Add another to the many things I don’t understand about people: why did the newspapers and TV networks in the US find it necessary to savage yesterday’s wedding of Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall?
Punch-drunk from its latest necrophiliac love-fest, i.e., the obsessive, sempiternal coverage of Terry Schiavo and Pope JP II, perhaps the media is out of practice in reporting events that are, at their core, happy.
As the story goes, Prince Charles was unduly persuaded to abandon the love of his life, Camilla Shand Parker Bowles, back in the days when he was the world’s most eligible bachelor.
So, Charles married the young girl who met the rigorous standards for royal consortship at the time – titled, pretty, a virgin. As we all know, Diana Spencer became one of the most beautiful, admired and glamorous women in the world.
But rather than prance about like the usual self-satisfied, middle-aged rich guy with a trophy wife, Charles fled from a marriage that had become intolerable, perhaps because of the difference in ages, perhaps because he and his wife had so little in common besides social class – who but the parties involved really knows.
He chose, instead, to have a love affair – a REAL love affair – with an unpretentious, unphotogenic, country life-loving woman who is (heavens!) older than himself. And why?
Again, as the story goes, it was for reasons like their shared interests and backgrounds. The fact that she always put him first. Perhaps her reported wit and liveliness. Not to mention physical passion.
Sounds to me like the basis of a pretty successful marriage.
So, over 30 years later, throughout which this couple’s love and affection have endured unimaginable pressures, they finally tied the knot in a legal civil ceremony followed by a prayer service attended by family, friends, political figures and presided over by the head of their Church.
Sounds to me like affirmation of their decision by everyone who matters, including and most especially their children.
So why, then, did the media find this offensive? Why did literally all the outlets choose to mire themselves in:
– the all-too-familiar pattern of necrophilia in the form of repetitive films and stories about Wedding the First and the departed Princess of Wales (killed as the result of being chauffered by an allegedly drunk driver who was trying to escape – the press);
– petulant comments from Friends of Di with axes to grind;
– snide and not especially clever critiques of the ladies’ haberdashery (oh, who cares?!), the choice of Scotland as a honeymoon locale (especially offensive to me, the descendent of Highlanders), the “finger food” luncheon (would have suited grandson James and I, who enjoy grazing rather than full meals), etc., etc.;
– dire predictions of bad weather(in fact, the weather was fine);
– smug chortling because the wedding was postponed (a day, to allow Charles to represent his country at JPII’s funeral);
– nasty pot-shots about the deficiencies of the guest list (the Queen? the Prime Minister?);
– incomprehensible criticism of the venue (the prayer service was held in the magnificent St. George’s chapel, a setting that I dare say would have delighted most couples).
I think the coverage of the wedding reflected the press’s underlying misogyny, hostility to “older” high-visibility couples (as if every public person who isn’t young and glamorous should take hemlock) and, perhaps, even envy – if half the married people in this country are unhappy enough to get divorced, probably half the “journalists” covering the royal wedding are in the same boat.
Perhaps that accounts for their nasty, biased coverage of what was a magical event: the triumph of an enduring love shared by two mature adults who committed to a lifelong partnership – in spite of relentless criticism by the mean and the petty.
I don’t know very many people who have the strength of character to have done the same. Do you?