"Our love took no heed of wealth and rank and all the other worldly, conventional barriers which separated us." Capt. Peter Townsend, Commenting on his relationship with England's Princess Margaret
November 29, 2017
By: Linda Case Gibbons
People who are in charge know what they're doing. Otherwise they wouldn't be in charge.
They know what's best for us.
Take Queen Elizabeth. Shortly after her coronation, she had to tell her sister, Margaret, that she could not marry the man she loved.
Capt. Peter Townsend was divorced, and as head of the Church of England, it was Liz's moral duty to tell Margaret what was "best for her."
The Queen had to tell her son, Charles, the same thing. He loved Camilla Parker Bowles, and they were compatible, not an easy thing, given that Charles was Charles. But as with Margaret, the marriage was not to be.
Meg married someone else, whom she later divorced, the first divorce, in fact, in 400 years in the history of the Royal Family, and led a dissolute life until her death.
Charles also married someone else, and you know how that turned out.
Now Charles is married to the real love of his life, tying the knot in a civil ceremony so he can meet the Rules to become king.
"Rules is Rules." Except when they're not.
But what could Queen Elizabeth have done? She had a duty to uphold, dating back to 1533. Who could argue with that?
Some might. After breaking ties with the Papacy and the Catholic Church, Henry VIII was the titular head of the Church of England and was able to marry, behead and annul marriages to anyone, including his six wives.
He ushered in the Reformation, and while he was at it, seized monastery lands.
But at least he didn't have to divorce his wives. And all it took was an act of Parliament.
After centuries, this week Liz finally got it right. Her grandson is marrying an American "commoner," bi-racial divorcee, of the Jewish faith.
Now the Rules allow them to be married with all pomp and circumstance, in Westminster Abbey.
"Rules is rules," until they're not, but oh, the broken hearts left behind.
Harry disclosed this week that he was emotionally shut down after the death of his mother, who was never a favorite of the Queen's.
How nice that he could marry the person he loved.
And how good it is that we broke ties with England, leaving behind the secretive and politically manipulative behavior that characterized the Crown and Parliament during the long history of England.
"No more of that," we said. "We will elect people to be in charge who know what they are doing, and they will do their jobs with the people's best interest in mind."
But sometimes the things they do make us waver in our trust.
For instance, if you had three wishes, would one of them be to fill out your federal income taxes on a post card? Or to relinquish your property tax deduction?
Paul Ryan thinks it is. So do the Republicans who are crafting the new tax reform bill.
And just like Obamacare, the tax bill is being pushed through, without proper research, without proper review, so that something will be passed, rather than something good for the American people. And the "hard-working middle class" will have to give up something, and then get stuck with the tab. Just like Obamacare.
Why? I don't know.
Makes you think about term limits. Makes you calculate the average age of the nearly all male Congressmen, some in office for more than half of their natural lives.
Job security is swell, but this couldn't have been what the Founding Fathers envisioned.
So how about this. Suppose we put real people in Congress, and on the panels of the mainstream media channels? Firemen, miners, people who have to hold down two jobs. Mothers and small business owners.
How about putting some First Responders in Congress? Or representatives who act like First Responders?
Do you think they would hem and haw about making critical decisions? Come up empty when trying to get rid of a failed healthcare act, or pass a fair tax bill?
Do you think they would be absent, more often than present from their jobs? Would they make excuses, blaming archaic rules of legislative procedure, and not do something to change the rules?
Would they tolerate disrespect for our flag, disrespect our president? Would they skip a meeting with colleagues and the president, at the invitation of the president, like Senate Majority Leader Schumer and House Minority Leader Pelosi did yesterday?
Would they call an aging senator an "Icon," a man who sits in his office, in his plus-size undershorts, hitting on women in his office, while on the job? And would they look at sexual harassment in Congress and wonder, "Should they stay or should they go?"
Honestly? What do you think?
Hold the line, America.