Thursday, 19 May 2016 12:54

Prince Harry favored over Kate Middleton's William, for kingship

Written by
Rate this item
(9 votes)

The natives are getting restless.

Make that, the Canadians are getting restless.


Pundits in Toronto, Canada, which still counts as part of Queen Elizabeth II’s Commonwealth, are debating whether Prince Harry would make a better future king-in-waiting than his dour older brother, Prince William.   

William passed from his subjects’ affections a while back when he became enmeshed in the Middletons’ much-chronicled “normal family life.”  But in the long years (almost a decade) leading up to Prince William’s engagement and marriage to Kate Middleton, that “normal family life” leaked an image that was anything but.  

Newspapers chronicled the Middleton family’s slurry webs of Casa de Bang-Bang and a “party” balloons and paper plates business that many suspect is some kind of front to launder more nefarious profits from Carole Middleton’s colorful brother, Uncle Gary Goldsmith, who was filmed chopping up cocaine on his kitchen table and offering to hook up undercover reporters with sexy, beautiful prostitutes anywhere in the world.  Top this off with three lazy, work-shy offspring, freebie costly clothes, accessories, and even luxury cars.  Add in those million dollar Mustique beach villa getaways, two pregnancies that appear to be faked, and Carole drinking wine at a “Royal” event from a plastic bottle inside her purse.  The cherry on top is Kate’s refusal to keep her skirts down, showing everyone her back-and-frontal patootie while on official Crown visits.  

Not even doggie Lupo can redeem them– and that is a big deal in a nation of animal lovers like England.

So now, many of their subjects just call their supposed future king “Willie the Wanker” or “Billy Middleton,” and his wife is merely “Kate Middleton” or “Duchess of Dolittle.”  The alternative moniker for both is “The Lazy Duo.”

Even Canada is taking a closer look at Prince Harry, who seems to have left his more riotous frolicking days behind him, and appears to be far more likeable, far more personable, and work harder than “The Lazy Duo.”

The notion of William leapfrogging over his father, Charles, Prince of Wales, into kingship is not even talked about anymore, except for people to say, “No, we don’t want that!”

Charles and Camilla are clearly being prepared to succeed to the Throne.  Countess Cam looks fab in great big hats and great big tiaras dripping with diamonds.  People would rather than Diana had never died and had stayed in love with Charles (or “whatever ‘in love’ means”), but it cannot ever be, so Countess Cam has been begrudgingly accepted British writer, Christopher Andersen, posits that Queen Elizabeth will abdicate in favor of her eldest son– perhaps any day, now that her 90th birthday celebrations have concluded, and the nation is still intoxicated with a monarchy “high.” 

As if the idea of abdication alone were not enough to sell books, Andersen includes the firecracker that “the Prince of Wales would have to accept what amounts to a self-imposed term limit on his reign...for no more than fifteen years.”  That way, Charles would be “well into his eighties” and William “could then be crowned king at a comparatively youthful fifty.”

But Prince William and Kate Middleton already LOOK as though they are fifty!

And counting!

And people look at their son, Prince George, with his mop of bleached blonde hair, and wonder what the real story is here.  The only photos released of George and his younger sister, Charlotte, are taken by “Duchess Catherine” (a title that the greater British public steadfastly refuse to use for Kate), and these are just one or two, painfully eked out every year.

The Lazy Duo claims that this is all about “privacy” and “family normalcy,” but many suspect that William and Kate fear that too much public viewing will reveal the cracks in their Happy Royal Family facade.  Perhaps this includes issues of paternity– or perhaps not.  But Royal children are generally celebrated, and the idea is not to cosset them but to introduce them to their duties and stations in life as early as possible, so as to avoid those personal crises that lead to constitutional crises down the road.

Royalty thrives on tradition, but it also survives upon being prepared.

More important to why The Lazy Duo and their offspring are so generally unappealing to the British public is because The Lazy Duo look aged, sullen in each other’s presence, and outright angry much of the time.  When they open their mouths, it is either to gape (which is their mutual manner of appearing to smile– a toothy grimace) or to utter some kind of empty, vapid comment.  Their children, even as infants, have that raw, puffy-eyed pink-faced look as though they spend a great deal of time crying.

The Lazy Duo don’t seem to be very happy.  Who wants such sullen faces printed on the stamps and money, and etched into the coin of the realm?

Prince Harry, always buoyant and ready with a smile that radiates genuine happiness, is often shoved in at photo ops to make The Lazy Duo more palatable to the public.  The public won’t throw shoes or boo The Lazy Duo if Prince Harry is around because, frankly, Prince Harry is beloved by England.

He has “it.”

Blame it on his mother, the late, great Princess Diana, but honestly, we just don’t really know where Prince Harry’s “it” quality comes from.  He hasn’t always had it.  It’s been his gift of adulthood.  But if the British public were to vote tomorrow on its future monarch, Prince Harry would win by a landslide.

As a result, there is now a relentless “selling” of The Lazy Duo as the monarchy’s future.  Kate is being touted as “England’s first true commoner queen,” which quite misses the point that the British do not want their monarchs to be “common.”  The whole notion of having a monarch is that they are an exceptionally special, unique personage, traditionally chosen by God and in effect, the very presence of God.

Otherwise, just elect your commoners and call Britain a “republic.”

Or, go with the fellow who has “it” and pop a crown on his head, quickly, before he heads off to other endeavors.  

Remember Alfred Tennyson’s wondrous “Idylls of the King?”  And then later, the Disney cartoon version, “The Sword in the Stone?”  The true king isn’t necessarily born first into a line– the true king is REVEALED by a test.  Arthur, a lowly, orphaned stable boy, pulls the sword from the stone, and shows himself to be “the one” who has “it.” 

Crowning a king by popular acclaim or even ordeal (like a fight to the death) hasn’t happened in Britain recently, but it has been done in the dark and murky Anglo-Saxon past.  Often, it’s how “the people” asserted themselves– short of revolution.  And then, there was a violent revolution, which is how Oliver Cromwell came to power and Britain’s short experiment with non-monarchical democracy commenced.

Charles I’s head rolled, and many people died.

Perhaps a more popular monarch might have spared Britain its political experiment.

People who don’t want Prince William and his wife as their ruler are speaking up in ever-growing numbers.  They may well tolerate Prince Charles for fifteen years, but the once and future king they crave is King Harry.

If have a king they must, then Harry is the king the British people want.

But will William be the king the British people get?

As Queen Elizabeth enters her ninth decade, the natives are getting restless.

Sarah Whalen

sarahw2Sarah Whalen is a university journalism instructor, attorney and author.

Login to post comments



Dead Pelican

Optimized-DeadPelican2 1 1