Prince William, the 28-year-old heir-but-one to the British throne, will marry Catherine Middleton, a 29-year-old university chum whose parents run a successful business selling party goods. In central London the machinery of state flummery is in motion. Along the Mall, Union flags are being hung from crown-topped poles, palace railings gleam with fresh paint and plume-helmeted horse guards rehearse in the parks. A grandstand for television anchors has been erected opposite Buckingham Palace: hours of special programming loom.
The mood of the British public is harder to gauge. The press is full of dresses and hats, but also of opinion polls saying that barely a half of the British are interested in the wedding, and only a third are certain to watch it on television. Councils report a north-south divide in applications to hold street parties—and far fewer overall than when Prince William’s parents wed in 1981.
Quote of the Day »
“The affection shown to us by so many people during our engagement has been incredibly moving, and has touched us both deeply.”
PRINCE WILLIAM and KATE MIDDLETON, in a statement in their official wedding program, thanking the public for their kind wishes
HOW THE WEDDING WENT
This Windsor – Queen Mum and the ancestors
- Photo: AP / PA to ORIGINAL: O: \ \ PICTURES \ \ B_FERTIG \ \ MAWE2011.EPS The Windsors: First row (each from l. to r.): Prince William, Prince Charles of Wales, Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Prince Henry (Harry).
Second row: Princess Anne, Zara Phillips, Princess Beatrice of York, Prince Andrew, Duke of York and Princess Eugenie of York, Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, Sophie, Countess of Wessex.
Third row: Timothy Laurence, Peter Phillips, Daniel Chatto, Autumn Phillips, Lady Sarah Chatto, Prince Michael of Kent, Princess Michael (Christine) of Kent, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra, David Armstrong-Jones,
Viscount Linley, Serena Armstrong-Jones, Viscountess Linley, Birgitte Duchess Gloucester, Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester
Crowns who are especially good if they can exist in the celebrity culture. This is not a guide, but it helps. Just can not be exaggerated on the side of popularity, then worship strikes in contempt for, as we have seen in the scandal-years of the royal family. One can but trust Kate to be able to maintain the balance between soap opera and dignity.
Cover Girl, beating a world in thrall know have given us the Windsors of course all along. This applies to the family itself and for those who einheirateten into it. Elizabeth and Margaret, who later became Queen and her younger sister were in the 50s as being admired beauties of her era. They competed with characters such as Soraya of Persia, Princess Grace of Monaco, the former Grace Kelly, or other Hollywood stars.
Margaret played the extravagant, surrounded himself with actors and artists of the Alta Moda and demi-monde, a perpetual whirl of stars and starlets. It pictures that made them icons emerged: The Princess with her cigarettes, elegantly drawn on a long holder with silver tip, reminiscent of Audrey Hepburn, who had this image in the film “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” immortal.
Elizabeth in turn radiated nobility and beauty of it was from Cecil Beaton, the star photographer, remembered staged, most impressively on the day of her coronation, the 2nd June 1953. But already her Scottish mother, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, later the Queen Mother, had since her marriage in 1923 to Prince Albert, Duke of York and later King George VI., The magazine culture on their side and unleashed a veritable cult of their beauty, solidity, and their two daughters Elizabeth, born 1926 and 1930 (called Lilibet or better) and Margaret.
The Scot was the first to understand manipulate the hype to broadcast an image of healing Windsor World sent.
Picture books of homage
They let the dozen picture books of homage to write about her family, dripping with lard and hardly more comprehensible flattery. In the illustration was complete without the animals, including the corgis, the Welsh breed, which became world famous thanks to the royal family, and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, her daughters donated as a lasting passion.
“Our Princesses and Their Corgis, the book enriches the animal to cute photos from the family album of the Yorks, appeared in 1936, written by a certain Henry Chance, dedicated to” all children love the dogs. ” It is a classic example of the marketing of the Windsor Royals in the early years.
The author was one of eight four-legged, in the Royal Lodge in Windsor Great Park, the estate of the Duchess and her family just outside London, around romped the children and their parents: two Corgis, three Labradors, a Golden Retriever, a black Cocker Spaniel and a long-haired ball of the Tibetan “Lion” race.
“There is no unbefangenere royal family as ours,” the obsequious Mr. Chance, “writes so considerate, so devoid of artifice, rich in human qualities – it may well be that Dookie and Jane, reasonable as they are as Corgis, instinctively know what we know. “The cult of personality was at the leash, packed with syrup. Corgi and Bess.
came in the recent Modern Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales unfortunate that role, the House of Windsor to supply new Glamour and celebrity qualities. But with it we enter already fluctuating soil. We know that Miss Middleton, now Princess Catherine has studied exactly how her late mother was treated.
That it does not scare them, she gave in November 2010 to understand the first television interview that she and Prince William graduated together and in which they proudly showing off her engagement ring that Charles had given Diana Engagement. Not at all superstitious, she takes the ring as a happy omen that she, Kate Middleton, from a secure, coming close knit family, will suffer no fate as the mother of her future husband. Let your fingers crossed.
While at the time of the wedding of Charles and Diana, in July 1981, the “hard core” of the Windsors knew this decency not a love feast, the world was fooled then the image of a dream wedding. Archbishop Runcie, Primate of the Anglican Church, was apparently not privy – he would otherwise be able to justify the ritual of marriage, ignoring the summons, also in the Church of England precedes a marriage?
“Or forever hold his peace”
“Should anyone a reason to know who speaks against the union of these two people that he is held in front of his conscience, this express, or be silent forever.” “Or forever hold his peace,” says the equivalent in English – or give peace for ever. But the reason given was so long ago, his name was Camilla, now married Parker Bowles.
Instead, Runcie said in his homily, the fact that marriage is “a symbol of unity, a lifelong partnership,” and the pair represents a “representative figures of the nation, the fabric is knitted from the fairy tale”. The newspapers agreed. In The Times, one read: “The English throne is now identified with the model of a family life.” The “Daily Telegraph”. The royal family is a symbol for hope and the value containing our public life ”
One can read these comments today only with bitter melancholy. Especially when you consider that Diana once for her husband to task and that Camilla replied frustrated sentimentality: “If it were not for Camilla in my life, I would be the first Prince of Wales in history, would have had no mistress . Noblesse oblige, defined negatively, in terms of a dictum of the author Raymond Carr, one of the adultery as “described the pastime of the British aristocracy.
Only one vote suggested that in July 1981, which is not called by the “fairy tale”, as Archbishop Runcie catch it, did. It was Jan Morris, a renowned essayist, whose letter to The Times, the Journal on the morning of the wedding, 29 July 1981 published: “I hereby would like,” they wrote, “as a citizen of my disgust and my uneasy foreboding sign of the swagger, the extravagance and humility as they surrounded that day the wedding of the heir to the throne.”
The author, who later saw the prophecy of her words come true, said, in retrospect, it was believed at that time, “to witness the last days of the Romanovs,” the “vulgarity of emotions” have felt it to be “dirty and sinister” and many people would have written her that had been plagued by similar premonitions.
But in the same month, in the July edition of the magazine “Country Life” argued Marghanita Lasky, Cinderella – this is simply “a necessary feminine myth, and romance the beautiful unattainable, the fantasy of a life we ??would have liked a lot more attractive than the world as it really is. ”
Gap between the fantasy and real world
In the world of Catherine Middleton and her prince, it seems, there is no gap between the fantasy and the real world, the young couple has apparently found the Archimedean point from which to view life as a couple promises of success. Unlike Charles and Diana before the wedding they have been tested years of life together, a test on which both are grown. Nine years have passed since their first meeting at the Scottish University of St. Andrews, is also a time of separation, 2007.
In the said interview recapitulated the prince this long period of wait. “I wanted to be sure,” he said, “that Catherine gets the chance to see what life is like in my family. You should look into it and can leave the hands of them, if they did not deem it necessary – at least before everything would be too much for them. I try to learn from the past and give her the best way to experience them alone, as it looks on the other side. ”
Nothing illustrates the huge gap between today and the time it was thirty years better than this statement. Williams father was virtually from his father, the Duke of Edinburgh forced, after only a few months of dealing with the 19-year-old Diana Spencer, to explain to her or to cancel the relationship. No thought at a time of testing, a co-existence to get to know each other – not that Charles would have wanted, given his extra-marital flame.
If you watch the wedding of Kate and William on TV?
169 votes cast
If you watch the wedding of Kate and William on TV?
Karl Shaw has been in “Royal Babylon” formulated in 1999, what many today think in view of Charles and his lifelong relationship: “Compared with previous centuries Charles’ devotion to his mistress Camilla Parker-Bowles probably deserves the name of loyalty.” She was just more than the traditional mistress of the Prince of Wales. She was the beacon in his life.
This compatibility had not Diana and her husband. The couple was trapped in stereotypical ideas – she from a fairy tale that did not correspond to reality, he must save from the sense of duty, the succession of the royal family, and under completely antiquated terms. We look into the prehistory when reading a letter that Admiral Earl Mountbatten, Charles’ grandfather and mentor replacement, he wrote, when the Prince of Wales are still not sure of his bride pursued:
“A man like you,” said the Council should the 48 years older, “the horns kick and then find a delightful girl, and though this has before someone else found, in which it could fall in love. It’s really very annoying when women reach the podium with former life and persist after marriage do. “Expectations of an untouched virgin still haunted by the thought of the Windsors after the rest of society this idea as a conditio sine qua non of a long marriage had given up.
What happens when a young woman with no experience get onto royal dais and there left alone by the motto, “sink or swim”, learn to swim or go under, and in the shadow of a “woman with a past life” – that is the Diana chapter tragically demonstrated.
Travel through adaptation to modernity
William and Catherine are the most recent and significant example of how the monarchy in Great Britain by adaptation to modernity in each case gives new scope for their acceptability in a society in radical change.
The crown can not vote this change in all facets or mirrors, but they must face him at critical milestones, if it wants to survive it myself. This includes the opening up of the marriage option for the middle classes, as in the case of the Middleton family.
It should not last these developments attributed to the late effect of Williams mother Diana, for which they had said in the obituary in The Times: “In it, the world saw a new monarchy, spontaneous and thoroughly to the people, ignoring protocol, concerned about people .
Poetic it was Diana’s brother, Earl Spencer, expressed in the eulogy to his sister during the Requiem Mass at Westminster Abbey: “We will continue on the path have you rejected that your two boys so that their souls are not simply in duty and tradition sink, but can sing openly as you planned it. ”
In this sense, Prince William, as it lays with its Catherine from the vocal sample, what Diana would have approved wholeheartedly. The British welcome this turn of events almost fervently as they do in a large majority, that they may run out of reasons to retain the monarchy before.
Since they do not have to worry, now really, since it were clear the decks was made jelly for the future. However, if the British believe they are that are tradition and modernity in the right-Lot, they enjoy the antiquity of its monarchy with a particular passion – and the world with them.
Lesson for a bare presence
Since then a pomp and a development to be staged splendid forms, as it was necessary to provide the bare presence of a lesson and to bathe in patriotic continuity. Royal weddings have always been the pinnacle of such productions as Kate may lose weight with nervousness to the danger zone – it must be celebrated, it says on the curtain, may begin the Royal Theatre!
Even the patriarch of the British constitutional debate, Walter Bagehot had, in his seminal work of 1867, “The English Constitution,” emphasized the Bible texts of all the constitutional monarchy in England, this aspect specifically. Seductively catchy, he writes: “Even a family on the throne is a very interesting idea. Brings you what we proudly call sovereignty, down to the level of ordinary life. For example, could not feel his childish than the enthusiasm with which the English, the marriage of the Prince of Wales – the future Edward VII, on 10 Celebrated in March 1863.
There is nothing in human nature is more than that at least half of humanity has five times more favor at a wedding than a government. But all but a few cynics would rather see a pretty novel that makes you forget for a moment the sight of the gray-weight world. A prince wedding is the most brilliant emanation of this fact and as such, it simply binds all people. ”
Not bad prophesied anno 1867, this rate of Walter Bagehot (who, incidentally, pronounced “Badschet” which might be added, there is always recourse to him in the debate about the monarchy, even in this story).
What one should know that the “childish enthusiasm” at royal events could unfold only after the crown had made final on the way to a constitution, that is gradually lost all political power. This decreased the intimidation that was once assumed by the monarch. The disclosure of power won the head of state added a new quality: popularity.
“Power to popularity,” as the historian David Cannadine has called it – that was not a voluntary exchange. Parliament played rather the engine of this change, it pushed back the privileges of the monarch, piece by piece. And thus arose that paradox that the survival of the British monarchy is involved: The extent to which lost the throne of political influence, increased his popularity.
The subjects, once crouched, then rebellious, were now able to enjoy magnificent display of the crown again assured because the country had found its constitution as a constitutional monarchy at last. A long process since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which had limited the royal absolutism on the island for the first time.
Joy at the State Show
“The more we are more democratic, the more we enjoy of state show, which has always attracted the vulgar in us”, the incomparable Walter Bagehot wrote in an essay for the “Economist” in which he had worked several years as editor, with a quiet, wise ridicule. The monarchy, once the grace of God experienced by people worship a new flower.
In continental Europe, the monarchical history was different: the emperors and tsars in Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary were magnificent state appearances for the glory of their power – “in England they were possible because of the growing royal weakness,” writes David Cannadine. That was a wise concession to the history and the pressure for political reform, with the result that England’s monarchy, survived the continental empires were swept away, however.
Queen Victoria was not a big fan of public pomp and ceremony, the celebrations to mark their golden and diamond jubilee in 1887 and 1897, had to wrest the hesitant formally, she had hidden in the simplicity of their age and the incessant mourning for her beloved Albert dear. Her son, however, Edward VII loved the Royal Theatre, beyond measure, the Golden State Coach George III had. opening of Parliament dust and celebrated the occasion with due aplomb.
From its inability to affect even the contents of the policy speech, he drew the conclusion that the opening of Parliament to surround it with baroque splendor, with that form which still applies today. He was the choreographer of eye feasts. The Belle Époque in France was in England, “The Edwardian Age”. His son and successor, George V, sat down at the opening of parliament on top of that to the state crown, the Imperial State Crown, “which was two hundred years no longer have appeared.
After his father, George V, Edward VIII committed the great mistake of innovation to be understood as a stylistic adaptation to contemporary tastes. He loosened the dress code at court, went everywhere on the people, reduced by plays indiscretions the royal distance and completed his only opening of parliament in November 1936 by the coach in the house was and the latest model of car brand Daimler came along, not in royal regalia but in naval uniform and cocked hat on the head, the split public opinion.
Wallis Simpson, finally, he wanted to marry, not marry but by virtue of the political prerogatives of Parliament was allowed to be over. Only 325 days, Edward VIII was on the throne, he abdicated, on 11 December, was his younger brother George VI., The father of the present Queen, the scepter. We have just recently re-encountered him in the Movie “The King’s Speech.” George VI. took over from his brother and the planned date for this coronation, 12 May 1937. “Same date, different King,” said Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin laconic – the same date, but another king.
Not all the way, have always felt “childish enthusiasm” at the sight of royal splendor. This is especially true for the British “North of the border” – the Scots. One that does anything with this magic, rather they Budenzauber knew, was to begin, for example, Lady Strathmore, mother of the late Queen Mum.
Royalty-News as “fish food for sea lions”
This Scottish grandmother of the present Queen advised originally her daughter even from the engagement to Prince Albert, was Duke’s second-oldest of York and King’s son, from her but the court ceremonial only suspect, and the cheers of the masses in the corresponding events ever. “As far as I see it, some people need to be fed like royalty with fish food for sea lions,” she indicated to her daughter. Bagehot had something delicate describes the appeal to “the vulgar in us.”
The monarchy is part of the British DNA, who would doubt it. The Westminster Abbey, in the William and Catherine to be married next Friday, is the coronation church of all monarchs since William the Conqueror, 1066th Royalty much has been fed ever since the people, and 29 April there will be no different, except that this time, as early as 1953 at the coronation of Queen, the whole world is watching and wants. Because there are few institutions in the troubled world of today, who have such continuity as the monarchy in Britain. This makes their magic appeal.
In the Silver Jubilee of the Queen, 1977, wrote a living in Oslo Englishman, who had witnessed the celebrations of the TV remote, to his mother: “The Royal Family, the head of the class system is out of Scandinavian perspective as an obstacle in the way of progress in the UK pace. So why celebrate? Is there a kind of escapism from the problems of economic misery? Is it because the monarchy them to a period of rapid change, a symbol of stability? ”
This was a critical packaged reference to an immanent truth: Continuity is the signal word of the crown, her strongest asset – of course, a continuity that provide from time to time their proof of versatility has enabled her to remain in the theater program of the nation, in fact, not such as “escapism” looks like. “If everything should remain as it is, has to change everything,” says Tomasi di Lampedusa’s novel “The Leopard” Tancredi, the nephew of Prince Fabrizio.
In fact, who would have thought that in 2005 the heir to the throne Prince Charles, divorced, his former lover, also divorced Camilla Parker-Bowles would be able to marry without the throne in order to bring in danger? 1936 broke through the wish of Edward VIII to marry the twice-divorced American Wallis Samson, the biggest constitutional crisis in modern British history from. Even Princess Margaret had 1955 on her great love, Captain Peter Townsend, reuse, because he was divorced.
Buckingham Palace has already in 1997 a website – www.royal.gov.uk can, where you get the facts and information in more than ample quantity -. But there is probably no set of deeper concern than the royal “mission statement”, with the award, the Court his understanding of himself “. The monarchy is the permanence of stability of the nation, it exceeds the ebb and flow of party politics” As in the 19. Century, an exchange took place, in which the crown is popular with the relinquishing of power einhandelte, including the record contains a hidden web page on the Royal Exchange:
Democracy, actually built on equality of opportunity for all moves, at the head of state a considerable distance from that rule in that it is delivering the highest office in the lineage of blood and kinship, not at the meritocratic principle is but stability, continuity and freedom from political influence
The monarchy as a “camouflage”
Once again, we must strive Walter Bagehot, in his seminal work “The English Constitution:” The constitutional monarchy has a special feature that I look at as their biggest – it serves as camouflage. It allows the real rulers of the land, come and go without the careless large amount of it Notes. “That’s it.
Which Briton, unless it is politically special training, can recite the twelve prime ministers who have governed since 1953 under the Queen – or among them, to put it in the light of the actual balance of power in a constitutional monarchy? But they know, without exception, who for almost 60 years without the “Royal Republic” – is responsible – what the United Kingdom for its democratic form is.
Republic or monarchy? In debate is endless, but with unequal weights: The “Republicans” have an average of no more than nineteen percent approval can notch up in the more than forty years, which benefits from Sir Robert Worcester with his market research company MORI for the Buckingham Palace polls.
The monthly magazine “Prospect” published in its new issue, a survey by the Institute “YouGov, which requires a month of the royal wedding, a fundamentally anti-monarchical voice just to 13 percent is, while a clear 65 percent behind the Queen and her continuation in office.
Since his second marriage, 2005, Prince Charles has recovered from its lows: there were still 41:37 percent, would rather see William as his next in line to the throne, so the ratio has been reversed – with 45:37 to his favor.
Charles has mainly thanks to its operations in the field of charity – which applies to the royal family as a whole, have the obligations of obeying “Welfare Monarchy” – a solid reputation as an extremely efficient and successful purchase. Never a royal apprentice was better for his future role as king than he prepared, and has been for 42 years, since his appointment to the Prince of Wales 1969th
Skip question is not anyway – the succession is no beauty contest, so much time and again opinion polls on the succession of Queen are employed, they are irrelevant. interrupting the line of succession is as absurd as the idea that the Queen assigns. In any case, would decide the Parliament as well as 15 Commonwealth countries, in which along with Britain, the Queen is also head of state.
The question is of course purely theoretical: The Parliament will never send the owner of the throne early retirement, there have been no two rulers living side by side. If the Queen due to illness no longer be able to carry out their duties, Charles would by virtue of the “Regency Act Regent, but never king until his mother was still alive.
An irrational relationship?
The historian Robert Lacey says that the relationship to the British Crown “in the depths of irrational” is. But inherent in this irrationality a good portion Ratio: the idea expressed or not, which would lose one if you trade in this world to a presidential system of representation, and how on such an occupation of the head of state once again the “ebb and flow of party politics” would be exposed as the site of Buckingham Palace puts it.
Germany seen as a regular political fight over the the next President and has even, as happened recently, to see how one of them gave up the post easily. Such fluctuations is not a hereditary monarchy suspended, and the abdication of Edward VIII, 1936, was a major exception, he puts the country today as a warning to the bone.
Denis Healey, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer under Labour, summarized the arguments against a British President once in two words: “Margaret Thatcher”. That was a joke with an entire essay as content. In return, Harold Macmillan, Prime Minister made from 1957 to 1963, a pleasure to lead a friend to vividly remember how that was, if only once more would be no monarch since:
“Sometimes you the moment of,” said Macmillan, “if instead of the Queen a gentleman in a badly fitting coat, perhaps from London’s suit hire MosBros before us would, and this man stalked as back and forth, the chosen product of a sordid wheeling and dealing between the political right and left …! Well, let him go, we prefer to wait for the next little guy – who is it? , X must be the one who is such a miserable Finance Minister, we shove him but simply from the presidency, “whispers the political class. Can you imagine? No, it makes absolutely no sense, it would be the final destruction of our life and feelings about the past of our country. ”
One can address the question under populist angle, such as the second rainy June 1953, the Coronation of Queen to project a presidential system: it would be unthinkable that people would camp out for the procession of a president at night on rainy streets to catch a better look.
Maybe would Mick Jagger or a British Lady Gaga just questioning, but they only for the narrow circle of young people or those contemporaries who are a rock band like the Rolling Stones have become large. A genealogy would not, and the prospect that British history is narrated by means of changing rulers, such as a national family romance would be a lost for all time.
The crown holds together the Commonwealth
Also is considered certain that a presidential the Commonwealth could hardly continue to exist. The 54 members are indeed held together by a common loyalty to the British crown, and sixteen of them at the same time recognizing the Queen as head of state. This clamping would lapse if the UK changing presidents at the head of state would go on. No wonder then that has Elizabeth II in her office the Commonwealth always given a high priority, which is almost never seen outside the island.
Nevertheless, the court can not and will not rest on seemingly solid ground of acceptance, just the longevity of the institution of monarchy can arouse fears that one day explodes all like a dream. For this moment, Prince Philip has been many years before the pre-emptive comment delivered in 1969, during a trip to Canada, at a press conference in the capital Ottawa, and he meant it to refer to trends in the long royalist country from the Commonwealth to weave and the Queen as head of state, as it declare termination.
But his words were also directed at domestic audiences, in a still unknown future of the jury: “If you do not want us, let us not end the relationship so kind as to the dispute. The future of the crown depends on each individual belonging to their national family. If one of them decides that this is no longer acceptable for them, then they should change it. It depends on the people themselves. ”
Also, a fortiori, to the British, on the mainland of the crown. Elizabeth II, who will next year celebrate its Diamond Jubilee, which was reached in front of her only once, by Queen Victoria in 1897 – has the everlasting Queen over the years developed a good ear for underground currents to watch out for , to quiet grumbling and not too quiet criticism of the shortcomings of the court. You can then, if need be, very easy to quickly change.
In 1992, when a scandal rocked by one the royal family, Charles and Diana their separation announced so, unfortunately in the late fall and even Windsor Castle was on fire, held the Queen one of those speeches in which she opens a crack, her heart and reveal what makes them tick. This is usually closed strictly behind that neutrality which it believes the Office and the wider society to be guilty. “Just because we do not know what she thinks the queen is so successful,” added Sir Maurice Shock, British historian, aptly.
In November 1992, at a dinner in the City of London, which gave the Lord Mayor of Elizabeth, it was different. Half-jokingly, half deeply moved, she called the past year her “annus horribilis” and continued as if speaking to himself: “No institution should consider himself free from the scrutiny of those who give their loyalty and support. Such adjustment can be critical, so, should also serve as an effective tool for change “The change was not long in coming.:
Soon after the Buckingham Palace announced that the royal family as all companies would pay taxes on its real estate, except it was the crown so far. The tax issue had grown to number one bone of contention, and that with a family that seemed like nothing more than a better record broken marriages and outrageous performances of the younger members of the royal family.
The biggest shock of the monarchy
Five years later the monarchy suffered their greatest shock, it seemed as the queen for a short time after the death of her daughter as confused, given the overwhelming demonstration of the popular mourning for the “Queen of Hearts,” Diana. Elizabeth has her life hung in the immanence of the royal office, sometimes up to a degree disembodiment its human dimension – then it acts like a slot machine performance, Code of an institution in a timeless dress. In September 1997, but ran the risk of Queen, about the moment, the eye view, the emotional force of the here and now to miss out entirely.
For the presentation of a timeless institution is only part of the royal job description. The other is as timeless, but of another kind: that the Queen as head of a democratic polity owe her so inaccurate named “subjects” accountable. A monarchy that clings to the abstraction of the office, but ignored the people “that matter”, as Prince Philip in Canada had rightly pointed out, would have its most important function is lost and could not survive.
Of which had to be convinced Elizabeth II in a short time before it on the Friday before the funeral of Diana’s moving in a televised address to her people the sound, met the man she – owed – and democracy.
1997 was also the year of their golden wedding anniversary, and again took an invitation to the Queen in her honor by the Lord Mayor of London and argued on that occasion a revealing confession, far-reaching as their “confession” five years earlier. “As the government and the monarchy exists solely because of the support and consensus in the population,” she began, to continue with an almost envious look at the world of politics:
“Agreement to politicians is decided at the ballot box. But for us, the royal family, the message is often more difficult to read, but it can be obscured by deference, rhetoric, and the conflicting currents of public opinion. But we must read. ”
And how – the accusation that the monarchy was out-of-touch, have lost the touch with real people, should be invalidated. The Queen returned from a Glasgow family to tea drinking, met with the editors of the “Financial Times” for lunch in the city, the Monetary Policy Committee visited the Bank of England and a new production of the musical “Oklahoma” and looked in radio and TV studios and met at the publishing house Bloomsbury’s flagship author JK Rowling.
Even in tourist areas of their kingdom Elizabeth was on a weekend some members of her family swarm, to promote “Visit Britain”, the official tourism agency in the country.
Fourteen years later
Fourteen years have passed since the shock 1997, the Golden Jubilee in 2002 was like a new pledge allegiance between the Crown and the people. Once again, it is Prince Philip, the prophet who can see our interview with a confirmed statement from the distant past. “I dare say,” he said in 1968 that “if we once got really antique, we expected a bit more reverence to be met with.”
He said as a 47-year-old – the 90-year-old, he will be in June, experienced the fulfillment of this prophecy, his sloppy. The new not undeserved respect is that the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will provide their duties with impressive regularity – 444 public events was true last year, Elizabeth, 356 her husband for the fall is both their 16th Travel to Australia provided the British crown, a perpetual motion machine.
As they only bring the physical stability for their appearances, the Queen once during a state visit to the United States, 1976, said the wife of the accompanying Foreign Minister Anthony Crosland said: “Look, Susan,” and she lifted her dress slightly above the ankle, “to plant his feet so on, always parallel. You only have to consider that the weight is evenly distributed. “Snap, of course. 85 years old, non-stop for sixty years in the duty, and always nice to keep the feet parallel. That’s all
Such matters is the couple who wants to go down in the Westminster Abbey of the knot, the long-term happiness slipping away. Prince William does not think it, to want to move up ahead to the throne – he had already stated in that interview in November 2010 that would take up “of course” his father to the throne, at what age whatsoever. Moreover, it is not forgotten how in 1952, the 25-year-old Elizabeth had to inherit their father suddenly and neglected sheer State requirements, the education of their children. This track would like to follow the Prince and his Anzu marriage end in any case.
They are on their honeymoon, the goal is still kept secret for two years leading the married life of a military couple, up in northwest Wales, on the island of Anglesey, where William is stationed with his flying unit RAF Valley, near the village of Rhosneigr, the Windsor Prince in his capacity as a helicopter rescue pilot unit.
What a contrast to 29 April: In Anglesey are William and Kate have disappeared from the radar screen of public and enjoy the quiet debut of newly married, as had been his grandparents’ time, after their wedding in 1947, when Elizabeth and her husband on Philips naval base in Malta, two of her happiest years can bring.
By Catherine Middleton says soon anyway just what Admiral Nelson called out to his captains before the Battle of Trafalgar: “England expects”. Although no naval victory over France, but “spare heir to and a” – to a royal heir and a spare. It may also be a girl, because Parliament is now being discussed by the old “primogeniture” Succession to abandon that only the first male offspring would be heir to the throne, and for that future to allow even first-born female.
Another step in the modern era, however, this possible only with the consent of the Commonwealth. Are still far these days. Charles and William as heirs to the throne, the British monarchy in the foreseeable future has already outdated now. May the love of the young couple glorify the prospect.
Thomas Kielinger released in October 2011 in CH Beck Verlag, Munich, a biography of the Queen against the background of the British monarchy in the 20th story Century.