Wednesday, March 30, 2005

# 14 CAMILLA & CHARLES - ROADBLOCKS, APOLOGIES

The media are referring to it as another ‘road block’ amidst the unfortunate circumstances that keep popping up and making the proposed wedding of Charles and Camilla a royal pain. I am referring to the pronouncement by Bishop Stancliffe that Charles should apologize for any hurt he has caused, particularly to Camilla’s ex. But I’m not sure if Mr. Parker-Bowles is hurting. Perhaps Camilla’s ex is more relieved than hurt.

Nevertheless, in principle, I guess the Bishop’s ruling is a worthy decision, but it leaves me wondering, ‘What about the rest of us? Those of us that are so hurt and disappointed with the degradation of our expectations for princes and rulers.’ Doesn’t the Bishop realize that while Mr. Parker-Bowles may be hurt, the rest of us are hurting even more?

As a Canadian, I am hurt. I know many British subjects are deeply hurt. Church members are hurt. There’s a throng of us that need reparation for our hurts. The Bishop wants Charles to make good any hurts, to restore goodwill and to pay serious attention to associations damaged by any misconduct. "Yahoo, Bishop Stancliffe. Yahoo, Charles. I’m over here. Patiently waiting for balm for my hurts."

Obviously I’ll be waiting a while, so in the meantime I might as well tell you that I am far more impatient with that foxy Camilla, then with Charles. Poor Charles. Obviously he was groomed to be a king and in this grooming it is quite likely the bulk of his studies focused on international diplomacy (and ‘fox-hunting?’ *sly wink* ) to such a degree that aspects of normal society and interpersonal relationships fell away by default. Then too, perhaps it is harder to be chaste, or easier to be chased, with a kilt on then with a pair of trousers. Only Camilla, the fox, and the bag-piper would know for sure.

But nevertheless, when it comes to personal matters, through no fault of his own, Charles is quite stupid, so I’m not sure he should be obliged to apologize to anyone. Like Hub wisely says, "We need to excuse the actions of those who don’t know any better, rather than react with dismay or anger." But the bottom line is it takes two to tango, so now I have to consider Camilla.

Here’s where I have a real problem. There are no valid excuses for Camilla’s acts of ‘treason’ and ‘heresy’ and ‘terrorism’. Yes, I said ‘treason’ and ‘heresy’ and ‘terrorism’. ‘Treason’ because while Princess Diana was in a husband-wife relationship with Charles, Camilla slept with Charles and in so doing violated her purported allegiance to the sovereign of the country – Queen Elizabeth, Princess Diana and her children, and the rest of the Royals.

And ‘heresy’, because the illegitimacy of this act demonstrated that Camilla holds to beliefs that are contrary to the doctrines of the Church – i.e. adulterous behavior. And finally, ‘terrorism’ because this was indeed an act of subjugation. Through seduction, Camilla deliberately sought to bring Charles under her control and subjection. I don’t want Charles to necessarily abdicate the throne, but I do want a public broadcast of Camilla explaining that she is aware that she has engaged in these horrific acts and for this reason she feels compelled to relinquish the title and role of Queen of England.

Of course the foregoing arguments are weakly based on language and its interpretation rather than the deeper feelings and fallibility’s of our humanity. So okay, if you feel that way, lets scrap all the foregoing as ineffective arguments. Let’s simply discuss the undeniable truth about love. If we do that, I have to say ‘true love’ is more stringent that Camilla or Charles realize. It means sacrifice. It means denying one’s own personal desires to honor the dignity of the person (or country) they dearly love (as so bravely demonstrated years ago by Charles’s great uncle, the Duke of Windsor). This is love, true love, dedicated love, Romeo-and-Juliet love – forever love; the kind of love that withstands eternally. It is not the kind of love evident in the Charles and Camilla Harlequin saga.

Now I don’t know if Charles and Camilla will be required to take marriage counseling before they wed. I certainly hope they do. And furthermore, I hope their counselor is wise enough to explain to them the difference between ‘lust’ and ‘love’, the difference between ‘erasers’ and ‘rulers’, and the difference between ‘horse sense’ and ‘common sense’.

6 Comments:

Anonymous Aurora said...

I posted about this on my site not too long ago titled, "Just say NO to Camilla".... but you've stated it much more eloquently and with obvious knowledge and personal involvement which I lack, being down here in the fake-media saturated US.

Thank you for this serious and thougtful entry. It says a lot of what I felt, but didn't know how to properly articulate.

Now, if I can just get over CARING, because it doesn't really affect me... ;)

5:24 PM  
Blogger Roberta said...

Thanks for the comment, aurora. I popped over to your place and had a read. You stressed one point that I missed. The point about the the amount of privilege that privileged people assume they have a right to.

Obviously you would appreciate an apology as much as I would. I'm glad you stopped by. It is fun to have interactive chats about others' perspectives.

7:46 PM  
Anonymous colin said...

Rejoice - Choices and Consequences
(0n the occasion of the forthcoming Royal marriage)
Let the church bells, ring out.
Let the country, all rejoice.
On the occasion of this union,
let's sing with harmonious voice..

We wish both joy,and happiness
To our potential king and heir.
And to him and his future bride,
in their jubilation, we share.

Time has healed the wounds?
the mourning it is past?
Let this time not be of sadness,
for Love has won through, at last.

Two lovers, so long in darkness,
can bring their love into the light,
Shout it from the roof tops.
Let's share in their delight.

We are deprived of a state occasion,
with trumpets and fanfares,
Not a full royal marriage,
Just a simple and quiet "affair".

There will be some who think it tasteless,
on both religious or moral grounds.
Some who will show their disapproval,
no doubt, some disgruntled sounds.

But don't we all have a right to happiness,
whether of Common or Royal blood.
Who has the right to deny them,
Surely, we all have a right to Love.

In the past this meant abdication,
but I suppose the times have changed,
Whether for better or worse,
and for this they cannot be blamed.

But in life we all make choices,
and he has chosen his bride,
and decisions have consequences,
so time for him to decide.

I am sure he has thought very carefully,
and thought the position through,
the effects on royal and public opinion,
I am sure he will know what to do.

So Charles and Camilla we will miss you,
as you leave behind your public life.
William will become next King of England.
May you will find happiness with your new wife.

3:01 PM  
Blogger Roberta said...

Hi Colin,

Enjoyed the poem. It appeals to my romantic nature -- but the content would sit better with me if I believed the line "William will become next King of England" but I don't. Like the journalists are saying Charles has waited too long 'to take his place' to let it slip through his fingers. Unless of course there was a deal made with William that if he would be kind and accepting to Camilla publicly and privately, in return he will be king. But that too, seems utter nonsense. I'm optimistic that William holds to a different standard (than his father, more like his mother) that would never adhere to that kind of
dealmaking.

8:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

why not leave it to them to discover whether their love will be true and lasting,the one that is built with togetherness and sacrifice,instead of assuming that we know that it's only lust?why not give a thirty some years lasting lust(which is way too long for a pure lust to survive in my opinion) a chance,since they both gave a chance to other people's reasoning and choice for their previous marriages that obviously could never mesure up on any level even with lust,let alone love?
life is an open book for all of us,and passing judgements and opinions about other peoples feelings isn't showing respect for it.
it's also disrespectful to take away their right to privacy and personality by saying you are hurt more because they didn't live up to your picture of what their lives should be.
diana had been very unfortuante indeed,as were many others throughout history,but does that mean everyone else should be too,so that they could fit the expectations of the world?
even though i don't know much about either one of them personally,i am very confidently on their side ,because in the end,they did have guts,they had guts that most people in their position wouldn't have and didn't,guts to outlive the forbidden,and fight against living in fear.in fear of church,in fear of royal family,in fear of jurnalists,in fear of people...
their sins are their own,and no person in this world is perfect and therefore they should be slower to judge others.even if you look from religious point of view.think od david and bathsheba.so even religion makes exceptions,and people,little unperfect humans ,should too.after all,it is 21st century,you know.it's about time for some things to change.

8:34 PM  
Blogger Roberta said...

Hi anonymous. I appreciate your comments which contain some 'idealistic thoughts' that I can't argue with. But the truth of the matter is people who write do so for various reasons. Sometimes in jest, sometimes with irony, with satire, or with pretense. I try to write in a way that exposes bigger truths than just the existing situation. So having said that, hope you still enjoyed the read.

9:55 AM  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home