April 11, 2005

Some Bubble Bursting

So Charles and Camilla have married. Where have all those been, who are vilifying the former Mrs PB now, when the unspeakable "Queen of Hearts" was corrupting an entire generation of women and girls with her lack of dignity, obsessive self-centeredness and doubtful taste? She was a bad mother (it is well known that she drew her then small children into her marital problems), a bad wife, who did the worst to her husband any wife can do, namely to have a child by another man, she was bad -- make that downright contraproductive -- in her job as Princess of Wales and deliberately tried to harm the institution that made her. As the, usually spot-on, Private Eye put it cynically: "In recent weeks (not to mention the last ten years) we at the Daily Gnome ... may have inadvertently conveyed the impression that the late Princess of Wales was in some way a neurotic, irresponsible and manipulative troublemaker who had repeatedly meddled in political matters that did not concern her and personally embarrassed Her Majesty The Queen by her Mediterranean love-romps with the son of a discredited Egyptian businessman."

Please all your republicans out there, put aside just for a moment your (understandable) thoughts of "serves them right".

Not C+C have "destroyed" two marriages, Her Sanctimoniousness has (and not JUST two). Camilla had married Andrew Parker Bowles, a notorious womanizer, because, at that time, she thought that Charles would never marry her, and the PBs had made quite a go of that marriage. About the mutual conditions and agreements we can only guess. And NO, I am NOT advocating adultery (should it have happened) as a way of life, all I am saying is that life is not always as easy as those who have never been bothered by temptation say it is.

Charles, too, had seriously tried to make a go of his marriage, until beatific "Di" drove him back to his lifelong confidante, friend and love with her antics, obsessive demands and unfaithfulness. Everybody seems to forget that it was SHE who was unfaithful first. All that is in the public domain for everybody to know. (By the way, I am of the oldfashioned opinion that a woman has greater responsibility regarding marital faith for the simple reason that she can become pregnant. If that is a "double standard", so be it.)

I was touched by the dignified way in which Mrs PB endured all the trashing by the media and the fact that she never draw attention to herself. I am disgusted by the ever-recurring snide remarks about her looks (or the lack thereof) and that by an otherwise politically correct mob, mind you, whose members would otherwise swear to their death that "looks don't matter". Every society with its values in the right place would disregard anything like that. But any society with its values in the right place wouldn't have elevated that unspeakable "Di" to quasi-holyness because she was such a stunner to look at in the first place.

God let Mother Teresa die at the same time to bring the blasphemous mob back to their senses -- to no avail.

Next: Any comparison of Camilla with the Duchess of Windsor, whose unspeakablyness beats even Diana's by several lengths, is totally and utterly off the mark. Wallis Simpson was a whore. No, not metaphorically (that too), she was what would be called later a call girl. An expensive hooker. THAT was the main reason why the then Duchess of York, later to become The Queen Mother, was so adamantly against her. Her being American and a divorcée was, so to say, just the icing on the cake. "The woman I love" my behind! An article in a backnumber of the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel informs us that Wallis had learned the tricks of the trade in the brothels of Hongkong where she had lived with her first husband. She had a rather colourful past and realized soon that sex would be her only way to get to where she intended to be. It helped her to climb socially and to crack David (Edward) sexually. She had had affairs with countless other important men, before, coinciding with, and after Edward, notabene with Ribbentrop, then German ambassador to Britain, as well. She was the go-between between Nazi-sympathizer Edward and Ribbentrop. I guess the line between a "socialite" and an upmarket whore is thinner than a lot of people think it is.The last paragraph of the article, which I translate, is telling:
The love story of the century hardened into a marriage of defiance, to a melancholic monument of itself. We remember them from their later photos as two dour luxury lapdogs whom a spiteful master called "Fate" had bound together.
I am disgusted as well by the unfair treatment Charles got in the process. Don't get me wrong, I think he is a weak man and a politically correct imbecile who backs any lost, fatuous and even dangerous cause out of the goodness of his heart and, as I said before, I wouldn't have thought that the old thing had it in him to hold sway when it came to his marriage to Camilla.

But whatever! Many Happy returns of your anniversary, C+C!


fpb said...

A Private Eye-certified tale about Diana Spencer's child-rearing skills: little William and littler Harry are fighting over the possession of a wholly inappropriate magazine - it might even have been Playboy, or at any rate something of the kind. Mom, called to arbitrate, rips it in two at the spine and hands the children one half each.

I think the only excuse for her is that she had an appalling childhood herself, swung between manipulative parents and step-parents in a sequel of divorces and break-ups that show every sign of having been hellish.

The_Editrix said...

As an avid follower of what Private Eye has to say, I seem to remember that story. Anyway, it fits what we know about Diana to a "T". It will never cease to amaze me how a woman devoid of any role model qualities could acquire world star fame as a do-gooder, even a saint. THAT is the truly interesting thing about Diana.

Yes, she had a appalling childhood, but other people have too and turn out to be decent members of society. I think the entire family isn't something to write home about. A relative once told me that the first thing a Spencer asks is: "How can I use that to my best advantage?"

F.P.Barbieri said...

I have since remembered what the magazine was. (Sorry, but I can give no reference; my collection of Private Eye was lost in the move from Hell a few months back.) It was a collection of photos of the Barbi twins - a couple of Playboy magazine heroines whose poses frequently simulated lesbian incest. A suitable entertainment for two children.

The_Editrix said...

I had never heard of the Barbi Twins before (Thank God!), so I googled them and now I am sick. Thanks a lot, Fabio! ;-)

I think I've never seen slatterns QUITE that disgusting, and as a bonus they even come pairwise.

From Wikipedia: "Redbook magazine took excerpts from the book “Diana’s Boys” which reveals how Prince William had his first crush on the Barbi Twins. The London Sun passed on a poster to the young prince autographed by the twins,“Love and Kisses, Shane and Sia”."

Well, yes, that's exactly the sort of girl on whom you want your young son to have his first crush. She-who-Di-ed-for-our-sins had SO much class.

F.P.Barbieri said...

Uh, I should have warned you. I found out about these in the course of a bit of research I did about pornography. I can tell you that I feel more sorry than anything else for them, because they are archetypal losers in many ways. But they certainly are the worst possible image of femininity for two young people to get, and one may well wonder that William has still managed a long-term relationship with an attractive and, by all the evidence, strong-willed and unstupid woman.

The_Editrix said...

With losers you mean William and Harry, not the Barbi thangs, right? I agree. Where is their place in their country in years to come? Is there one? What will they do with their lifes? I don't think they will play a significant role in England's future and I was appalled at their grandmother's lapse in judgement when she appeared in Islamic garb. For me, that woman stood for everything that was good in the West. Now I think we are doomed.

I recently saw an interview with William and Kate Middleton and had to correct the negative impression I had of her. She comes across as down-to-earth, intelligent and nice. Will she ever be queen consort? We don't know. William comes across as pleasant, but a bit weak. I'd prefer his brother Harry as a leader, even though this leadership would be purely ceremonial. He seems to have more backbone. But what do I know. I may be wrong.

F.P.Barbieri said...

No, I mean the twins. They are losers virtually from birth: born in a wholly showbiz background but talentless, their mother a lesbian skank who turned them against their father, low self-image and self-respect. The fact that they started stripping for Playboy when they were already in their late twenties tells its own story: it was their last bid to mean something, anything, in the world they were born in. They themselves speak of their "seven and a half minutes of fame each", which is not a nice description of a working life of sorts; and I have heard from reliable sources that in private their self-image is even lower. I know that you tend to be rather ruthless with your own sex, but I do not think it is even worth while being severe with their likes. They were born in a totally corrupt environment and have not been able to see through or move away from it.

The_Editrix said...

You say: "I know that you tend to be rather ruthless with your own sex, but I do not think it is even worth while being severe with their likes."

That is true on both accounts. However, I doubt that you will find many instances of ruthlessness towards this specific sort of female in my blogs (although I may have had the odd moment of weakness). They are indeed losers, victims and not interesting in themselves. Just people's reaction to them. I don't think anybody like them would have become a celebrity 30 or more years ago. The case of the Sarkozys may be a good example. While they are not interesting in themselves, they exemplify the apalling drop in standards during the last 30 or so years.