Thursday, February 10, 2005

Prince Charles to Wed Camilla Parker Bowles

It's time for some juicy gossip and what better topic than another royal wedding to fit that description! It comes as no surprise to royal watchers that these two plan to wed. A civil ceremony is set for the 8th of April at Windsor Castle. The groom is 56 and the bride is 57. They met in 1970 at Windsor Castle. After Princess Diana's death, the two lovers had started to make public appearances and in recent years had also started to live together at Clarence House, the home of the Queen Mother before she passed away.

The Queen and Prince Philip are "delighted" with the news as are many other notables, including the Archbishop of Canterbury. Before this, The Church of England had frowned on the heir to the throne marrying a divorcee. All this is probably old news for most of us who are former residence of one of the old British colonies. The Royal Family, and it's exploites were carefully followed and discussed in our circle. I remember, as a teenager, devouring every bit of information on the royal wedding of Princess Diana and Prince Charles.

Live television was still years away in Sri Lanka in 1981. Recordings of the event came to our part of the world a couple of months after the actual event. The privileged few who owned VCRs at that time invited friends for the viewing of the event touted as a "fairy tale wedding" by the press. At that year's talent contest a few months later a friend's mother suggested making Diana's going away dress for our singing group. The resulting dress hardly resembled the original, but that was besides the point.

I admire Princess Diana, for going public with her story, for being the first wife of the heir to the throne to expose the royal family and for asking and getting a divorce. The monarchy itself is deeply rooted in age old traditions that are very patriarchal. Some Scandinavian countries have amended their constitution so that the throne passes on to the first born irrespective of gender. But Britain lags behind on any kind of reform that would be more suited for a 21st century monarchy. So often marriages are arranged to a suitable spouse to produce the heir and a spare as they say in Britain. Diana single handedly defied a lot of these archaic traditions and exposed the hypocrisy that lay underneath the pomp and circumstance. She was beloved by many for being beautiful, but her true strength lay in her conviction to not be another long suffering wife.

It is unfortunate that hers was such an unfulfilled life. For me today's news makes it hard not to think back and salute this woman who dared. Unconditional love is very rare. Charles and his fiance ought to be commended for holding on to each other all these years. The whole story points to one thing. Changing with the times is not only important for commoners, but equally important for royals as well. If the rules had been altered, maybe these two need not to have waited so long, maybe a couple of hearts might not have been broken.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4252963.stm

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home