Monarchy/Literary Archives

Sketches on 'Monarchy' for June 2017 meeting

Tatiana Efremova

* * *

Gilded carriages, elaborate palaces, pompous processions on some 'special' occasions… All these are expected attributes of royalty and they are assumed to be present whenever we face anything monarchy related. We admire the craftsmanship of stonemasons and seamstresses who contribute to the intricate beauty of the royal mansions and coronation dresses, we can’t take our eyes away from the glitter of gold and diamonds of their crowns, jewellery, shoes and where else do they sticks their diamonds on… Pretty much on everything, I guess.We are not startled by the overwhelming riches: aren’t kings supposed to be rich and glamorous?

Once upon a time I wondered into a small fishing village on one of the Caribbean Islands. It was completely typical of the islands: it was quite a small picturesque settlement with shabby dwellings painted in the most jubilant colours, with the local residents with gleeful smiles on skinny black faces who were dressed in basic garments of kaleidoscopic colours, beads and leather straps on top of Bob Marley T-shirts and Coca-Cola shorts. The ladies of the households were busy cooking dinners on the squalid backyards with the main cooking ingredients being bananas and, occasionally, fish. 

Being a tourist I took photos of the exotic colours and shapes, I committed to my memory the stunning ocean view, aromas of spices on fried bananas and fish, impossible sounds of the native language mixed with slurry English. The sunshine and the methodical rhythm of the ocean painted everything in holiday colours. Smiley faces and multitude of colours turned a modest village into a living carnival… A simple question “Would I have survived on bananas if I lived on this island?” didn’t cross my mind at the time.

It was some hours later when our guide enthusiastically shared statistics about the beautiful mansion of the Governor-General, a stately white house wrapped with wooden and metal lace, adorned with porticos and columns, surrounded by splendid rose garden with fountains and marble sculptures, only when we faced royal portraits of two queens, a deceased one and the present one, only then I was stricken by a thought… The queens belonged and didn't belong there: they belonged to that white building with fancy furniture, but they didn’t belong to that island. One queen was a fat woman with a somber face and dressed like a nun, another one - also quite somber but nonetheless quite opposite, decorated like a Christmas tree, two supreme rulers, who’s wealth was and is immeasurable, whose power was and is close to unlimited - two rulers who obtained their riches from the multitude of islands just like this one, oh, how unhappy they looked on those portraits while the people on that island were smiley despite their poverty, their houses were wide open to the guests and passers-by… They were robbed of their land and their bananas, they were milked by white women and men for centuries but nobody could rob them of their love for life, friends and music. What good the monarchy gave them? A rose garden they can’t visit? A few expensive chairs they aren’t allowed to sit on, or maybe even not allowed to look at? And what’s the point to feed greed and vanity of distant rulers who do not know how to extract happiness from all the riches and power they accumulate? 

Dallas Berge

* * *

Although many people saying giving two hoots about these people is outdated, Prince Charles and his wife Camilla have been in the news. Following a recent interview with Camilla, Facebook lit up with opprobrium and name-calling – horse-face, bitch, hag, home wrecker, and more.

While it is true that Camilla and Charles’ affair certainly didn’t help his marriage to Princess Diana, this recent interview was a reminder of how the whole sorry situation came about in the first place.

Charles loved Camilla, and she loved him. But marriage was out of the question, even more so once Camilla had married Andrew Parker-Bowles. Charles was introduced to Diana, I suspect in the hope that he would agree to marry a more ‘suitable’ woman. Horror of horrors, before this could happen, there was even a ‘virginity test’ to ensure that the woman for Charles had no sexual past. Why women should not have any sexual experience before marriage is the stuff of another story, but it is indicative of an attitude that women have no right to be sexual on their own terms. 

The aristocracy, and especially royal families, have a long history of marriage being for the purpose of forming favourable alliances of families, and producing heirs. Princess Diana herself once described herself as ‘a brood mare’, engaged to produce sons, the heir and the spare, to eventually succeed the throne. It was perhaps telling that, in an interview after their engagement, Prince Charles and Diana were asked if they were in love, and Prince Charles replied, “Yes. Whatever love means.”

He knew exactly what love meant, as he had experienced it with Camilla. But the marriage went ahead. It was a marriage of convenience, though unfortunately Diana didn’t see it that way.

As we all know, the marriage broke down, and Charles and Diana became the first royal couple for quite some time to divorce. Charles’ love for Camilla never went away.

Fast forward to the next generation and it seems that William has been able to choose his partner based on love rather than duty. This seems like some kind of progress, in the sense that what is normal for us ‘commoners’, to choose our partners based on love, may have finally arrived for the Windsor family of the United Kingdom. 

What will the future hold? I’m hopeful, although I am not a fan of any the monarchy of any country, that the trend to join the 21st century continues. Free to choose their own careers, and their life partners.

I’ll be delighted if Princess Charlotte becomes a professional mixed-martial arts cage fighter, with the blessing of her parents, and if Prince George marries the love of his live. A nice chap, coincidentally, also named ‘George’.