Royal Fairy Tale Ending?

Will Charles find happiness with Camilla? Will the queen yield her throne to the newlyweds after a decent interval? Will the charming Prince William stop upstaging his dad? Will the less-than-charming Harry outgrow his callow-youth set and do something useful?

Maybe the real question Britain faces is: Is it time to ditch this creaky old monarchy altogether?

Lately, each installment of the royal drama is more like a daytime soap opera, the Windsor Sagas.

The timing is less than auspicious, what with public attitudes toward the royal family, with the notable exception of Queen Elizabeth II herself, already ranging from pity to apathy to disgust. (The last apparently returned by Charles, given his sotto voce criticism of “bloody people,” when reporters had the temerity to bother him at a photo opportunity while he was out skiing with his sons in the Alps last week.)

Today’s nuptials of Charles to his first love and longtime paramour, Camilla Parker Bowles, have foes of the monarchy salivating. Marked by a string of tribulations ranging from Diana’s ghost (just a figurative one, although the tabloids may be able to scare up a sighting) to being double-booked with the pope’s funeral, the match has been called star-crossed, a fiasco, jinxed and cursed.

Far from any real importance, critics argue, the 1,200-year-old English monarchy that emerged back when Saxons were axing Vikings is an anachronism in a democratic country. And this one, they say, exists mainly to feed the tabloids and satisfy tourists who pass before Buckingham Palace each day snapping pictures and snapping up postcards.

After 53 years of stoic devotion to her duties on the throne, the queen still enjoys esteem and affection, although most Britons might agree that the family she raised is fairly dysfunctional. (But then again, whose isn’t?)

But what about the generations that follow?

“It’s time to end the royal farce,” says Graham Smith, coordinator for a group, Republic, that wants to scrap the monarchy and give Britain a president or another head of state for ceremonial purposes. “There is an alternative.”

But Joe Little, managing editor of Majesty magazine, says, “The hard core of the British and Commonwealth populations still want a monarchy.” He confesses to a little self-interest here.

For royalists, there will always be a sovereign on the throne, just as there will always be an England. Or as Shakespeare put it: “This royal throne of kings, this sceptered isle, this earth of majesty, ... this England.”

But even Little acknowledges: “This recent fuss has not done the monarchy any good at all.

“We look to the queen and the royal family as figureheads. They are there to set an example -- even if many people would argue that it is a bad example nowadays.”

A Daily Mail poll at the end of March indicated that 65% of Britons believed the wedding of Charles and Parker Bowles would weaken the monarchy.

The chief reason seems to be the enduring unpopularity of Parker Bowles, still portrayed as a home wrecker, though Charles comes in for a lot of blame too. Of those sampled, 73% opposed her as a prospective queen.

Republicans “scent blood,” said Britain’s Sunday Observer, sister publication of the left-leaning Guardian newspaper, no friend of the royals or anything that smacks of conservatism. Smith’s group agrees.

“When the wedding was announced, there was a huge increase in visitors to our website,” Smith says.

Republic has formed alliances with anti-royalty groups in several Commonwealth countries and launched an advertising campaign, which some newspapers have refused to carry.

“If you believe it is wrong to pay our head of state 8 million pounds a year, if you believe the head of state is too important to be left to a genetic lottery, support our campaign,” the ads urge.

Historian Robert Lacey, a veteran royal observer and a biographer of Queen Elizabeth II, says losing the popular trust could be dangerous for the monarchy, because in the end, “it will only last as long as good people are doing the job.”

Some royal watchers think Prince William, the photogenic son of Charles and Diana, may be the family’s ace in the hole.

Now 22 and finishing his education at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, William has been gracious, modest and at ease in the public eye. And he has avoided any youthful excesses, unlike his younger brother, Harry.

*

In recent months, the royals have been stung by a string of negative headlines: Prince Harry’s ill-advised donning of a Nazi uniform for a costume party; Charles’ pout at his ski vacation photo op (“I hate doing this” was another overheard gripe); the decision of Queen Elizabeth and her husband, Prince Philip, to stay away from the wedding; the need to shift the ceremony to the municipal Guildhall in Windsor (because if the royal betrothed used their first choice, Windsor Castle, under law the venue would have to be offered to ordinary couples too).

And then there is the problem that the British public, though not exactly objecting to the marriage, is rather lukewarm regarding the event. Memories linger of Charles’ first wife, Diana, killed in a 1997 car accident after the couple divorced, in part because of the longtime love affair between the prince and Parker Bowles.

Based on the known facts, the wedding of Charles and Parker Bowles will fulfill 30 odd years of love, devotion and friendship. Yet even this potential fairy-tale ending has not managed to overwhelm the negativity, with the Church of England, among others, demanding public penitence before it will bless them.

Majesty editor Little says the perception of the monarchy always has gone up and down, but he believes the British people will rally to the couple.

“I would equate this both to the Silver Jubilee and the Golden Jubilee of the queen,” he says, referring to the 25th and 50th anniversaries of her rule. “At the beginning of 1977 and again at the beginning of 2002, there was deemed to be very little interest in the jubilees. There wouldn’t be really too much by way of celebration.

“Of course, as the times approached, the groundswell changed opinion completely, and on both occasions there was a great national celebration.”

He predicted that as the marriage approached, “a lot more people [would be] rooting for them than perhaps we are led to believe.” With hours to go before the wedding today, that groundswell hadn’t yet materialized.

The most immediate threat is the public distaste for Parker Bowles. The thought that she might one day be queen and addressed as her royal highness sets many teeth on edge. To forestall any criticism, Clarence House, Charles’ official residence, announced that “it is intended that” she will be known as the princess consort, if and when Charles becomes king.

That was all well and good for a few weeks, until lawmakers figured out that no matter what she wants to be called, under British law and custom, the wife of a king always is queen. (The husband of a reigning queen, however, can only be a prince.)

“Yes, Camilla to all intents and purposes could be known as queen, but she would not have the powers that the present queen has. There would be no constitutional implications whatsoever. All those matters would rest with Charles,” Little insists.

Other legal issues also have arisen. Some eminent lawyers have questioned whether it is legal under British law for a member of the royal family to be entered into the civil marriage registry.

The opinion of the governments in the 1950s and 1960s was that the civil marriage law passed in 1949 specifically excluded the royal family from its provisions, meaning only a church wedding would be acceptable. That was the reason Princess Margaret, the queen’s younger sister, could not marry Group Capt. Peter Townsend, who as a divorced man was not eligible for a church wedding, unless she renounced her claim to the throne. In 1955, she chose duty over love.

The same provision tripped up King Edward VIII, who was forced to renounce the throne in 1936 if he wished to marry the American divorcee Wallis Simpson. He did so desire, and they went on to live abroad as the duke and duchess of Windsor.

Queen or not, church wedding or civil ceremony, Little doesn’t think Charles and Parker Bowles are getting a fair deal from the British public. “It never ceases to amaze me the amount of vitriol that people feel that they can throw at this couple, and Camilla in particular,” he says.

Historian Lacey agrees that in recent years, “the monarchy has the very important role as a punching bag as part of its function.”

Yet he thinks it is the best thing for the country, for now.

“When people look at the alternatives, there are obviously problems of having other people serving in that role as head of state,” he says. “Who would they be -- politicians? Sports personalities? How are they to be chosen? Do we want another set of elections, bribery or beauty contests to choose the head of state? It doesn’t appeal to me. I prefer the sheer lottery of heredity.”

Lord Alf Dubs, a Labor peer who has called for some reforms but not for abolishing the monarchy, says its future could be up in the air: “I think it depends on whether Charles can actually make a go of it or not. If he starts to act silly, then the monarchy will be devalued.

“It is a bit of a silly, ramshackle edifice at the moment because nobody can give it the sense of duty I think that the queen has given it.... But I daresay it will survive, because we all are very conservative in Britain and don’t want to change things too much. If you mention presidency, people say, ‘Oh God, we can’t do that.’ ”

*

Janet Stobart of The Times’ London Bureau contributed to this report.