I would be delighted to explain the apparent contradiction. First of all they are and that is the entire point of calling myself democratNmonocole (I wanted to write and but they wouldn't let me). When I mean democrat I mean Democrat as in the Democratic Party of the United States. Monocole because as I wrote, I became fascinated by the Royal Family (starting with King George VI) about seven years ago. I was having stomach problems which have since become chronic and read the Wikipedia article on His late Majesty. I found that he was like me a shy, stammering chronically ill young man. This led to my reading more and more about the Royal Family. While I'm not sure if I can prove my level of knowledge to your satisification, I am very sure that I know more about the modern British Royal Family than 9 out of 10 people on an American street corner (I can assure you as well this is not conceit). I gnash my teeth every time I hear an American anchor call the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge "Prince William and Kate Middleton". Catherine no longer is Kate Middleton. She is Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge, or Catherine Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor (according to all evidence). I intially became fascinated because I was trying to figure out how these people (who in their habits, education, intellect, etc. are very ordinary) have become so adultered by the masses that every appearance of them, for no matter what reason, was chronicled in minute detail. I also discovered that Her Most Gracious Majesty (which is her formal style) is theorized to have the same Briggs-Myers personality type as I (Guardian-Inspector). Interestingly according to her admission her favorite (and first) American President, Harry Truman (and a favorite of mine as well) also shares this same personality type with Her Majesty and I. Over the years I have collected and read books, articles, etc. and since the Royal Wedding, my admiration for the Queen has only deepened. It is very interesting to me that the admittingly republican argument that I may have made in my previous entry is so vehmently attacked on this forum (not unexpected I might add--it's the ROYAL Forum for a good reason). Yet of the circles I'm in, in the United States, this argument is treated as fact. I'm the only member of my family to get up before 5:30 the morning of the Royal Wedding. At the supposedly Diamond Jubliee celebration I attended this summer, the Queen and the idea of royalty was mocked and derided to such a degree that I left early, deeply upset and angered. (I was perhaps most angered that only I stopped what I was doing and stood to attention at the playing of the National Anthem). You have no idea the amount of derision I get from family members and friends for following and studying the royals as much as I do (which I will admit is principally for relaxation and guilty pleasure, such as others would read Danielle Steel novels). As for William and Catherine, I have no admiration for them because they have yet to actually do much and prove that they are up to being senior royals (their tours of Canada and the Far East aside). I loathe Diana, Princess of Wales for having insisted that her children be treated normally because I believe this has given William a complex of being able to use his royal status when it suits him and ditch it when it does not. He claims he wants to be treated like any other Search and Rescue pilot, yet no other Search and Rescue pilot has armed police guarding them around the clock. No other Search and Rescue pilot is allowed to take the liberties he is. No other Search and Rescue pilot can go to Keningston Palace or ring up the Queen for tea. He's doing (and allowed to be doing) what I call pretending to be normal and it irritates me to no end. He's not normal and never can be. He's His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, son of the Prince of Wales, grandson of Her Majesty the Queen. He's 30 years old. The Queen was reigning for nearly five years by that age. To me he's acted like he's had Peter Pan syndrome, not wanting to grow up. And frankly despite what people say about the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen wanting to still be very active and involved, they are 91 and 86. My 90 year-old grandmother spends most nights in front of the television, not carrying out 3 or 4 engagements a day. To me, since the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are adults and have by my view, had three or four years after university to muck around doing as they please, it's time for them to become full-time royals. According to what I've read in multiple sources, there are MORE organizations wanting royal patronage, not less, there are MORE requests for royal visits, not less, 80% of the public want to see much more of both the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, yet there are fewer royals to go around. The Duke of Kent carries out far more engagements than either of them and he's just had a stroke. The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester carry out more engagements than either of them combined. Princess Alexandra the Honourable Lady Oglivy carries out more engagements than either of them. Yet none of these people have a small legion of police protection officers (I know the Protection Squad say there is no threat, but with the advent of the Internet, ANY relative of the Queen's unfortunately can be at grave risk). If you only read the papers, there would seem to be no other royals BUT the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and yet they actually aren't doing much in the way of engagements, which according to the Queen Mother was how royals earn their keep because they can't earn a living. Even more disconcerting to me is how much attention Pippa Middleton gets, when she's only a relative of a minor member of the Royal Family (yet she evidently warranted public police protection on more than one occasion which I'm not sure she is entitled to by law).
Well anyway I hope you have a clearer idea of why I hold the admittedly contradictory views that I do.
Best regards,
DemocratnMonocole
