Because You Never Asked

(6/04)

     Anyone who happened to be in Spain during the spring of 2004 has been unmercifully attacked by the pop news story of the year, that being "La Boda" (the wedding). Trying to avoid La Boda is something like trying to avoid stink in a fish house. As I write, two things are simultaneously occurring: 1) La Boda, and 2) a line of ants I am watching are disappearing down an ant hole. I'm prone to believe the second occurrence is an attempt to flee the first, though I doubt the ants will succeed. The event is just too omnipotent.

     The event being referred to is the marriage of Prince Felipe --- heir to the throne of Spain and genuine blue blood descended from a varying array of cross bred royal stables, but primarily a "Borbon", who shows a comforting absence of both the physical and mental decay associated with such organisms --- and one Letizia Ortiz. The irrational difference between the attention given La Boda and its importance in the grand scheme of things, is worth delving into.  

     Americans generally get their dose of royalty through the House of Windsor, that is, the genealogical history currently responsible for the doddering clods symbolically ruling the Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is the same bunch that Diana Spencer had the poor judgment to fall in with, the results of which being so universally known that it need not be discussed in this essay. Any American remembering the total eclipse of the news caused by the marriage of Prince Charles and Lady Di can understand the similar treatment given La Boda in Spain. Although I've only been subjected to two weeks of it, my Spanish friends assure me that this has been going on incessantly for about 6 months, interrupted briefly by the terrorist bombings in Madrid . but only briefly. Day after day, week after week . "and the panties to be worn by Letizia on the nuptial night were designed by .", "and the spark plugs for the royal car .", "and the royal weather on the blessed day .", "and the route of the procession .", "and the gifts from the maharajah of .", "and Elvis has decided to attend ."

     You think it's easy to do 6 months of this stuff?

     In a semi-just society (which is about as well as we've done so far), I have no real objections to a democratic form of monarchal government. But in scrutinizing La Boda and other similar forms of aristocratic self-delusion, one has to wonder if the mega-romantization of what is really a mundane act, is a healthy exercise for the human condition. Are we still so insecure that the creation of these myths is necessary? Is it a way to distract or idiotize the mass of people with the most grievances? If everyone simply threw up their hands and said, "C'mon, this is ridiculous!" could anyone argue with that?

     It is not an entirely hopeless task to try and justify a monarchy, even in the world we live in. One of the useful things such an institution can provide is a measure of protocol relief for those who actually govern the country. Having a King or Queen, or a Prince or Princess or two around can come in handy when there are receptions for visiting dignitaries, or medals to be pinned on distinguished citizens, or sporting trophies to be given out, or funerals, weddings and religious functions where a representative of the State is required. The pressures of being a bull-crapping politician trying to save your hide while making the world a better place for the corporate interests that finance your career, are difficult enough without having to be a gracious host cutting a dashing figure as well. Please, I'm tired; get the King to do it.

     The question is --- and La Boda, with its somewhat more than oriental opulence, further legitimizes the question --- is the extravagant cost of the institution's maintenance justified when weighed against the nimious nature of its usefulness?

     This writer would answer in the negative. However, being that a strict form of objective truth seeking is one of the unbending rules of these essays, I will suggest another possible function for this royalty thing, one that is obviously more abstract than the protocol function, but one that could be considered more important.

     In the absence of any true decision making power, the modern constitutional monarchy should exist for one fundamental reason: the highest standards of culturally defined behavior should be embodied in the royal family. They should represent the conjunction of a culture's most prized values. Although we know that perfection is an unattainable goal, a royal family should at least try to offer a theatrical version of such for the rest of us to live up to.

     Now, compared to the adulterous sleaze and Beckham-like scandal offered by the British royal family, with its overweight Fergy affairs and high speed papparazzi chases, the Spanish monarchs have behaved with the blithering boredom we might expect from such creatures. But La Boda has lowered the bar somewhat in the person of the more than just attractive --- how about "piece of ass" --- Queen to be, Letizia Ortiz.

     OK, maybe it's acceptable that Letizia is a commoner with the same amount of royal blood as America's Queen Leticia. A man has a right to choose beyond the few hundred women in the world who might have the same ancestral characteristics as he. But the bar starts to lower a bit when we find out that she is really just a diva sprung from the world of vaudeville. Don't get me wrong; it's not like she's some kind of Sharon Stone or Joline What's-Her-Face of the couch-tested Hollywood fandango. Her credentials are more respectable than that. Before she decided to be the future Queen, she was a semi-famous, semi-recognizable TV journalist. She even did some extraordinary things, like cover barbarous third world wars where little kids with missing limbs walk around with automatic rifles. But she also did a lot of "schmaltz" . like, for instance, La Boda.

     OK, maybe you think it's unfair that I refer to her as a diva sprung from the world of vaudeville. After all, she's a journalist, not an actress or singer wiggling her ass and strutting her stuff. But it can also be said that "Leti's" pre-royal job depended heavily on her good looks in an environment where the "news" has become as much a part of the entertainment conglomerate as Brittany Spear or Barry Bonds. I say vaudeville.

     But let's give you royal apologists the benefit of the doubt --- the Prince and a beautiful former TV journalist . no problem.

     But now the bar starts to fall precipitously. "Leti", in spite of her barely 30 years, has already been married and divorced, cha, cha, cha. In fact, her marriage seemed little more than a hot-blooded, horny whim, lasting only a year.

     OK, I know, not even Charley Brown's Lucy is a virgin, but it was once considered a highly prized virtue for a bride to be . and not that long ago. Can't we at least maintain a semblance of this virtue for the future King's wife? How 'bout a little exclusive monogamy here, 'til death do us part? We are talking about the future King and Queen. Do we have to know exactly whom she slept with before she became such a big deal? Can't you just hear her ex, lit up a bit in a bar, talking about how the King got his leftovers? Under these circumstances, nobody can claim he is lying.

     OK, I know, Letizia Ortiz is really a heck of a girl; beautiful, intelligent, successful . none of us real men would ever reject her because she's been married or perforated by someone else. I'm sure Felipe took one look at that tight little ass and fell into that hormonally driven twitter we often refer to as "love". Who can blame him? Who wouldn't want to have a go of it with "Leti"? Should it be any different because he's the future King?

     Perhaps it should. If there is to be any basis for the absurd hoopla associated with this wedding; if the public largesse is funding it, along with the rest of the fairyland lifestyle maintained for these people, perhaps the royal family should be held to a higher standard. Matrimony, fidelity . these are still valued commodities, no?

     OK, I know, many people think this is a way to modernize the idea of royalty, to bring it up to date, to make it more reflective of life in the real world. But who's supposed to be reflecting whom? Are we anonymous inhabitants of the massive pile taking our cues from the special few, or are the special few emulating the pile? If it is the latter, one has to begin wondering what all this fuss and communally born expense is all about. If the only difference between the Prince and the rest of us is those silly Napoleon-Bismarck uniforms he wears .

     I see nothing wrong with Felipe and Letizia falling in love and getting married and raising a family and living happily ever after (or even starting to bitch and fight and separate). They make a beautiful couple and I wish them the best. But please, leave the rest of us out of it. Do it on your own time with your own money.

     Every time I've said "OK" in this essay, the bar has been lowered a bit more. How looooowww do we go?

Relevant Material: "The only way to modernize the Monarchy is to have a republic."  Uttered by my good friend Marc Mari Mayans.