In the past few weeks, Britain's Royal Family has been faced with turmoil and upheaval, as Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan of Sussex have decided to become "financially independent" (whatever that means) and step down from duties as members of senior royalty. Meghan announced she was tired of being harassed by the British tabloids and was returning to Canada. Harry was left to answer multiple questions from the queen and the rest of the family, including Prince William. Most of the issues arose because of Meghan's mixed heritage and her past as an American movie star, which created multiple issues with the entire royal family. This decision marks a new era for the British monarchy.
This takes me back to 1980, where it all began with a wedding familiar to anyone who is a fan of fairy tales. It was always in the minds of Americans and filled the airwaves for years. When the first son was born, then the second, every event touched our lives in one way or another. Then it came to a tragic end in 1997 in a car crash that sent shock waves around the world and to the very foundations of Great Britain and the entire Commonwealth.
One of the most interesting of the hundreds of pieces written when Princess Diana died tragically on August 13, 1997 was by Barbara Amiel. A columnist for London's Daily Telegraph, she argued that one of the many paradoxes of Diana's sad life is that her lingering image may have saved Britain's monarchy all those years ago.
House of Windsor has fallen on hard times of late. The stuffy irrelevance that many associate with a monarchy in these democratic times has had many Britons speaking of its end with the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. Which could still become a reality. Prince Charles has never inspired the nation. There is no clamor for him to rule. Amiel correctly pointed out that anyone who could keep the public's attention on the royal family had to be viewed as an asset.
If she did nothing else, Lady Diana certainly captured the public's attention for the royal family, much as Meghan has done in recent months. From a fairy-tale wedding to a steamy affair to a painful divorce, everything Diana did kept her, her husband, and speculation about the future of the British crown an issue of daily discussion. So, seemingly, does the situation with every member of the Royal Family.
Upon her death, it became clear that England's commoners felt far closer to their rejected princess than to the family that gave her that status. Though it must have galled her to do so, the Queen consented to a funeral that was little short of what a head of state receives. Likely more people lined her funeral route than will line that of Queen Elizabeth when her time comes. Which could be soon, since she is well into her 90s and has reined longer than any of her predecessors.
Here was the English columnist's conclusion to all this: "Ultimately, the Queen, by maintaining the legacy of Diana, Princess of Wales, will only help the institution of the monarchy. The public may now feel that they cannot deny Diana's fervent wish: to see Prince William become King of England." ("The Princess of the Common Touch": New York Times, Sept. 2, 1997, p. A15).
Here is a precedent for modernity and tradition coming together. Neither destroyed the other, but both were changed significantly by their union.
I happen to think the generations need each other. I further believe they can bless each other. And Amiel's editorial about Queen Elizabeth and Princess Diana makes my point very effectively. Diana was a woman of her time, just like Meghan is, and, just like Meghan now, she was hard pressed to conform to a mold of protocol that did not fit her or her peers. A commentator on PBS' "Amanpour and Company" the other day said that the British tabloids are nothing like those in America and Meghan was not prepared, just like Diana in her day. Elizabeth was and is, a woman of her time, who could not understand, and still cannot understand that the pulse of her country - for better or for worse - was beating in rhythm with that of her daughter-in-law and now, with that of her granddaughter-in-law, and not her own.
If the two women had not been so distant from one another and so threatened by each other, many, many things might have been different. A marriage might have been better. The temptation to go seeking other companions might not have come to the Prince and Princess of Wales. There might have been no estrangement, no divorce, no crash in a Paris tunnel. But all that is musing to no point. Or is it?
Maybe Britons have reached a point where they have outgrown their need for a monarchy. In one of the classic "Star Trek" episodes, the travelers ran into one of the former Greek gods on a planet and Captain Kirk stated, "We've outgrown the need for gods. We find the One quite adequate." Maybe it is the same way with Britons. We Americans grew tired of the monarchy and decided to form a new way of life apart from it. Royalty is one of those ideas born of the Dark Ages and many countries are abandoning them.
If those of us who want to preserve the traditions in which we were raised can be a bit more understanding and incorporating toward the Baby Boomers, Generation X-ers and the younger generations coming behind us, who want some things more in sync with their pulses and those of their searching contemporaries, there will be a common union. If the younger people who want some things to be more relevant to their tastes and time can affirm the value of their parents' and grandparents' traditions, maybe both generations can profit from the exchange.
When people start thinking alike, whether young or old, black or white, rural or urban, American or European, Democrat or Republican, they will stop fighting over the externals. We will stop rejecting and judging others' preferences. We will even stop thinking principally in terms of what is old and what is new. We will begin to pull both old and new out of our treasure chests and work toward the same goal of saving our valuable world and our unity as a nation.
Comments