How the Windsor women became human shields

Once upon a time there was a young and beautiful prince who examined all the charming, intelligent and kind women of the nation and, among all of them, chose his betrothed.

The new addition to the family was a delight, a beauty, a breath of fresh air.

The young woman had a short honeymoon period during which everyone adored her.

Then something changed.

Maybe you dared to make a wish or let slip an opinion.

Maybe she appeared in public not so perfect or broke with tradition and refused to appear in public at all, or maybe it was simply a matter of everything that goes up must come down.

Whatever the reason, the golden girl has been drastically given a new role as a gold digger.

Or rude, ordinary, cruel, manipulative, ugly or fat.

They compared her to other women in her circle and her generation.

Princes can sometimes be turned into toads, but princesses always seem to end up as villains or scapegoats, and used to deflect controversy or criticism if your husband requests it.

It happened to Diana SpencerTO Sarah Ferguson TO Camilla Parker Bowlesbefore being Queen Camilla.

It happened to Meghan Marklewhose trials were exacerbated by racism.

In its own way, it happened Wallis Simpson.

It happened to Kate Middleton: When she and Prince William were dating but not yet engaged, Middleton was portrayed as a wily social climber and called “Waity Katie.”

After the wedding, it seemed that Catherine might become the exception that proves the rule, the one privileged Windsor wife who was allowed to float above the fray.

Edit

But now, Catherine, Princess of Wales, has taken the place where every royal and royal-adjacent woman ends up: in dock.

As you probably know, unless you’ve been under a rock with your hands over your eyes, the palace recently released a photograph of Catherine smiling alongside her three adorable children – one of the first glimpses the public has had of her since Before. , when it was announced that she was recovering from a planned abdominal surgery and that she would not resume public duties until after Easter.

It didn’t take more than a minute for the Internet to realize that the photo had been doctored, and we were asked to believe that Catalina had been the only one responsible retouch the photo (badly) in Photoshop.

Royal watcher Daniela Elser called her a “generator of chaos” and a “global figure of humiliation and ridicule”.

“Actual approvals,” he wrote, “will be questioned for many years to come.” (This, we must understand, is only because Catherine Photoshopped a photo of her children for Instagram. The palace’s communications record was, of course, beyond reproach.)

Why do the women of the House of Windsor receive this type of treatment so often?

Let’s start with the fact that the royals don’t actually run Britain or anything else.

Let’s think of them as a family business that only produces children and the reason why British taxpayers support them.

Royals and their spouses must demonstrate, every day, that the monarchy is giving taxpayers value for their money;

that kings, queens, lords and ladies are useful symbols, avatars of the nation’s character; Which ones are they honest, firm and genuine.

In this system, the monarch is the most important.

Male relatives are heirs or surrogates.

Historically, women have functioned as a combination of broodmares and dummies.

Their job is to stay thin, speak little, wear their clothes well, and produce heirs who stay thin, speak little, and wear their clothes well.

(Prince Philip is said to have approved Diana’s entry into the family because “it would bring some height to offspring.)

When something threatens the reputation of a higher-ranking male Windsor, women have another essential role: that of human shield.

Did King Edward VIII abdicate and go to France to be with Wallis Simpson?

Let’s make sure we blame the American divorcee.

Does Prince Charles have a mistress?

We blame his mother for not allowing her son to marry his true love; We blame his wife for not keeping him faithful.

Oh, and let’s say the lover in question is ugly.

Did Prince Henry refuse to fulfill his family duties and move to sunny California?

We blame his “narcissistic” wife for bewitching him!

And perhaps everyone should have paid more attention to Prince Andrew’s friendship Jeffrey Epsteininstead of the weight of his wife.

While Meghan and Harry, like Diana before them, are now free to give interviews and authorize the publication of books, Catherine cannot defend herself.

Instead she is trapped silently enduring one’s “annus horribilis”.

His reticence about his health, his apparent reluctance to share details of his illness or photographs of his recovery, were contrasted, unfavorably, with King Charles III’s candor about his cancer.

When he tried to give people what they wanted – proof of life, through a polished image of a happy family – and it backfired, that was helpful, too.

Perhaps his “mea culpa” was intended to make us see William as a trustworthy man and statesman by comparison; a faithful husband, who firmly takes care of the children while the princess plays with Photoshop, and not as readers of Enrique’s memoirs might well imagine:

an impulsive brother who pushes, breaks collars and is dangerous around dog food bowls.

While Internet sleuths pore over the latest grainy images from British tabloids, which appear to show the prince and princess in a greengrocer’s shop, Catherine has maintained the silence that is practically part of her duties.

The rule is to never complain, never explain and, if the situation becomes overwhelming, never seek help.

Diana, who suffered from bulimiashe said the family had dismissed her as “unstable”.

Meghan said she would have liked to get professional help, but “they told me I couldn’t, that it wouldn’t be good for the institution.”

Royal women are expected to take charge and get on with life, with borrowed jewels on their fingers and a target on their back.

Maybe there is a happy ending to this royal disaster.

Perhaps recent events will break, once and for all, the myth of Prince Charming and the happy ending he will bring.

Maybe in 10 years a generation of teenagers will no longer be humming “Someday my prince will come” or dreaming of being courted by Prince George.

Maybe we won’t ask another Diana, Meghan or Catherine to change her opinion and her agency for a nice wardrobe, a televised wedding and a life of ribbon cuttings and silent smiles.

As fairy tales (from the Brothers Grimm, not Disney) tell us, nothing is ever free.

The invoice is always due.

And, for the not very cheerful wives of the House of Windsor, the price has always been too high.

c.2024 The New York Times Company