But do you like what will likely come after her?
Let’s see, that would be Prince Charles and his Princess Consort, Camilla. I know they were adulterers and all, and ruined Princess Diana’s life, and it greatly upset me at the time. But being a royal watcher person, I tend to think that Prince William and his...his, whatchamacallit, Kate Middleton and her family gang of graspers and hangers-on, well, honestly, my thoughts on this succession are....
Bring on the adulterers!
Yes! They don’t seem so bad now, do they? They show up, often smiling, they seem mature, Camilla, mercifully, has shown her naked derriere only to her co-adulterer, and she doesn’t stroke her frontal lady parts in public. I imagine that those nether regions are off-limits to everyone but her co-adulterer, so I have almost made my peace with Charles and Camilla, as much as any Diana-loving, anonymous member of the tabloid-reading public can.
So, even given my love of Queen Elizabeth II and her adulterer son and his adulteress wife, something really interesting about the difference between the United Kingdom and us, as in “the U.S.,” passed my way today, and in the spirit of democracy versus the uhm...., well, it isn’t really a monarchy, is it? I mean, Brits have elections and they freely elect Members of Parliament called “MPs” and the like, and they have a Prime Minister who is sort of like a president, except they can un-elect him or her when he or she becomes unpopular.
It may be a good thing that we Americans don’t have quite that much power and freedom, because I don’t think I could keep track of all the different presidents we’d have.
And I think we all vote way too much, as it is! I mean, in Louisiana, we vote our mayors in and out, our governor, our lieutenant governor, all those congressmen and senators and then we aren’t even to the parish officials yet, the sheriff, the...the, well, the whole lot. I forgot to mention the judges, too! School board officials, property assessors, city council, and on and on and on....
Anyway, I want share this interesting statement about British democracy, so here it is: “After the May election every MP will have to walk into the House of Commons, raise their hand and say:
‘I ...blah-blah-blah, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.’”
And I started to wonder: Do British MPs have to bow and scrape and render “true allegiance” to Jug Ears and his Rottweiler, Williekins and Her Hineyness, Baby Boy Peroxide, Prince Long-Teeth-and-Sex-Capades, Prince No-I’m-Not-Gay, Countess-Fake-Arab-Sheik, Princesses Flying Saucer Hats, and the whole lot of them? Technically, aren’t they all “heirs?”
No, no, no! I mean, THESE Canadian ones: http://us.hellomagazine.com/specials/peterandautumn/; http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/5-years-later-peter-and-autumn-still-rule-7112.
And what about all their spouses and ex-spouses? If you are reading this, then you KNOW who they are.
But just in case, here is a peek: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/equestrianism/9426909/Captain-Mark-Phillips-breaks-silence-over-affair-with-rider-30-years-his-junior.html; http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20114647,00.html;http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/421196/Sarah-Ferguson-flies-in-from-the-cold-as-Queen-invites-her-to-stay.
Now, it may be easier to “be faithful and bear true allegiance” to a royal someone whom the public genuinely likes, like Prince Harry. I mean, feelings have softened for Harry because he seems quite nice, he’s handsome, reminds us of his mother, is dashing and naughty at the same time, reminds us of his mother, oh, did I say that already? I for one, being an American and a Republican generally, would like for him to be an heir, and even “the” heir, regardless of his true paternity because I think that mixing up the royal gene pool is good for everyone once in a while– as long as it isn’t those Goldsmith and Middleton genes that brought us Uncle Gary and James “Lookee--There’s a P----s Under My Dress!” http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/kate-middletons-brother-james-caught-camera-wearing-polka-dot-dress-1432887; http://www.thefrisky.com/2011-05-05/james-middleton-in-the-nude/.
But then again, don’t go by me, because I was really rooting for Prince Harry to marry Chelsy Davy, that sexy, blond Zimbabwean bombshell with the big smile and big heart. Chelsy strikes me as a gal who knows exactly where her crotch is, wouldn’t show her bum to anyone but Prince Harry, once the ring was on her finger, and honestly, I think that Prince Harry quite misses her. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-491552/Lonely-Leeds-The-REAL-story-Chelsy-Davys-miserable-university-life.html;http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2346477/Did-Chelsy-Davy-steal-Prince-Harrys-ex-turns-heads-society-wedding-revealing-bridesmaids-dress.html;
Nowadays, they only seem to meet up at aristocratic weddings and funerals. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2910231/Prince-Harry-s-ex-Chelsy-Davy-shops-Boots-just-days-glamorous-trip-races-Cape-Town.html; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2346623/Prince-Harry-caught-Chelsy-Davy-Cressida-Bonas-wedding-Harry-Potter-heiress.html.
But wasn’t that just how the recent royal adulterers lived, for years and years?
But what’s weird is that beautiful, sexy Chelsy seems to be morphing into...Kate Middleton! Yikes! NO, Chelsy, NOoooooooooo!http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2910231/Prince-Harry-s-ex-Chelsy-Davy-shops-Boots-just-days-glamorous-trip-races-Cape-Town.html.
I guess if American had lost its revolution, and my Irish granny’s parents hadn’t gotten tired of starving and being slapped around by brutal landowners, or, gosh, maybe if my Irish granny had been a Protestant, or a member of the Illuminati, well, my whole outlook would be so...so different.
But instead, reading that little smidgeon of text about having to “be faithful and bear true allegiance” to, well, honestly, I mean, I quite like the Queen, but to “her heirs and successors,” well, I began to wonder, what would it feel like to have to say that about Obama and...uhm, She-of-the-Long-Hard-Face and their scowling offspring? What if we get saddled with a Clinton Dynasty, and it’s Bill-in-the-Shadows followed by eight years of Hilary, and then we must pay homage to overpaid Chelsea and that squirrel who keeps following her, and the baby they made? What if we get stuck with a Bush Dynasty, and it never, ever ends?
I haven’t liked the Bush Dynasty since they expelled Neil Bush’s wife, Sharon, from their midst. Sharon had a lot of personality and put Neil under a voodoo curse, and anyone who can do that, well, that is pretty gutsy and intriguing. Then, after mourning the loss of her marriage and getting a face lift or an eye-tuck or something on some other body part that appeared to perk her right up, Sharon then got engaged to a Chinese billionaire who gave her a, oh, I think it was...eleven, twelve, well, eleven-point-seven carat canary diamond engagement ring, and when they broke it off, Sharon refused to give the ring back because she said it had been her Christmas present! http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2008/02/raoul_felder_invokes_indian_gi.html.
So hey, all you guys out there getting engaged– remember that, if you want to get your expensive diamond ring back if things don’t go well, make sure to buy your fiancé a separate Christmas or birthday present! http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/fashion/weddings/05field.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
Or else, in the words of Sharon Bush’s attorney, you will be “a Native American-Giver” if things don’t work out and you try to get the ring back. http://nypost.com/2008/02/14/giver-worst/.
Sharon also said she’d had the ring appraised and that her Chinese billionaire fiancé had either lied about its worth, or paid way too much. But whether it cost two-hundred-thousand or almost five-hundred-thousand dollars, isn’t it a token of the love that once was, and will never be forgotten? That is surely why she wanted to hang on to this precious keepsake. And then, her Chinese billionaire boyfriend-former-fiancé just up and...died! Which made that ring all the more precious a memento for Sharon.
Love that Sharon Bush!
I always remember the immortal words of that late, great marriage expert, Zsa Zsa Gabor, who famously said, “Why of course, Darling, I always give the ring back, I just keep the stone!” Except with Zsa Zsa, it came out, “Vhyy off course, Dahhlink, I all-vayz giff zee ring back, I just take out all zee diamonds!” http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/311501.Zsa_Zsa_Gabor.
Zsa Zsa struck me as a woman who really should have been queen of something. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2001/07/zsa-zsa-200107.
Anyway, back to “being faithful and bearing true allegiance” to the Queen and all her heirs and successors. How far does it go? Does it include unprosecuted accused sex molesters? Does it include drunk and disorderly persons? Does it include stockbrokers? Art appraisers? Diet peddlers? Women who publicly grab their crotches, stuff sweaters down their dress fronts, and show off their nether regions while on royal tours? Waiters and spacemen and the like, if they somehow “marry in” and get into the line? Petty and pretentious pratts? And what ABOUT those Canadians?
Or should I say, “Ahh-BOOT?” Because I have Canadians in my family, and I know how they talk. The ones who don’t talk French, I mean. They did eventually let the Protestants marry in, although nobody calls them “Protestants” because they say they are “English Catholics,” so now our family dynasty is not as it once was, and we have all manner of religions slugging it out, which makes holidays interesting and we do now celebrate more than one Easter. In fact, so inter-married are we now that my family is quite the model for peace in Ireland, and I am a cradle COE, but born and living in a Roman Catholic culture, which I only slip in here because some folks are asking about it.
But enough about me and my own personal heirs and successors.
Anyway, British Republicanism is beginning to raise its head again, and on this precise issue about whether to “be faithful and bear true allegiance” to the Queen’s “heirs and successors.”
People who don’t want to do that can support Republicanism by sending in money, and in return, they may receive all manner of largess, like...a key chain, or a mug, a T-shirt that says, “Citizen, Not Subject,” or even an umbrella which, so cleverly, says, “Stop the Reign” when you open it up. http://bornequal.org/shop/product/stop-reign-umbrella.
Remember that BayouBuzz brought it to you first!
But I do so likey Her Majesty. Will a monarchless British democracy arise from her demise?
If the survival of British monarchy were put to a vote that I could vote in, I might vote for the adulterers.
But maybe not for what would come after them, unless it would be Prince Harry and Princess Blond Bombshell.
Let me know what that key chain looks like!