Princess Diana may be long since dead since that fateful crash in Paris in 1997, but for me as a life-long Monarchist, she is now my Queen ‘in abstentia’. At the risk of being thrown in the Tower of London as a traitor, I will never curtsey or bow the knee - even pay allegiance - to the former Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles.
But then again, am I being a modern-day Biblical Pharisee in calling myself a Royalist, but at the same time point blank refusing to demonstrate any form of ‘loyalty’ to the former Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles?
There can be no doubting that the House of Windsor and the Westminster establishment have played a magnificent public relations game since the turn of the new millennium to integrate and promote the former Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles to her present position within the Royal establishment.
The former Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles has gone from the perception of being one of the most hated women in the UK in the late 1990s, to being called the Queen Consort, and now ‘Queen’.
Would I come across today as being seemingly bitter towards the former Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles if the then Prince Charles had been allowed to marry her in 1981 and not the late Princess Diana?
As a Princess Diana Loyalist, it was personally sickening to see the former Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles given the role and recognition which our late Queen Elizabeth the Second performed with such dignity, dedication and professionalism.
But no doubt, supporters of ‘Queen Camilla’ will be quick to point out to me that it was the late Her Majesty who gave the nod of approval to the former Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles taking on the title of ‘Queen’ when Prince Charles was formally crowned as King Charles III.
However, the former Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles is no Queen Elizabeth II. Indeed, it is my honest opinion, as an ardent Princess Diana Loyalist, that to mention the former Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles in the same sentence as our late Queen, is a complete insult to the memory of Queen Elizabeth II. That’s my honestly held opinion no matter what spin comes out of Buckingham Palace.
So what, in reality, can we who fondly remember and revere the late Princess Diana do to combat the promotion and elevation of the former Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles?
Or, is it simply a case that we just have to ‘suck it up’ and wait for the latter to die, praying that each of us lives long enough to see Prince William’s wife, crowned as Queen Catherine?
King Charles III is now in his 70s age-wise and is one of the oldest Monarchs to have ascended to the Throne. If he enjoys the same longevity as his mother, our late Queen Elizabeth II, and his grandmother, the late Queen Mother, we could have him as our King for the next three decades.
But could it be a case that we Princess Diana Loyalists could start a campaign which would end with King Charles III abdicating and allowing his son and heir, Prince William, to ascend to the Throne much sooner rather than the Prince waiting for his dad to die?
Or is the mere mention of such a notion stinking of ‘gun powder, treason and plot’? Is there the danger that in questioning or even mumbling opposition to the former Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles making us Princess Diana Loyalists looking like modern-day Guy Fawkes? Maybe we just need to grow up and smell the coffee in the wake of the recent Coronation.
In terms of spectacle and pomp, last weekend’s Coronation events were a superb public relations coup for the Monarchy in an era where the concept of Monarchy is facing a global threat.
Queen Elizabeth II was a brilliant Monarch, but we must be realistic as Royalists - who will better guarantee the long-term survival of the British Monarchy as an institution; Charles III or Prince William?
What could we Princess Diana Loyalists say if the former Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles turned out to be the saving grace of the Royal establishment? There is now a strong body of opinion which maintains the former Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles has been the ‘making’ of King Charles.
Likewise, as trendy Royals, William and Kate represent a vibrant couple in touch with the people, while King Charles III and the former Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles represent the stuffy establishment of the past. Maybe the tens of thousands who attended Coronation events across the UK would differ from this analysis.
Maybe this column is too soon in the writing. Perhaps I should wait until the Royalist euphoria is over to echo such seemingly Jacobite sentiments?
The compromise could be that the Westminster establishment gives King Charles III and the former Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles five years as a reign, with the guarantee that Charles III abdicates in 2028, handing over to his eldest son. That would also give William and Kate time to raise their family as a proper couple.
It is not the first time the Monarchy has been faced with an abdication situation. It happened in 1936 when King Edward VIII, who followed on from the death of his father, King George V.
Edward VIII wanted to marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson. Eventually, he abdicated, handing the Throne over to his brother Bertie, who went on to become the UK’s wartime hero Monarch, King George VI. Edward then became the Duke of Windsor, but was always regarded with suspicion because of the former King’s links to Nazi tyrant Adolf Hitler.
So what is now needed is another Commonwealth Champion, like the ones who appeared in the mid-17th century to topple the reign of King Charles I.
Charles I’s reign was marked by the bloody English Civil War which lasted from 1642 to 1651, with Charles executed for treason in January 1649.
Likewise, are we looking at those who later that century following the disastrous reign of King Charles II saw that King succeeded by James II? Those Royalists organised a coup to have James toppled by his son in law, King William III, who is revered by the Protestant Loyal Orders, especially the Orange, who celebrate his victory at the Boyne in 1690 each year during the Twelfth.
Whilst we can only speculate, but Princess Diana - had her marriage to Charles remained intact - would have made a truly superb Queen Diana. It would have been an absolute privilege to curtsey before a Queen Diana, addressing her as ‘Your Majesty.’
But let’s be realistic. The House of Windsor and the Westminster establishment have now ensured Princess Diana will never be crowned ‘ Queen Diana in abstentia’. So the time has come for the Second Glorious Revolution - with the aim of replacing Charles III with Prince William, no matter what title Prince William choses when he ascends to the Throne.
Maybe in penning this article, I am viewed as being no better off than those Parliamentarians who toppled Charles I, or the Williamite conspirators who toppled James II.
Those of us conspirators behind the Second Glorious Revolution do not care what title is given to the former Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles, as long as when she stands down, it does not contain the word ‘queen’.
Perhaps, like the former King Edward VIII and his American wife, the former Mrs Wallis Simpson, they could be given an honorary Dukedom and Duchess title and packed off to some far-flung corner of the Commonwealth to live out the remainder of their days on a beach and hosting garden parties.
So for me as an ardent Royalist, or maybe I’m a Williamite or Parliamentarian traitor, I say God Save King Charles, but God save us from the former Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles!
Maybe you’ll see my head on Traitors’ Gate in London after being jailed in the Tower! I await my writ for High Treason! The question is; how many other ‘Royalists’ in the British establishment who know the value of the Monarchy are thinking the same thoughts?
 |
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online. |
No comments