people should love her so much. I suppose it is a good thing, and I hope that she will be worthy of it, poor little darling.” – The Duchess of York to Queen Mary, autumn 1928.

Her Majesty the Queen has just set a record of being on the throne for seventy years. To reign successfully for such a long period of time requires good health, sound judgement and the mutual love and respect the Queen and her subjects feel for one another. Her Majesty has easily fulfilled all these requirements ever since she, still a twenty-one-year-old princess then, gave her famous birthday speech at the BBC in Cape Town, South Africa, on 21 April 1947: “I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service.”

Later, after the death of her father, King George VI, on 8 February 1952, at St James’ Palace, she repeated her vow: “By the sudden death of my dear father, I am called to assume the duty and responsibility of sovereignty. […] My heart is too full for me to say more to you today than that I shall always work, as my father did throughout his reign, to uphold the constitutional government and to advance the happiness and prosperity of my peoples, spread as they are all the world over. […] I pray that God will help me to discharge worthily this heavy task that has been laid upon me so early in my life.” That was a solemn promise to be a good queen, but also a circumstance forced by destiny that made both the young princess and the global audience experience her heartfelt new responsibility mixed with a touch of trepidation. One can sense here not only deep sorrow but also worry whether at such a young age she would be capable of doing the job the way it was expected. But in spite of it, she demonstrated bravely her steely determination to be a conscientious and devoted sovereign.

Today, if one were asked to describe her reign in just a few words and one were to say that it has been an act of selfless devotion, that wouldn’t be an erroneous statement at all. In fact, it is an exemplary devotion of the monarch who takes most seriously her duty rather than herself in this hereditary position, let alone her own persona, so much surrounded by an aura of the House of Windsor’s grandeur and mystique. In 1952 people must also have thought of her great-great grandmother, the Queen Victoria, who acceded to the throne even at an earlier age; she was just an eighteen-year-old, albeit very opinionated, teenager who consequently had been the Queen and Empress for sixty-three years which formed the Victorian era. If she could do it at eighteen, why wouldn’t the Queen Elizabeth II do it at twenty-five? – An obvious and logical reasoning must have been, not that the young Queen had much of a choice and not that she was the only British Queen who would be a monarch at twenty-five. The first Queen Elizabeth was also twenty-five when she became Regina in 1558.

Nevertheless, even her own grandson, Prince William, suggested in 2011, when in conversation with the Queen’s biographer, Robert Hardman, that “[i]t must have been very daunting,” indeed. He continued then, clearly awed and fascinated by his grandmother’s talent as a public servant: “And I think how loads of twenty-five-year-olds – myself, my brother and lots of people included – didn’t have anything like that. And we didn’t have the extra pressure put on us at that age. It’s amazing that she didn’t crack. She just carried on and kept going. And that’s the thing about her. You present a challenge in front of her and she’ll climb it. And I think that to be doing for sixty years – it’s incredible.” Well, the Queen has been doing it for seventy years now.

But seven decades ago, when the Prime Minister Winston Churchill was given the news, he gloomily said that he didn’t know her well and that she was only a child, the utterance that has now been quoted most often. However, Churchill’s first encounter with the then-Princess Elizabeth happened on 25 September 1928 at Balmoral. He wrote to his wife from there that “[t]here is no one here at all except the family, the Household & Queen & Elizabeth – age two. The last is a character. She has an air of authority & reflectiveness astonishing in an infant.”

The Queen has preserved the air of authority and reflectiveness to this day. And Churchill soon changed his view on her, after he had met her again in person in 1952. Afterwards, she had only won praise from the Prime Minister, and the feelings of great respect and fondness were mutual. According to Jock Colville, Churchill’s Joint Principal Private Secretary, the Prime Minister “was madly in love with the Queen and she got more fun out of her audiences with Churchill than with any of his successors.” (winstonchurchill.org)

Naturally, the Queen was deeply saddened when Churchill, perhaps her best and most valuable mentor, had to retire in 1955 due to his failing health. Born in 1874, Churchill was a child of the Victorian era and a national hero, who happened to have an enormously positive and formative influence on the young Queen in her role of head of state. The Queen was so much in awe of the Prime Minister that when he died, she broke the protocol by rushing to his funeral as the first mourning visitor, not the last one as it should have been according to the rule.

Equally and rightly so, Queen Victoria’s great-great granddaughter’s reign is now regarded as the second Elizabethan era, which is hallmarked by the Queen Elizabeth II’s impeccable work ethic and her very tolerant and, despite the air of some mysteriousness around her, or, maybe precisely because of this, loveable personality. No wonder that she is perceived by so many around the globe as the epitome of stoical reliability and British goodness, a leader who has never put a foot wrong. But before that, in the very beginning of her reign, it was her youth and innocent and fresh outlook on the world that had charmed people in all corners of the Earth. Her great sense of duty, quick wit, genial equanimity, and a total lack of haughtiness and arrogance have touched people in a very profound way.

“We grew up loving the Queen. To us, teenagers, she was a babe,” reminisced Sir Paul McCartney. Just recently, in January 2022, a certain Winfield Scott, @LtGenScott on Twitter, echoed this sentiment, saying that “she was a babe back in the day.” And I replied to him playfully that she still is! Once a babe, always a babe. At her noble age still riding, walking with her beloved corgis, wearing her dresses better than any other woman who is as much photographed as she is, and delivering her Christmas message (2021) full of love and warmth in the striking red outfit, looking radiant. At that respectable age, to the envy of many, even much younger, women, she is still displaying best complexion in town. The babe of the babes! Mr Scott seemed to approve of my laudatory, good-humoured remark.

But the Queen also inspires and motivates much younger generations. Not that long ago, after the Ashes 2021-22 were over, I did run into a tweet by Sam Billings, the English cricketer, who regarded the Queen as his inspiration. Similar moods prevailed on the crowded Londoner streets on the bank holiday weekend of the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, 2-5 June 2022. “She is my Queen,” said one very proud woman in the crowd during the festivities. One can be certain that this sentiment is not singular, the majority would say the same or something similar. Regarding the festivities, the Queen replied:

“When it comes to how to mark seventy years as your Queen, there is no guidebook to follow. It really is a first. But I have been humbled and deeply touched that so many people have taken to the streets to celebrate my Platinum Jubilee. While I may not have attended every event in person, my heart has been with you all; and I remain committed to serving you to the best of my ability, supported by my family. I have been inspired by the kindness, joy and kinship that has been so evident in recent days, and I hope this renewed sense of togetherness will be felt for many years to come. I thank you most sincerely for your good wishes and for the part you have all played in these happy celebrations.”

Historically speaking, her only competitor is her own great-great grandmother, the Queen Victoria. Although their similarities start and end with a very young age of accession to the throne, their longevity on the throne, excellent reigning skills, and their happy marriages to their handsome cousins, they still invite comparison, particularly because they seem to be such strikingly opposing each other grand historical figures. When the Princess Elizabeth was about to turn eighteen, Lady Airlie, Queen Mary’s dear friend, quite charmed by the Princess, said that there was “something about her, that indescribable something which Queen Victoria had.” (Kate Williams, 2012, p. 184f) Queen Victoria was an expansive Royal entity, who, at the age of fourteen, after having learned that eventually she will be a queen, quite self-confidently announced: “I will be good.” (Britannica) She was the Empress, who didn’t shy away from glorifying her own regal persona and from commanding respect and control over her subjects, which, of course, coincided with the social and cultural norms of her era, whereas the Queen Elizabeth II is by nature a thoughtful, open-minded, tactful, and unassuming person, without sacrificing her love of tradition and heritage.

She had been fully aware of her social standing when she was already a little girl, and it might have induced a spirit of conceit and vanity in her childish imagination, but only until her prudent grandmother, Queen Mary, intervened. Thus, her biographer, Kate Williams (2012, p. 74f), recounts the following amusing story: ‘“Good morning, little lady,” the Lord Chamberlain said, encountering the Princess in the corridors. “I’m not a little lady,” she replied imperiously. “I’m Princess Elizabeth.” Later that day Queen Mary arrived in his rooms with Lilibet, announcing, “This is Princess Elizabeth who hopes one day to be a lady.’” And this unfavourable trait had disappeared without leaving a trace in the Queen Elizabeth II’s character ever since.

At the BBC, in 2005, Prince William described her ruling style as “more of a soft, influencing, modest kind of guidance.” She won the hearts of her subjects and those of the rest of the world precisely because of her humbleness, her utter wish to be enthusiastic and dutiful, yet unglorified, placing others into the limelight instead. “She cares not for celebrity, that’s for sure. That’s not what monarchy’s about. It’s about setting examples. It’s about doing one’s duty, as she would say. It’s about using your position for the good. It’s about serving the country – and that’s really the crux of it,” said Prince William.

She is also hardly ever judgemental or disgruntled, even when an arrow is aimed at her family and her institution by a close relative of hers, say, her own grandson, Prince Harry. Once widely popular, he has chosen the road well-travelled by the King Edward VIII, who foolishly abdicated the throne for the sake of his personal caprice or, as he claimed, his personal happiness with Wallis Simpson, in 1936. But even the Duke of Windsor and his arrogant and manipulative wife hadn’t been as viciously selfish and cruel as the Duke of Sussex and his self-obsessed and aspirational wife have been. It might have taken the Queen Elizabeth years to cease to think of her Uncle David’s act of the highest egotism, but it may have taken only a minute for those unpleasant memories of the childhood to be retrieved when the Duke of Sussex and his spouse had engaged their PR machine that would condemn and trash the Royal Household ruthlessly. Something the Duke of Windsor had never done, despite his bitter criticism of the establishment and especially the key political figures of the time.

Now, imagine, how the Queen Victoria, after a similar peripeteia, would have reacted? She may have uttered in dismay that “recollections may vary,” but would she have ever graciously said: “I am pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my grandson and his family. Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family”, adding, “my whole family’s hope that today’s agreement allows them to start building a happy and peaceful new life?” Very doubtful, she would have. Some are even flagrantly tempted to exploit the Queen Elizabeth II’s delicate approach and heartwarming kindness.

Not only the Royal Family matters are being handled by her tactfully and with sympathy, but also those of the Commonwealth. She would never insist on being a queen or a head in a country that wouldn’t wish it, granting freedom of decision and choice to her subjects. The Queen Victoria might have never even contemplated this style of ruling, depriving her subjects of the freedom to choose. But those were different times, of course, colonialism was perceived not only as a form of the ubiquitous imperial power, but, unlike today, also as a means of gaining political authority on the global scene. Even to entertain any imperial ideas, let alone pursue them, is rightly regarded as very retrograde and uncivilised today, and the Queen is, naturally, far from such ideas. It is very modern and wise of her to wholly omit the norm and ambition of the far past.

But she is also not complaining at all about certain things that had been removed from her jurisdiction during her reign. Although the crown had begun to shift from a political role to an ambassadorial and ceremonial one already during the Queen Victoria’s reign, today, the crown’s political power has diminished even more. For instance, the Queen may no longer choose her prime ministers, and although, de jure, she has the right to dissolve Parliament, de facto she has little power over it. Similarly, in 1968 the Lord Chamberlain’s role as a censor of all theatrical works was abolished after the Theatres Act 1968 had been passed.

While political influence of the Queen is not as strong as it used to be in the times of her great-great-grandmother, the Queen’s influence as a moral compass and ambassador of good will, kindness and British heritage is stronger than ever. Some of the Royal Family’s younger members pursue very important and ambitious projects. Prince William’s Earthshot Prize has been an immensely impressive and successful endeavour to help heal the wounds the Earth is suffering from right now. The most remarkable thing is that it’s a continuation of the Royal Family’s tradition of caring for the environment. Both the Duke of Edinburgh and Prince of Wales have been untiring advocates for the nature and environment for decades.

At the same time and sadly, the Royal Family have been ascribed by society via mass and social media (understandably, to great annoyance of the Royal Family members) an additional role of some sort of forced entertainers. And since they are perceived as celebrities, the relentless and obnoxious media hunt for the Royal Family’s private moments has been an ongoing malpractice. In his book, Robert Jobson (2021) writes that already in 1947, when Prince Philip was courting Princess Elizabeth and when the glamorous couple were out for a ride in Prince Philip’s two-seat MG, one paparazzi photographer had been persistently following them. At that time, according to Kate Williams (2012, p. 202), the teenage Princess Margaret commented: “Poor Lil. Nothing of your own. Not even your love affair!” But the paparazzi hunt and social media pernicious and libellous fabrications had never been as intense and unpleasant as they are now. One can only sympathise and praise the Royal Family for enduring stoically this stressful ordeal. And one wishes the Royals would be granted their human and natural right to privacy and therefore normalcy.

It must also not be forgotten that the Queen’s incredibly successful reign is the fruit of collaboration, as she stressed it herself in her thank-you-speech during the Jubilee weekend festivities. The Queen and the House of Windsor are unimaginable without the support of the Royal Family’s members. With or without Prince Philip, the Queen would have been a splendid sovereign in any case, but the energy, optimism, wisdom, and authenticity of the longest-serving consort in British history and the oldest serving partner of a reigning monarch, enabled the Queen to blossom into a self-confident and self-reliant woman. He gave up his own brilliant career in the Royal Navy for the Queen. With his perpetual intellectual curiosity and good humour, the Duke of Edinburgh made the Queen’s strenuous job so much pleasanter, and she has always been very grateful to him for that. Having lost the Duke last year, the Queen is fortunate enough to rely on the Princess Royal, Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, who all have acquired the Queen’s high standards of public service. But she can also count at any time on the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, who have been tremendously active and diligent in the past years. Prince Edward and Countess of Wessex are willing to join as well whenever the Queen is in need of their help.

The Queen isn’t thus worried about the crown being transferred later to Prince Charles who, along with the help of the Duchess of Cornwall, has convinced the British pro-monarchy population that the monarchy will continue to remain in good hands. Although it is too early to predict anything right now, but it does seem more and more that Prince William would particularly excel at running the House of Windsor and at being an outstanding Head of State and Commander-in-Chief, given the fact that his cultural and moral values strongly coincide with those of the Queen. On the other hand, all the people who have been behind the scenes, yet helping the Queen run the Royal Household throughout the years, have also contributed enormously to her success. Just think of the Queen’s private secretaries and hardworking ladies-in-waiting, it seems that Lady Susan Hussey, also Prince William’s godmother, has never left the Queen’s side for a minute, she has always been there for her.

Or the Queen’s dresser and fashion designer, Angela Kelly, whose creativity and loyalty since 1994 have been astonishing. Needless to say how much the Queen, at her noble age, is still dazzling the crowd with her very unique style and her very independent sense of fashion. Moreover, the Queen beautifully encouraged Ms Kelly to apply her talent in the role of the Queen’s first ever in-house designer. This is an example of how the Queen graciously lets other people elevate themselves to the highest point of their abilities and then shine. Little wonder that in her book, Angela Kelly (2019) wrote that “[e]ven now, after twenty-five years, I still admire The Queen as a strong, powerful woman and I find great inspiration not only in her courage, but also in her humility and gentle humour. She has taught me so much over the years and has always encouraged me to stay true to myself while being open to the opinions of others, even if I don’t share them. I know that her guidance made me a better person, and for that I am eternally grateful.” Those are undoubtedly lauding notes the Queen’s designer is offering here, and I do share them with her wholeheartedly. Queen Elizabeth II’s unparalleled and superb work during seventy years of her reign can’t possibly be overstated. It is a most notable and extraordinary achievement by the ninety-six-year-old woman who has been inspiring people for the good for seven decades. Q.E.D.

The following books have been consulted here:

Bedell Smith, Sally (2012). Elizabeth The Queen. The Life of a Modern Monarch. New York: Random House.

Hardman, Robert (2022). Queen of Our Times: The Life of Elizabeth II. New York: Pegasus Books.

Hibbert, Christopher (2000). Queen Victoria. A Personal History. New York: Basic Books.

Howard, Alathea Fitzalan (2021). The Windsor Diaries 1940-45. My Childhood with the Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, New Delhi: Atria Books.

Jobson, Robert (2021). Prince Philip’s Century 1921-2021: The Extraordinary Life of the Duke of Edinburgh. Boldwood Books.

Kelly, Angela, LVO (2019). The Other Side of the Coin: The Queen, the Dresser and the Wardrobe. New York: HarperCollins Books.

Shawcross, William (2009). Queen Elizabeth: The Queen Mother. London: Macmillan.

Williams, Kate (2012). Young Elizabeth. The Making of Our Queen. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.

Written in my garden of lilies on Cape Cod, on 10 July 2022.

REVIEW Essay

Three Fictitious Days in the Life

On the “Spencer” film

By Elena Vassilieva

The closest movie theatre where you could watch Spencer, a new cinematic opus about Princess Diana, was on Martha’s Vineyard. So on Sunday, the 14^th of November, despite my utter aversion to any kind of biopics, I decided to head to the MV Film Society in Vineyard Haven and give it a shot. Who knows, the film might be good enough and worthy of my time, I thought. After all, Kristen Stewart said she was able to grasp Diana’s spirit, which should put both women in a favourable position, or so it seemed after reading an interview with the actress in the LA Times earlier this autumn.

Whilst on the boat, I couldn’t help but reminisce my frequent trips to Edgartown, to the Charlotte Inn, in the fall of 2020. The unique place I got so curious about from reading up in the island’s newspapers on the owners of the hotel, Gery and Paula Conover. The couple, almost religiously devoted to the Charlotte Inn, their chef-d’oeuvre and baby-like project for decades, had been an inspiration for a light-hearted movie, A Godwink Christmas, themselves. Little did I know whilst relishing the authenticity of the Edwardian style furnishings at the Charlotte Inn that Princess Diana was once a guest on the premises and their youngest son, Tim, was assisting the Princess with her daytime activities on the island while she was visiting her good friends, the Brazilian ambassador and his wife, Paulo-Tarso and Lucia Flecha de Lima, in the summer of 1994. Neither Gery and Paula Conover nor Tim had mentioned that fact to me, not even once. Had they done so, it would have been very much out of their characters of true New Englanders, reserved, of quiet disposition, yet, kind, friendly, and hard-working. I found out about the Princess Diana’s visit to the hotel’s restaurant from the book about the Charlotte Inn, but there was just one sentence stating the fact.

Cut off from the world and travelling in 2020, having cancelled all trips, including to England and Australia, I seemed to think the island nearby was a blessing-like. The hotel has staff from all over the globe: the chef at their well-liked restaurant comes from France, the maids are from Eastern Europe, I even met Kevin, a Melburnian, there who looks after the Inn’s antique furniture. After learning about Princess Diana’s vacation on the island, I wondered whether she was happy there? I didn’t dare to ask the Conovers about it, because I knew they would say nothing about their acquaintance with the Princess. But I found one public account going back to August of 2017 when Mr Conover was asked by the local NPR station to share his reminiscences of Princess Diana. Reluctantly, he kindly agreed to be interviewed by Marilyn Schairer. (The radio station wasn’t as lucky with their son, Tim, I’m afraid.) Gery Conover didn’t say much, just how memorable that encounter was when he was giving an excursion around the island to the Princess on his 1923 classic yacht. “It was just a nice experience chatting with her. […] [She was] just really nice in every way. Just very natural, and not at all pretentious. I guess the most significant thing is that she told Tim she had never had such a vacation, where the paparazzi were not always there, and wanted to do a little kind of a thank you party for him at the Inn, which was also very nice.” I did eventually ask the Conovers about their perception of A Godwink Christmas that was based on their personal story. They both were disappointed that some facts were misrepresented in order to satisfy the moviegoer and to justify the commercial interests of the production. For instance, nearly the entire film was shot in Canada, not Martha’s Vineyard, and Gery and Paula met on the island in the summer, not around Christmas, as it was stated in the film.

The moment I had disembarked from the boat that chilly November afternoon, I wondered whether the director, Pablo Larraín, and the script writer, Steven Knight, had done justice to Princess Diana and had sheltered her private persona in the film, given how much she suffered from the round-the-clock paparazzi and media surveillance throughout her life? Or, rather, had Larraín and Knight twisted or exaggerated the facts to the advantage of the conceptual side and the commercial success of the picture? Had they put pressure on the viewer about the complexities of her public and private life? And had Kristen Stewart, an American actress, who had blindly and audaciously, without even reading the script first, agreed to play the role of the Princess, had done a good acting job indeed, as she herself and Larraín believed she did, according to their interviews?

After the film, on my way back from the island, I had leafed through every scene one more time and had come to the conclusion that, sadly, once again Princess Diana fell victim to the professional people’s unscrupulous and brazenly arbitrary interpretation of her life and highly inaccurate depiction of her personality. Right after the first scene, I found myself repelled by the character Larraín, Knight, and Stewart created: a confused, frustrated, and upset woman who gets lost while driving, she swears and moments later enters a sort of cantina and asks for help. She looks depressingly disoriented and distressed. And the character remains in this state of self-destructive alienation and horrid Selbstentfremdung throughout the film. A striking contrast to this is the scene with the military men bringing none other than Christmas food provisions for the Queen’s family to her Sandringham House. The Queen’s character here is also far removed from reality: a woman, who is very conscious of her good looks and her social standing, basks in this glory of hers and with scorn and superiority of a bourgeois dame (!) looks down on Diana, who happens to compliment her dress rather than her speech. Now, think of the real Queen: would she ever be like this? I think not. She may seem reserved and deceptively aloof occasionally, but never self-important, haughty or snobbish like a bourgeois who only yesterday was promoted to a higher social rank and was still thoroughly enjoying this happening. On the contrary, she would probably be calmly compassionate, considerate, and very realistic, at worst, she would say to Diana, as she once did, “But what can I do? Charles is hopeless.” The romantic Diana perceived it at the time as a very tepid compassion, by the way, but that’s the Queen, who would doubtless prefer the bitter truth to the sweet lie, no matter what. Why would she give false hope to Diana, anyway?

The other characters from the Queen’s company, except for Prince Charles and the children, are just secondary and props-like, they have no significance in the film, whatsoever, and Diana barely interacts with them. For all that the intensity of Diana’s interaction with the servants and ordinary people is really striking. From the very beginning, she startles them with her unrestricted willingness to share her unhappiness and frustration. Most of them act well, and Major Alistair Gregory, played by Timothy Spall with ease and aptness, is perhaps the most sympathetic and interesting character in the movie. But even his company didn’t seem to have inspired Kristen Stewart with a vision of freedom from Diana’s persona. Had she freed herself from a burden of Diana’s personality, she might have done a much better job. The figure of Princess Diana may thus have prevented her from developing a deeper and more persuasive portrayal by imposing constraints on her acting. And the further into the movie, the farther the character is moving away from the real Diana. You see here a narcissistic, self-obsessed, cold, and repulsive woman who isn’t even that interested in her own children, let alone anyone else around her. Is that supposed to be the Princess Diana, who had “smothered [her sons] in love” (Prince William), who had great admiration and respect for the Queen, who adored Prince Philip and Princess Anne, let alone all the strangers she had inspired and embraced through her charities? Also, the stark Marxian social stratification in the film with the characters divided into two categories, quasi-Machiavellian villains and their prey, is too simplistic a view. The real Diana, smart and observant, grew up at the Park House, which is on the premises of the Sandringham Estate. By no means was she an outsider or a stranger to the Royal Family, and she knew very well from the very beginning all the peripeteias of her future life as a Royal member. It’s preposterous therefore, as the film quite explicitly does, to blame the Establishment for Diana’s eventual unhappiness. They didn’t insist that Diana had a proper protection after her divorce, and this is the only thing the Establishment could have been scorned for.

It’s largely because of the Freudian construction of the main character that one is reluctant to draw any serious parallels between the movie character and the real and historical figure of Diana. Most Freudian constructs are destined to fail miserably, and they are known for their limits and dangers because Freud predominantly considered only two factors for his analysis of personality: childhood of a person and her sexual propensity. Spencer is flooded with so many obvious psychoanalytical objects that it’s hard to miss the coerciveness of their symbolism for the viewer. There are Chanel suits and bags, Porsche, pearls, a book about Anne Boleyn, a wire fence, and even a plier (at none other place than inside the antique drawer in one of the bedrooms at the Queen’s Sandringham House!), and what not. Overall, too much, just too much for one movie. On top of this, Kristen Stewart played rather unconvincingly, in my view, right from the start. In the scene at the cantina, she appeared mimicking Diana’s manners and her discoursive style too hard, looking rather awkward and helpless in the role. Clad in Chanel and despite her own attractive frame, Ms Stewart comes across as rough, irascible, and utterly unrefined throughout the film, which Princess Diana had never managed to be. Not even in the darkest moments of her life, when she was overwhelmed by the pressures of being constantly in the public eye. Although the real Diana struggled to hide her emotions, nonetheless, she had never been the way she was portrayed in the film, not in public, anyway, and I doubt very much, in private either, definitely not a conspicuously selfish character, like the one in the movie, she was. Had I accidentally seen a fragment from Spencer without prior knowledge that the main personage was supposed to be Diana, I would have never guessed that this laborious portrayal was that of her very persona.

Some would argue that if it’s a fictional account of the Princess, then it’s futile and senseless to even try to compare the real Princess to the played one, let alone to attempt to contest the intentions of the whole movie project. But I still strongly disagree with such a take on this. Yes, it’s a piece of fiction, indeed, but it’s based on the life story of the real person, the movie character has the name of that person, and not by coincidence. It’s also true that the person happened to be a public, historical figure, “a world icon,” as the director said himself. But nevertheless shouldn’t there be deployed at least minimal ethical filters and moral limitations as to what extent it is permissible to select the facts from this person’s biography and interpret them loosely, let alone misinterpret them, so that the viewer like myself isn’t left in total bewilderment and disbelief? To what extent the factual ground may be tackled and reinvented as the creators please in order to support the film’s main idea? In Spencer it is all about the social awareness of mental health, seemingly, if not this, what else, then? But it’s done at the cost of the one who isn’t here anymore to defend herself, and, clearly, the real Diana was no more mentally unstable than anyone of us who is in the midst of personal disillusionment and disappointment at how certain cultural things in our society function and how easily they may drive one to eating disorders, loneliness, and isolation. As for Diana, it got to the point in her life that she didn’t know whom she could turn to and trust anymore. Way too many pretended to be her friends, breaking the rules of basic civility in the end, when it comes to taking advantage of this “friendship” and capitalising shamelessly on it. But given the circumstances, such as the perpetual media’s attention, paparazzi’s hunting, and betrayal by many people, the trustful Diana had to deal with, it’s quite astonishing that she showed so much strength and grace and appeared to maintain more sanity than most of those who had been put under the similar pressures.

Oddly, instead of stressing this fact, the Spencer biopic highlights her eating disorder, which was the thing of the past for her, anyway, when she had disclosed it to the public, and yet, Larraín cynically dares to make a statement about the Princess Diana’s mental health in the film and his interviews. Besides, it’s not as if Diana lived centuries ago that no one remembers anymore what she was like in real life, and therefore we need another (alas, quite unscrupulous and bigoted!) opinion on her very private terrain, her soul. Diana had impeccable manners and a natural tact, but at times she could indeed spill the beans and let the cat out of the bag in such an unexpected way that one would be baffled for a long, long time, asking oneself why she would do something like this? But then, one would realise that she was young, inexperienced, sincere, and perhaps motivated by the desire to be heard, but one would never think she was self-indulgently wicked, narcissistic or mentally ill, as the biopic chooses to portray her. Very emotional – yes, but self-centred and mentally unhealthy? – Give me a break, Mr Larraín and Mr Knight!

Even during that infamous BBC interview with the disgraceful Martin Bashir when she might/must have been pressured somehow psychologically, she didn’t utter anything that would be offensive to the others. That’s my pure speculation, of course, as for the psychological pressuring, but it’s not impossible, the way Bashir tricked her into the interview, he could well have arranged that too, so that the Princess would feel very uninhibited to say whatever he pleased to hear from her; I’m not accusing him, as there is no proof, I’m just saying he had been capable of it, given the recently surfaced facts about how the interview was organised and obtained by him; however, any psychological pressure is very hard to proof. But the surprising smoothness of Princess Diana’s discourse during the interview despite the harshness of the discussed topics makes one want to know whether she hadn’t been indeed pressured, as she shared very private things about herself, which, normally, she would have never done, not in public. However, she told the truth, critiquing herself in the environment she was, not the environment itself, all of which, alas, backfired when her statements were taken out of context, then greedily expropriated and appropriated, and consequently used as a trump card by professionals in the journalism, biography, and cinema business.

Yes, she had showed her resentment, but you could still feel the love, care, and appreciation she had for Prince Charles, for instance. I found nothing of the sort in the movie. The Larraín’s Diana is a fictional character that has little to do with the real Princess Diana, despite the director’s disingenuous claims that he isn’t “chasing controversy,” he is “just trying to chase something that feels real,” in his own words. Then he continues in his interview with “The Independent”: “I think the movie does a proper depiction of Diana’s internal distress. And that’s what I care about. An eating disorder is never just an eating disorder. It’s a consequence of a mental health problem.” – Qui vous a constitué juge, Mr Larraín? The film focuses on the eating disorder, which was candidly acknowledged by the Princess herself, but Larraín forgets that she also said that she had successfully fought it. It’s unfair that those who might not know much about her (the younger viewers, for example) may believe that she was like that in real life. To me, it’s an unforgivable distortion of the facts when a public figure gets treatment like this in a creative piece. What a shame that the Spencer creators are no better than the paparazzi who stalked the Princess to the death.

“Princess Diana was like a Greek tragic character,” Pablo Larraín commented in that same interview in “The Independent,” priding himself on having done the deed. Is it why he decided to make a biopic rather than simply a film about an unknown princess? Had he done the latter, he wouldn’t have disclosed his poor ethical skills to his audience, of course. Diana endeared herself even more to people by disclosing her malady back then, making it clear that one has nothing to be ashamed of if one happens to be overcome by something like this, one just has to fight it instead of struggling in silence. Ethically, that differs a great deal from what the creators of Spencer did. It was her life and she had every right to make public whatever she thought would help her and the others. But do the movie creators have such right, especially for such a dubious portrayal of the Princess? I also wonder whether we are witnessing in the film not so much the awareness of mental health as that of potential commercial success? In that regard, Princess Diana is, no doubt, a hot ticket for such endeavours. If so, Larraín certainly wouldn’t be the first or the last one to capitalise on this, it’s a cultural machine of propagating certain social values and at the same time taking advantage of others.

The persistent commercialisation of Princess Diana’s persona or any other similar public figure who generates profit and has influence isn’t new, and it’s sad that people in cinema seem not to shy away from such an exploitative practice. Tragic is certainly not Diana, she transcended the tragic death by leaving her love for people and by becoming a beloved historical figure, tragic are the ethics and morals of the contemporary popular and celebrity culture and hence our society in general. Mentally unstable is not Diana, either, it’s our culture and society where utter desperation for celebrity status, fame, and profit, gained dishonestly at the cost of other people’s privacy and well-being, determine the “health” of its members. Alas, Pablo Larraín and Steven Knight have contributed to this with their own work ethic and moral standards, which all fall short of those of the Princess Diana. “It makes you feel dirty,” my librarian friend said when we had discussed the movie, and it certainly does.

And the last thing, my dear moviegoer, if you would like to see a film about a princess, you shall watch William Wyler’s Roman Holiday (1953) again and again, and, unlike Spencer (2021), it will not bring you into a state of mental discomfort, on the contrary, it will do good to you and those around you.

*Image: photographed are the books, “Princess” by © Robert Lacey, © NYTimes Books, 1982 and The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri, © Random House, 1944.

(Written on Sunday, November 22, 2021 in the Sky Control Room on Cape Cod.)

OPINION

Not Diana, the Princess of Wales, We Had Known, and It’s Hard Lines on Us

Notes on the Diana-statue unveiled on 1 July 2021 in the Sunken Garden at Kensington Palace

By Elena Vassilieva

Rosa est pulchra. Sequor te. Iuvo te. © Elena Vassilieva; Photo by Richard Young from “Princess” by © Robert Lacey and © Michael Rand, NYTimes Books (1982).

“Omnes ita perterriti erant, ut nemo resistere auderet. Alle waren so erschreckt, daß niemand Widerstand zu leisten wagte.” – August Waldeck (1891)

The ancient secret to a triumphantly successful sculpture is hidden in time, space, and divine afflatus. While I was catching glimpses of the first Royal Family-commissioned statue of the Princess Diana, I couldn’t stop wondering, why some artists are capable of curving quasi-fetishistic pieces that would be looked at with adoration and veneration, whereas others, although having skills, reputation, and accolades, are nonetheless losing the game? I realised that those breathless ones, who sculpt their pieces with zeal and love, forgetting themselves, must possess the power of turning lifeless material into something that would transcend the boundaries of its own space and influence a human being in such a profound way that the latter would believe indeed the statue empowers him with strength, gives him hope, and galvanizes him into action.

For instance, I still remember when I had stepped inside the garden of the Rodin Museum in Paris for the first time. It was in the morning, after the rain, and all the statues were covered with raindrops, the place was filled with the aroma of roses; I was instantly spellbound and couldn’t leave the garden for a very long time. All the statues there seemed to breath and exude that mysterious something that is called inspiration which brings you utter joy. I thought I would burst into a thousand pieces, that overwhelmed I was by the whole splendor of Rodin at that particular moment. A similar effect I had been expecting from the Diana-statue in the Sunken Garden at her home, while contemplating my future visits there.

High expectations? Not at all. When one thinks that it is Diana, the supernal woman with the air of being once the Roman goddess, from whose image a statue was made, say, of the Diana of Versailles, Diane a la biche, at the Louvre. All of a sudden, magically, she seemed to have stepped down from the pedestal, and then began to live among us. The Roman goddess in appearance and a rather bashful, humble young woman in her demeanour, she started captivating hearts even before she became the Princess of Wales, but when she did, everyone thought that she adorned the title and not the other way around. Now, who would dare to be called the Princess of Wales again? The Duchess of Cornwall, an intelligent woman, turned the title down quite adamantly, kudos to her for this! Perhaps, in one hundred years there will be someone in the House of Windsor who would resemble Diana and will be given the title again.

And perhaps, one day, there will be a sculptor who will be able to capture Diana’s spirit and her unforgettable beauty that was so generously supported by her kind, bright, conscientious, honest, passionate, effervescent, and romantic nature. The nature that is similar to that of goddess in classical mythology: to be a god or goddess but be devoid of the sanctimonious saintliness, in the sense of uprightness and self-righteousness (in classical culture, I find it difficult to name at least one god or goddess, let alone simple mortals, who would have it), little wonder, she had such a strong and complex personality of a perfectionist. The way, for example, she greeted the Italians in flawless and accent-free Italian, while on honeymoon on board the legendary Royal Yacht Britannia in the summer of 1981, reveals a lot about her character, her sense of duty, and her attitude towards the people. One can easily see that she made her best effort preparing this excellent greeting speech in the language of the people she was visiting. One can also guess that when she loved, she loved wholeheartedly and passionately, expecting reciprocity. Another important thing that manifested, I dare say, in her nature of a goddess, was her intolerance to any kind of betrayal, especially by those who were/are brazen enough to claim they knew her that well they were/are allowed, to this day, to judge her public and particularly her private life, be it her former best friend or employee, e.g., the butler, equerry, biographer, or journalist as if desperate to diminish her persona and to steal a piece of the glory and love she has received from the people all around the globe, not knowing that this way they only belittle themselves. There was no dissonance between the external and internal side of her personality, and if there were, then her beauty would’ve been fleeting. But it wasn’t the case.

Depiction of her face and body in the statue in an exact, realistic, manner, as the Princes might have wished, is a task that is per se relatively easy, given that Diana is a classical beauty, and therefore any idealisation of her image is superfluous. One just must go to Paris and spend days and nights at the Louvre, with the Diana of Versailles, copying her boldly; afterwards, one may want to add some refinement and the finishing touches that would make the Princess of Wales recognisable. There is no other way to do it if the precise physical likeness to the Princess Diana is sought, and if the artistic style of sculpting should be realism (naturalism), and if the sculptor doesn’t want to stumble. When one was born with divine looks, one can’t possibly be deprived of them, for the simplest reason that looks are a fact, the truth. Remember what Gertrude Stein once famously said: “Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose?” This fact matters a great deal here. Every single part of her figure should be studied carefully in order to avoid postmodern kitsch and the effect of “the Diana in name only.” For any experienced and classically trained artist with good logical, spatial, and mathematical skills, it shouldn’t be very difficult to do it at all, particularly because of the initial striking resemblance between the two Dianas. Also, the Princess Diana as a statue shouldn’t be necessarily wearing what she wore in real life, even if the Princes insisted (they aren’t sculptors, after all, and how I wish they were!). Instead selecting an attire that would mirror her spirit and accentuate her personality would be much wiser. Her real clothes are not going to make the statue look like Diana, anyway, if the “it” that brings her back to us sculpturally isn’t there. No doubt, it’s the luxury to know an artist you could trust blindly, only then he can be given full creative freedom, and only then you are going to delight in his creation. But if one has no luxury of the sort at one’s disposal, then the commissioner ought to guide the artist through the process with his approval or disapproval of what is going on in the studio. It’s worth being vigilant to ensure that the artistic vision doesn’t divorce from the commissioner’s vision.

Of course, there are many other ways how the Princess could be portrayed. I shall take the liberty of imagining at least one of them, which might be a marble sculpture of the Princess, inspired by her image on the photo, taken superbly by Richard Young, when Diana and the Prince of Wales were on their summer voyage on Britannia in 1981. It may have also been one of the happiest moments of her life, because she radiates as much happiness there as later, when she is in the company of her beloved Princes, William and Harry. On that photograph, she wears an oversized white blazer and a triple strand pearl choker with a turquoise and pearl flower clasp, a present from the Spencer family on her 18^th birthday (see the photo above). It’s hard to say what time of the day it is, but the exquisite airiness of her face has that fragile freshness of the morning and reflects her grace with such an elegant ease. The colours, including the light, are not only gorgeously right here, they are also incredibly harmonious with her whole being, creating an impression of the unity between the Princess and Nature, the space around her, that is. The composition and perspective are so successful that there is the fluidity of the contours and lines between the space of the Princess’ figure and the surroundings. And one thing one simply can’t miss here is the poetic nature of the Princess and the fineness of the moment. Should the sculptor decide that the Diana’s blazer in this marble statue shall be a line diffused into the pedestal, that will do, but should s/he think that the legs are necessary, that’ll do, too. But only if those will be the Princess Diana’s legs, not someone else’s. I would give preference to the first version, simply out of fear that the sculptor won’t be able to curve her legs in a proper fashion. In the end, it doesn’t matter at all which version it is, the sculpture just ought to entrance the spectator and give him aesthetic pleasure.

The statue in the Sunken Garden is executed in the style of realism, yet, it is not the Princess Diana. I don’t know who it is. It does remind me a little of one of the faces Mr Rank-Broadley had sculpted in the past, and did it very well, splendidly, in fact, but the handsome face of the Opening the Lock Gate’s character has little to do with Diana. And whose idea was it to politicise the sculpture by adding children who aren’t her sons? Diana’s personality needn’t be squeezed into any ideological frame and be peppered with the momentous messages of political correctness, for she was, still is, the epitome of kindness and compassion herself. Who would forget her as one of the most public-spirited human beings who ever walked on this planet? As a result, the sculptural ensemble is so inept in its composition, so intimidating in its nearly Herculean size and proportions, and the overt political editing/messaging only adds to its absolute soullessness and sad detachment, all of which is upsetting to a viewer like myself. And had the Princes decided not to unveil the statue on her birthday this year, the world wouldn’t have lost anything, on the contrary, we would’ve been still nursing hopes for THE statue of Diana, the one that would do justice to her. On that note, did I interpret it correctly, Earl Spencer, that you might have been as baffled as many of us upon seeing the unveiled statue in the Sunken Garden? There was a moment on one of the photos where you looked as if you just had a bite of the sourest apple you had ever tasted. Or was it just a wink caused by the sun?

One may wonder who is going to venture to sculpt the Princess Diana next? George Herbert Tyson Smith would have been best, of course, given his deep interest in ancient Egyptian and Romano-Greek culture. Alas, he is on the other side. Nigel Boonham perhaps then? He created a fairly good bust of the Princess and got her gracious approval despite the fact that he aged her mercilessly, in my view. Lesley Pover, a very interesting and fine artist, got Diana’s bones and bashfulness quite well, but lacked the desired likeness. Tom Murphy, a very thoughtful and skillful sculptor with such a sparkling enthusiasm, he might give it a try, since he has already been experimenting with a few Diana-sculptures. Besides, his Above Us Only Sky-John Lennon-statue (2002) at the Liverpool airport is such a successful work that it had received high praise from Her Majesty the Queen and Yoko Ono. If Mr Murphy could repeat this triumph of his with the Princess as well, that would be a dream come true. However, other talented sculptors may also reside and create outside of Great Britain.

P.S. Oh, but I still have to come and see all the flowers in the Sunken Garden redesigned by Pip Morrison.

(Written on 9 July 2021 in my white clover garden on Cape Cod.)