HOME | STOP PRESS | SUBSCRIPTIONS | BACKCOPIES | BOOKS |ARCHIVE | DIANA LEGACY | NEW ISSUE
lastword
All contributions are welcome, but e-mail contributors should note that for their views to be published in Royalty as letters they should also include a postal name and address. This can be witheld from publication on request, but the supply of name and address is a legal obligation on the publisher.
When will people realise that royalty, being born into great wealth and privilige mere mortals can only dream about, are no gods, but ordinary people like the rest of us. No one can live a life without any blemish. So why do we keep on grinding down the Royal Family?
Give the House of Windsor more slack, like their counterparts in Europe. Prince Emmanuele of Italy had just married a French film actress who is six months pregnant with his child; Prince Haakon married Mette-Marit, a single woman with a child born out of wedlock; Prince Felipe of Spain is engaged to be married to a divorced woman. Prince Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands married the Argentinian Maxima admidst great controversy about her father.
And so we can go on and on . . . but they all married for love, and are happy. Life is too short to compromise it with anything less.
Maybe the House of Windsor is its own worse enemy. Edward VIII should have been allowed to marry the only women he ever loved – Wallis Simpson. Princess Margaret should have been allowed to marry Peter Townsend, and Prince Charles, Camilla – then the House of Windsor would have been spared a lot of anguish, trouble, hearthache and its reputation. Rina van Coller, Pretoria, South Africa.

Maybye I am catching the tail of things, but why would the British people want to abolish the monarchy? The system has worked for the last thousand years and as long as the current Queen reigns it will continue to do so.
I understand why they might be laying the groundwork for the future, as the integrity of the monarchy will be seriously threatened if Prince Charles succeeds in becoming the Defender of all faiths under the smokescreen that the country comprises many faiths.
I do think that the Monarchy should take heed of the warning and learn that the British people can and do have the right to change their mind.
On the other hand if the cost of the monarchy is what the opposition have a problem with, I can’t imagine that the income from all of the properties do not take a huge bite out of the bill. So whatever the breakdown of the cost per citizen, I doubt that the money that would be saved would come close to the amount that would be lost in tourism and charitable contributions,among other things.
This goes back to basic economics – no Monarchy, no tourism, no Palaces, no thriving charities, no jobs. At the end of the day both sides need each other so any material changes on either part will topple the whole house of cards.
That said, why doesn’t everyone get back to the business of making history instead of changing it and appreciate what the monarchy brings to the table as long as they keep their end of the deal. Chris Canfora, USA via e-mail.
Your report that our President wouldn’t allow Prince Charles to visit the USA made me furious. What right does he have to not allow this? In the United States, we allow anyone to speak out against what they do and do not believe in.
Prince Charles has done nothing to speak out against the conflict in Iraq, so I just don’t understand the reasoning behind the banning of the Prince from visiting us. I intend to write my Congressman/woman and state my objections. Even though I have not always agreed with some of the things that Prince Charles has done, I feel deep down he is a sincere person.
Let’s not talk about Prince Charles, Lady Diana or Mrs. Parker-Bowles. That’s in the past. I, like so many, miss Diana, but I’m sure she would like the world to go on and not have this brought up over and over again. Shirley A. Jameson, via e-mail, DeWitt, MI, USA.

It’s strange that I had always considered Princess Anne to be a cold, snobbish sort. However, just one look at how the Princess Royal and her daughter interact with one another shows just how wrong I was.
Zara Phillips is just gorgeous, with almost perfect features, and she seems to live a rather normal life, or as normal as possible. I think that is a great credit to the Princess Royal.
I also think that the Countess of Wessex is developing her own fashion sense and style. I do, P Phowever, lament the fact that Prince Edward will not be producing any more of his “Crown and Country” series. He always seemed so warm and friendly as he showed the gorgeous country that is England. It almost makes me want to pack my bags and fly right over to see the areas he has shown.
I say “almost” because after September 11, 2001, I really don’t want to fly anymore; however, his series makes it tempting. It seems as though his company should have been at least partially funded by some office of tourism. He has such talent, I hope that the Palace will allow him to make “Crown and Country”, and still perform some royal tunctions. Several among my group of friends feel the same way. His productions were an asset to the country. June Mock, USA via e-mail.

Join in the great ROYAL debates!

click here to e-mail your comments to lastword

When I was in high school I wrote a research paper about the abdication of King Edward VIII – the days leading up to the announcement and the aftermath. Back then there were many who believed that the abdication would topple the monarchy. The Duke of York was in frail health; he had never received the training to be king and on and on went the reasons why he would most certainly fail. But, not only did he not fail, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth restored the honour and dignity to the House of Windsor and even improved its shining reputation.
My mother, a great admirer of the King and Queen, said there was hardly a dry eye when it was announced that the coronation had taken place without a hitch. In those days televisions were rare, so radio was the mass medium. Not only did the King have to deal with the disgrace of King Edward marrying a twice divorced woman who, according to what has been written about her, thought herself far above most people and was rude to her “underlings”, but the fact that war with Germany was a certainty. He and the Queen did not shrink from their duties, but stayed in Buckingham Palace even after part of it was destroyed by bombs. They travelled all about London, talking with their subjects, and giving them hope. Of course, all of these duties took a toll on the King’s health, but he knew that Princess Elizabeth would carry on very, very well, which she certainly has done.
Through the years there have been many documentaries about the royal family, but one of the saddest I have ever seen is when King George VI saw Princess Elizabeth off on her trip to Africa. It was so painfully obvious that it was probable she would never see him alive again. But the Princess knew her duty and though her heart must have been sad, she went on to Africa. Her beloved father did pass away, but there was not one person who doubted that Elizabeth would make a wonderful Queen.
The coronation was absolutely gorgeous, the music hauntingly beautiful, and the young Queen came to the throne with an absolutely unblemished reputation. There was not even a breath of scandal attached to her name, and for fifty years she has conducted herself with utmost dignity, honour and strict adherence to duty. Queen Elizabeth II has held the House of Windsor together, and people all over the world love and admire her.
Now comes the unpleasant part. I think most people want Prince Charles to be happy and he has done a lot of very fine things, but no one could ever say that he could be crowned with an unblemished reputation. The telephone conversation he carried on with Mrs. Parker-Bowles was childish, crude and humiliating not only to Princess Diana and Mrs. Parker-Bowles’ husband, but to Queen Elizabeth as well. His blatant jealousy of Princess Diana’s popularity; his disastrous interview before millions of people, an attempt to justify his affair with Mrs.Parker-Bowles; his disregard for how not only Princes William and Harry might feel, but the Parker-Bowles children when the interview was shown, and many other indiscretions seem to indicate that he just might not be suitable to be King. That does not mean he is not a good person and a fine parent, but maybe just not cut out to be Queen Elizabeth’s successor.
Of course, the point may be moot because Queen Elizabeth looks great and seems to feel wonderful. The Prince just might be too old to even think about ascending the throne. June Simpson, via e-mail.

I think that Judy Fern was right in her assessment of how the British value Queen Elizabeth II. Not because she has been a great queen but because we are all relieved that she has the longevity of the Windsor women and with any luck will outlive her dreadful heir! Long live the Queen . . . please! M Hughes, England, via e-mail.

I was glad to read that Prince William is trying to be a peacemaker between the royal family and the Spencers. Whether the royal family wants to admit it or not, William and Harry are products of both families.
I was saddened to read that the Queen has invited Camilla to the coronation celebration. I do not feel that Charles and Camilla are deserving of this honour. I know that Charles is trying to win over the people of Britain but I cannot bring myself to like or admire her and I am disappointed in him.
These two, supposedly “mature” people took advantage of a naive young girl who was in love with her husband. Charles used her to fulfil his duty to provide an heir to the throne. Then, both Charles and Camilla played “mind games” with Diana until she was driven out of the family. Camilla cannot pretend that she was not “behind the scenes” from the very beginning of “the fairytale wedding”.
Yes, Diana played up to the media but I could not blame her. When Diana realised that she had been played for a fool by the royal family, she took advantage of the one tool she knew she had — the press. This “tool” is still giving the family grief – an appropriate legacy for the way she was treated.
There seems to be two sides to Charles. There is the side he wants the public to believe – caring and dedicated– and the private side, self centred and manipulative. The private side of his character came under public scrutiny when his marriage problems were exposed in the press. He may eventually be able to get Camilla “accepted” by the people as his wife, but I do not think he will ever be able to convince the people to “love” her as they did Diana. Joan Beitz, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.

THE ONGOING “POISON PEN” letters forever being written by you female readers on Charles, Diana and Camilla are offensive and destructive and serve no useful purpose at all.
Your reader Judy Fern is right on target when she stated that the climax of the Golden Jubilee celebrations when a million of Britain’s silent majority poured into The Mall to show that they were solidly behind their Queen. The wave of emotion that swept over The Mall and engulfed the Golden State Coach bearing the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh spoke loudly and clearly about where Elizabeth II stands in the estimation of the British people.
Contentions from a reader that Diana’s blood is on the Queen’s hands is utter nonsense! How quick the media – and, indeed, the general public – are to forget that it was their insatiable appetite for juicy gossip on the Royals – in particular Diana – and both British and international press conducting themselves like a school of piranhas that, in the end, brought about the Princess’s tragic death.
She could have been alive today and her marriage with the Prince of Wales could have worked out if both groups had respected her right to some personal privacy.
Those who contend that Diana’s blood is on the Queen’s hands would be well advised to look at their own hands – and those of the media – to see that there’s more of Diana’s blood there than on the Queen’s and that was their contribution to her untimely demise.
All this regressive carping on segments of the Royal Family leads one to ask whether your readers are actually interested in them and the British monarchy – or do they simply see Royalty as another tabloid they can use to air their poisonous and ill-informed points of view. David A Blackman, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.