No Thanks Camilla -- The Guardian -- Good Story
Irish_Val
val
No thanks, Camilla
The Queen meets her eldest son's mistress at a barbecue. It is hardly
the stuff of true romance
The future of the monarchy: special report
Ros Coward
Tuesday June 6, 2000
One glimpse at the newspapers is enough to tell us that the royal soap
is being revived for another season. Most papers made front page news
of Camilla Parker Bowles's weekend meeting with the Queen, while the
tabloids also devoted several pages to speculation over whether the
Prince of Wales will now marry Camilla. For the Sun this casual
encounter over a barbecue was "the royal story of the year" and for the
Express and Mirror, "a historic meeting". Even the Times led
with "Camilla and Carey hold secret talks", making it as significant as
negotiations to scrap the nuclear arsenal.
The portentousness of the language stands as a warning. The media is
threatening an orgy of speculation, both personal and constitutional.
There will be plenty of opportunities this summer. Will Camilla go for
her holiday at Balmoral, as some papers are claiming? Will she accept
the invitation to watch the parade of old nags and camels for the Queen
Mother's 100th birthday? And what will these decisions tell us about
the likelihood of her marrying Charles, becoming queen or winning
public acceptance? The Sun and the Mirror's telephone lines are already
open, voting on these issues.
This blanket coverage is not just tedious. It's maddening. Since
Princess Diana's death, royal coverage has been relatively muted.
Uncertainty about just how far public distaste for the whole royal
family had gone has kept this stuff off the front page. Now the signs
are the press is heading back - no holds barred - to royal fantasy
land. Typically, the Express commemorated the weekend's historic
barbecue with an outbreak of prose worthy of the late Barbara
Cartland: "For a few moments they stood face to face smiling awkwardly,
not knowing quite what to say. For a second or two, there was a
silence. Camilla, for so long not even recognised by the royal family,
curtseyed deeply out of respect for her sovereign."
It is not just the style of this language that belongs to fiction. So
does the content. None of us know what the Queen or Camilla were
actually thinking during this encounter, or whether Charles is in fact
an incorrigible philanderer settling with Camilla as the least publicly
damaging option available. But it is not difficult to recognise the
cliche now being promoted: a true and honourable, if thwarted, love
affair. This is the culmination of the "28-year, on-off romance" (the
Sun). The prince who "wanted above anything else recognition from the
Queen for Mrs Parker Bowles", is now "relaxed and happy" (the
Mirror), "delighted and grateful" (the Sun) or "very happy and very
relaxed" (the Times).
This is the same story promoted by Charles's aides, so it is tempting
to imagine a coincidence of interest between the tabloids and the
palace. When the papers ask if the public is now ready to accept
Camilla, do they really mean: is the public ready to stomach a return
to previous levels of interest in the royals? They must hope the answer
is yes, since nothing sold papers like Diana's personal life.
They may be seriously disappointed however.
Forelock-tugging accounts of royal life are tricky at the best of
times, with their details of endless royal holidays, sumptuous banquets
(this time "barbecued steaks, lobster and king prawns prepared by Anton
Mossiman"), and their party lists of double-barrelled toffs.
They are especially incongruous at the moment beside the full-blooded
discussion of elitism currently raging in all papers. Besides, there
may be a miscalculation about "public acceptance". Many people accept
Charles's relationship with Camilla as inevitable, but have totally
lost their appetite for royal gossip. Diana's fate left many feeling
they had colluded in a judgmental voyeurism about her life that was
somehow implicated in her death.
Nor has the charm offensive changed the impression of Charles which
many formed at the time of Diana's death. Most think he is a bungler
who should have married Camilla in the first place and spared everyone
the grief. Having created such havoc, he should repair the damage now
by retiring. He could become a gentleman farmer, live off the proceeds
of his "royal" biscuits and do whatever he wishes with Camilla in the
flowerbeds of Highgrove without any public attention at all.
Getting Versace to dress Camilla won't turn her into Diana; the terms
silk purse and sow's ear come to mind. Nor will Charles's cranky
preoccupations with his bowels and his tweedy life ever enthral us as
Diana's hospital visits and dresses did. Icons require a degree of
charisma and a life which resonates with a wider public.
It is hard to imagine Camilla's life ever resonating with anyone
outside the hunting set. Editors might be rubbing their hands with glee
at the prospect of the next episodes in the royal soap - family
reconciliation, engagement, marriage - but the tedious saga of this odd
couple is more likely to be a total ratings disaster.
--
LOL & Godspeed,
Val
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.