Whatever 'In Love' Means

With the release this month of season five of Peter Morgan's The Crown—and its emphasis on the next generation: the marriages, affairs, and divorces of three of Queen Elizabeth's children, especially spotlighting Charles and Diana—here's an excerpt from my in-progress book, The Spiritual Mission of a Princess, with notes on 'love.' As royal archetypes, were Charles and Diana simply a mismatched couple or was it a "karmic-setup"...with some divine intervention to show the world the way of the heart? 

    

         ~ WHATEVER 'IN LOVE' MEANS ~

Through the ages, history shows that members of royalty—including Charles, Prince of Wales—“was not encouraged or expected to follow their hearts into marriage,” as author Caroline Weber wrote in her book review of The Diana Chronicles. It was dynastic duty first: a decision about which marital alliance would best serve the realm and which eligible woman would be most likely to produce a male heir. It was about power, ownership, control.

Since the desire of one’s heart was not part of the equation in this extremely patriarchal system of marriage—where little value was put on love—then if you happened to be in love with someone who wasn’t suited for the job of royal wife or husband, consequently your lover was either forgotten or set aside for later affairs. This was just the way it was, until it wasn’t.

~ ~ ~

“In the history of the human race, the idea of romance as the prelude to marriage is very rare,” Alistair Cooke wrote in “The Quest for a Royal Bride” in a July 1981 Parade magazine article featuring the upcoming wedding of Charles and Diana. “It must come as a shock to many people to be reminded that today most marriages, high and low, in the great majority of countries, are arranged, and that the choosing is not done by the partners,” the British historian continued. “It is true, in a particular sense, of royalty. For hundreds of years, love has been the least essential element of a royal marriage. There are certain precise conditions. Once these are met, if the partners also come to love each other, so much the better.” And declaring only days before their wedding, in his famously lighthearted way, Cooke said that if Charles and Diana indeed loved each other, it would be considered “a happy accident.”

Engagement photo,left, Diana & Charles, right "The Crown" season four

As writer and humorist Nora Ephron said: “You can never know the truth of anyone’s marriage, including your own.” Underneath all the soap opera of the Wales’ arranged marriage (which pretended it was not), we don’t know much about the moments of sweetness, love and support that both Charles and Diana said were there. But we do know there was turmoil—and duplicity. Historically, in the times when arranged marriages were more typical than not, it was accepted as normal for royal and aristocratic men to have a discreetly-handled lover—and Charles took advantage of the system. But in the changing social culture of the late-twentieth century (including the evolving women’s movements), compounded by the tabloid press now exposing the private lives of royals, it all seemed hypocritical and vastly out-of-date. And the young Diana was having no part of the hypocrisy!  “For the first time this century,” as feminist author Beatrix Campbell wrote in 1998, “a woman called a future king to account for his behavior as a man.” Diana not only denounced the archaic monarchic code of “men will be men” (and the one where women stay quiet, don’t complain so not to rock the royal boat), but exposed the similar double-standard code of the patriarchy held by many men around the world.

There were probably many feelings and emotions that pushed Diana to go public about the disappointments of her marriage. There was hurt and jealousy over her husband’s infidelity, anger and disappointment, perhaps embarrassment. But underneath it all, I’d say there was the heart-achingly desire to be loved. (If not by her husband, then at least by her sympathetic public.)  

Nevertheless, “every relationship I have ever looked at Astrologically,” Steffan Vanel states, “can be seen as a ‘karmic set-up’ revealing what the evolving souls knew they would do to each other.” And it was true about Charles and Diana. “Conflictual [sic] as well as complimentary,” wrote Martha Caldwell about the astrological karma between Diana and Charles according to Vanel’s research. “Diana and Charles were perfect for each other in light of what they came to Earth to learn in this lifetime. Much of Diana’s karma surrounds her experience of relationship, so it is with Charles that she worked on her most troublesome issues.” Vanel picked up from there: “The karmic lesson for Charles has been to look inside himself to know who he really is. Diana was the perfect manifestation of a force which would pull the rug out from under his over-identification with role in his life to help him in his own evolution.”

~ ~ ~

Prince Charles caused quite a stir with his “whatever ‘in love’ means” statement during an interview with his young fiancée. But philosopher and writer Alain de Botton would have understood Charles’ frustration. Since his first book, a novel titled On Love, de Botton combined the theme of love and relationship in his writing and teaching, but not in a conventional way. The novel’s first line reads: “Every fall into love involves the triumph of hope over knowledge.” 

“Compatibility,” de Botton later wrote, “is an achievement of love. It cannot be its precondition.” His essay “Why You Will Marry the Wrong Person,” explained On Being radio host Krista Tippett, “was, amazingly, the most-read article in the New York Times in the news-drenched year of 2016. As people, and as a culture, de Botton says, we would be much saner and happier if we reexamined our very view of love. Nowhere do we realistically teach ourselves and our children,” Tippett continued, “how love deepens and stumbles, survives and evolves over time, and how that process has much more to do with ourselves than with what is right or wrong about our partner.”

We are inside a profoundly evolving world; a fundamental consciousness shift is occurring and the nature of our relationships and what we desire from them are shifting as well. But many people have been stuck in the old paradigm, expecting satisfying relationships inside an outdated model. If we are indeed all here to grow and evolve and assist with each other’s evolution, then it’s time to open our hearts—wide with generosity and compassion—so we see each other with love. And sometimes our guides into a new way of being related are unexpected ones. During her life within the archaic institution of the British monarchy and its duty-bound royal family, Princess Diana called out its hard-edged, mindset of “duty over love” and declared that she led with the heart, not with the head, and that love, real love, must always come first. It was a lesson passed on to her sons, as well as to her former husband.

So whether in a romantic relationship or just living day-to-day out in the world, there’s simply this, in the words of Marianne Williamson: “You are loved, and your purpose is to love.” ~

Femininity As Power

In honor of Queen Elizabeth II, and all women who have taken on leadership roles in a man's world (either by birth or by determination and talent), here's an excerpt from my book-in-progress, The Spiritual Mission of a Princess. This section, Femininity As Power, is from the "Dressing for the Illusion" chapter....enjoy.

........................................................................

Several years ago, Nancy Kidwell, who at the time was head costume curator at the Smithsonian, addressed an all-male audience of museum executives regarding the urgency of funding their institutions’ costume departments. Kidwell recalled that she shocked this “sea of gray suits” when she declared: “If you think clothes aren’t important, then try going to work without them!” For women, their clothes are not only “important,” but they inspire a running critique. Any woman, royal or otherwise, who is in the public eye must deal with the criticism and judgment about her “wardrobe”—just check the press coverage on Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin or Margaret Thatcher or any number of prominent women in politics. 

In the culture-shifting 1980s, as women’s roles were changing and more and more women opened their own businesses, ran for political office, entered the workforce once restricted to “men only,” taking on leadership positions in offices and boardrooms, women’s fashions powered-up as well. The man-tailored, hard-edged suits with heavy shoulder pads were like a woman’s “armor” to help her move through a man’s world—Margaret Thatcher comes to mind. And whether it was an intentional feminine gesture or just the Prime Minister’s preference, she always wore skirts. 

Of course, Queen Elizabeth always wears skirts—it’s her inherent style. But it’s also a way to stand out in a man’s world, a show of femininity as power. When I returned to work on this long-in-progress book, the third season of Peter Morgan’s television series The Crown premiered in 2019. “I’ve come to realize more than ever,” wrote Sophie Gilbert in The Atlantic, “how the series uses clothing to explore and subvert ideas about power, and what it looks like when a woman wields it.” (This particular season of The Crown was recreating the world of Queen Elizabeth II from the mid-1960s into the late 1970s.) “Typically when women gain access to a man’s world in popular culture, they dress the part, adopting masculine tailoring and fabrics. The Queen is different. Her gender, and her femininity, are intrinsic to the way she governs.” Gilbert describes the opening scene of the first episode as the image of the Queen, played by Olivia Colman, comes into focus “surrounded by a phalanx of men in dark suits. She, by contrast, wears a lilac dress with a love-knot detail over her breastbone, high-heeled black shoes, and pale stockings…. Her authority is such that the men around her bend slightly backward when she enters the room, as if to surrender even the airspace to the head of state.” 

Actresses portraying QEII in "The Crown" television series

This is why costume designers are key to the appeal and success of films and television programs. Picture Game of Thrones, The Lord of the Rings, or Downton Abbey—their costumes so essential to character development and overall production values. Costume designer Michelle Clapton, who was lured away from her remarkable run with Game of Thrones for most of its season five to create the costumes for the pivotal first season of The Crown, explained: “Correct costuming has its own primary role in enabling the actors to inhabit their characters. I’m the first person they really spend time with; the rehearsals come later. When they put the clothes on, and you get it right, you do see them transform….”

Angela Kelly, the real Queen’s senior dresser beginning in the late 1990s and by 2001 her in-house designer, used several techniques to emphasize Queen Elizabeth’s femininity, as well as her authority. Kelly revealed in her book, The Other Side of the Coin: The Queen, the Dresser and the Wardrobe, that she uses striking, vibrant colors for the Queen’s daytime wardrobe, not because they’re the Queen’s favorites, but to “allow her to stand out from the crowd and be visible to the well-wishers who have come to see her.” These are intentional gestures by the Queen and her staff meant to be courteous, diplomatic, and, as Gilbert sees it, a way “to underscore her own authority”—to underscore femininity as power. Something many women are now embracing with a confident stride, again. ~

{The Crown and "That" Dress}

Diana on the left; Emma Corrin in "The Crown" on the right

For me, the brightest star of The Crown television series on Netflix is its head costume designer, Amy Roberts. I've written for years, including in The End of the Fairy-Tale Bride: For Better or Worse, How Princess Diana Rescued the Great White Wedding, about the design of Diana Spencer's wedding gown, so I appreciate Amy's story of re-creating the legendary gown that appeared "on screen" for only a few poignant moments.

Emma Corrin in "The Crown," left; Princess Diana, right

When The Crown first announced "that gown" would be part of its Season Four storyline, their Twitter account posted: "Emmy award-winning costume designer Amy Roberts wanted to capture the same spirit and style of David & Elizabeth Emanuel’s original design, without creating a replica for Emma Corrin."

Emma Corrin on "The Crown"

Here is what journalist Lela London wrote in Forbes:

The second Diana took her vows in a gown with a 25-foot train, it became one of the most iconic wedding dresses in history.

The silk taffeta gown was hand-crafted by David and Elizabeth Emanuel at the time, and The Crown’s costume department consulted with the Emanuels to ensure the replica dress—worn for just a few seconds in the series—was as similar as possible. The original designers even gave them its patterns.

"We were filming the scene when you first see her in the wedding dress—I think it was Lancaster House in London—and I had a team of about ten people helping me put it on, because it's massive," Corrin told British Vogue.

"I walked out and everyone went completely silent. More than anything else I wear in the series, it’s so…it’s her."

Emma Corrin on "The Crown"

Vogue shared a background story of creating the real gown by David and Elizabeth Emanuel. And read more details and entertaining anecdotes in my book The End of the Fairy-Tale Bride: For Better or Worse, How Princess Diana Rescued the Great White Wedding.

 

{Coronation Gowns / excerpt No. 1}

Here's an excerpt from one of my presentations, “SOMETHING MOST ROYAL: Recreating Crowns & Gowns for Victoria & Elizabeth,” featuring costume design stories from PBS’ Victoria and Netflix’ The Crown about recreating the royal wedding gowns and ornate coronation garments. (Since you can read about Victoria and Elizabeth's wedding gowns in my latest book, I thought I'd share information about their coronations here!)

........................................................................

Sometime between Victoria’s accession to the throne and her coronation in 1838, just over a year in time—“the Mistress of the Robes received an enquiry from the Treasury about the cost of the robes the Queen would require…this would need to be included in the overall coronation expenses to be presented to Parliament for official approval.”

For the garments alone, there were hundreds of busy fingers! Not just dressmakers, robe-makers, shoe and stocking makers, as well as crown-makers to engage and instruct, but decisions, like:

Was there time to custom-weave silk satins, silk velvets and cloths of gold…or would these precious fabrics have to be bought—Heaven Forbid!!—“off the shelf”? And what about the regal wear for the Queen’s Maids of Honor?

Would a new crown have to be made for the monarch’s tiny head? Would her tiny feet reach the floor once seated in the sacred 500-year-old St Edward’s Chair?

So many dilemmas, so little time!!

Nonetheless, at 10 on the morning of 28 June 1838, the Queen sets off from Buckingham Palace “wearing the kirtle of her Parliament robe over her dress of gold-brocaded white satin,” according to official records. 

“In paintings of Victoria’s coronation her dress is consistently obscured by her robes and only recently has it become possible to gain an idea of this rich silk dress, when a page was deciphered from the ledgers of the Office of Robes as relating to the coronation.” (So this is how Rosalind Ebbutt, the costume designer, knew how to recreate Victoria’s gown in a more authentic design.) The original fabric, probably of Spitalfields manufacture, is “a design of cartouches and flowers worked in sliver-gilt strip on a white satin ground”—probably “off the shelf” instead of custom woven, and probably made by QV’s “long-serving dressmaker, Mary Bettans.”

Jenna Coleman from "Victoria" on PBS

Victoria was also wearing the silver, gold and “diamond circlet of George IV, one of the most familiar pieces of royal jewelry. (We’ll see it later with Queen Elizabeth.) Victoria had it reset with diamonds and pearls from the royal collection” (in fact, it is “set with 1,333 diamonds, including a 4 carat pale yellow brilliant in the centre of the front cross”)… “and Victoria wore it constantly until the death of her husband Prince Albert.”

Although made for George IV’s extravagant coronation in 1821, “the diadem has been regularly worn (and slightly modified) by queens regnant and consort from Queen Adelaide onwards. This feminine association belies its origin….”

..................

[to be continued....]

{"Victoria" on PBS}

Did you enjoy watching the period drama "Victoria" on PBS? Of course the story of the young queen included her 1840 wedding to Prince Albert which continues to influence brides and wedding celebrations today! If you've read my book, The End of the Fairy-Tale Bride: For Better or Worse, How Princess Diana Rescued the Great White Wedding, then you've read rich background stories and understand the intrigues of "the great white wedding"....!  

In my latest speaking engagement presentation, "Victoria & Elizabeth: Recreating Crowns & Gowns" (inspired by PBS' "Victoria" as well as the fabulous series on Netflix, "The Crown," featuring the life of Queen Elizabeth), I share design details about the real gowns plus behind-the-scenes stories of how the costume designers recreated those royal wedding and coronation gowns. 

You can read The End of the Fairy-Tale Bride for stories about the "real" wedding gowns, but here's a little blurb from my talk about the recreation of Queen Victoria's wedding gown by costume designer Rosalind Ebbutt. (My PowerPoint presentation is also full of beautiful images!):

....................................................

{excerpt from}

"Victoria & Elizabeth: Recreating Crowns & Gowns"

“Victoria’s” costume designer Rosalind Ebbutt, shared about reproducing the historic gown: "We were able to source a lot of things, silk that was very similar to the one Victoria wore, lace made by English lacemakers in Honiton. [The real] Victoria was very keen that everything would be from her country and made by an English dressmaker….,” the costume designer shared.

"The wedding dress was the one thing we knew how it would look so [recreating] it was a longer, drawn out process. Sometimes [for various costumes] we had to get things done in a week or so, but [for the wedding costumes], we had several weeks which was great," Rosalind explained.

In an interview with Hello! Magazine, she shared that “working with actress Jenna Coleman was a delight – and the highlight of series one was spending weeks creating and perfecting the all-important wedding dress…. “funnily enough” she added about filming the wedding scenes, “it was a moving day for us….."

Costume designer Rosalind Ebbutt and actress Jenna Coleman at fitting for "Victoria"