Writes Helen Lewis, in "The Crown Has Nothing Left to Say/The final season has swans, ghosts, and King Tony Blair, but it doesn’t have a message" (The Atlantic).
Phrase in the article that I thought no one would use anymore: "makes an honest woman of." (Context: "Prince Charles finally makes an honest woman of Camilla Parker Bowles.")
The OED has an entry for "to make an honest woman of," defined as "to marry (a woman) with whom one has had sexual relations, or who is otherwise not considered to be respectable in terms of accepted standards of sexual morality; (later humorously without connotations of restoring respectability) to marry (a woman)."
It seems to have amused people a couple centuries ago:
1749 Miss Nancy was, in vulgar Language, soon made an honest Woman. H. Fielding, Tom Jones...
1766 She was now made an honest woman of. O. Goldsmith, Vicar of Wakefield vol. II. xii. 211
1818 Effie was married—made, according to the common phrase, an honest woman.W. Scott, Heart of Mid-Lothian....
Notice how, even 200+ years ago, authors were distancing themselves from the phrase they were using — "in vulgar Language"... "according to the common phrase"....
Posts
64 comments:
Whatever was going on in the 'fractious' British empire, Elizabeth had no real power.
She cut ribbons at factory openings and gave speeches.
If I were a British subject I would work to abolish the leeches...
Is “The Crown” some kind of TV show?
It's like Hemingway's last posthumously published book, about Africa. True At First Light. Africa had moved on. Might be a good title for this blog, though.
Without Claire Foy playing Elizabeth, the Crown cratered.
…yah but what are you gonna do if you’re Netflix- make up some woke ending so Biden wins next year? 😜
I gritted my teeth through the Diana episodes this season, and will probably watch the rest. But the main question I wanted some stab at answering I fear won't be: why was Elizabeth so determined on denying Charles the throne? At 75 in 2001, or 2006 when she turned 80, it would have seemed quite reasonable. But no, even as she turned 85, 90, 95. Talk about a vote of no confidence.
“ why was Elizabeth so determined on denying Charles the throne? ”
Within the long story told in the series, I assume the answer is that she abhorred what her uncle had done in abdicating.
Yeah, The Crown sucks now.
Yeah I think it's easier to die on the throne than abdicate in favor of Charles. It creates two power structures.
“Makes an honest woman” could now mean that a trans surgeon comes highly recommended.
Re: robother:
But the main question I wanted some stab at answering I fear won't be: why was Elizabeth so determined on denying Charles the throne?
Abdication isn't the norm for the UK or its predecessor monarchies. Before Edward VIII, the last British monarch to have left the throne before his death was, I believe, James II, in 1688, and the Jacobite pretenders maintained that he did not, in fact, abdicate throne at all. If she had abdicated, that would have been highly unusual. And Elizabeth II tried to avoid that sort of thing, at least in her public role.
“Within the long story told in the series, I assume the answer is that she abhorred what her uncle had done in abdicating.“
Yes. That would make total sense. Her sense of duty… I don’t have the words I’m attempting to convey right now.
Within the long story told in the series, I assume the answer is that she abhorred what her uncle had done in abdicating.
But... how could she possibly have thought that "retiring" after more than 50 years of service is the same as abdicating? Particularly, leaving the throne in favor of an heir who clearly wants the job, unlike her father when it was thrust upon him?
I think it sounds a lot more like that vote of no confidence mentioned above.
Joe Smith,
You say qe had no real power. This is the gigantic myth of British royalty.
She, and now king chuck have absolute power to a degree that would make a Stalin or a Mao blush with envy.
The monarch doesn't exercise their power. At least not visibly.
But they still have absolute power under British law.
Including the right to appoint the king's (not Britain's) prime Minister. Or not appoint one at all.
John Henry
Joe Smith said...
Whatever was going on in the 'fractious' British empire, Elizabeth had no real power.
She cut ribbons at factory openings and gave speeches.
If I were a British subject I would work to abolish the leeches...
12/18/23, 11:08 AM
—————————
Technically the Monarch has a lot of power. It is tradition that keeps the Mknarch from exercising it.
The greatest power is that the King/Queen can dissolve parliament at antsy time.
It should be noted that the ritish armed forces swear allegiance to the King/Queen.
It depends on the definition of "has", or is it "had"? "Has had" is a duplicitous statement that only a liar, or lawyer, could love. Or is it lust? All's fair in lust and abortion.
I kind of agree with Ann's answer about abdication.
But a question about succession:
Why did Elizabeth's mother, also queen Elizabeth, take over on the death her father?
Why wouldn't queen Camilla rule as queen if she out lives Chuck?
John Henry
Why was she determined to deny Charles the throne? Well like a lot of the royals she was a knowledgeable horsewoman, or at least a judge of horse flesh. And she knew a loser when she saw it. Charles switched from mooning about wanting to be Camilla Parker Bowle's tampon, and then made her an "honest woman".
Look the royals are very very wealthy -- real estate and location matters--and are also mildly ornamental. But if someone is truly goofy, then it disturbs that ornamental image.
Writing that last comment I realized that the idea of "Queen" Camilla is every bit as preposterous as "Doctor" Jill Biden.
John Henry
Thats doesnt make sense
Three stars maybe, but five for Elizabeth Debicki. I found her absolutely fascinating in Diana's role.
4 episodes stretching out one very short period of time in 1997 with an enormous percentage of purely fictional nonsense. The original concept of The Crown — as explained on the official podcast — was to highlight interesting but forgotten events and dig into them a bit, ignoring the bits of royal history that everyone knows. So what happened? What they showed was handled far better by The Queen Years ago
The first few seasons were a remarkable timecapsule. The Queen does have an important relationship with her Prime Minister.
Then they shifted from world events to petty gossip, and it became very dull.
It's worth watching the part where Princess Margaret outdoes LBJ in filthy limericks.
Reacher, S2 on Amazon Prime, was a better watch this weekend.
A handmade tale of latent lust for monarchy and the royal "we".
Phrase in the article that I thought no one would use anymore: "makes an honest woman of."
Better than calling her “The Rotweiler.”
Say what you will about the royal family, they served their country well during Covid. We could have used some national cheerleaders here in the US.
As for the show, it’s gone completely off the rails, now sinking to please the gossips and detractors.
I think the problem with Elizabeth (who as a Princess waved at my Dad once) abdicating is that any mis-step that Charles would make would mean people might look longingly at Elizabeth II living in retirement, and that kind of thing isn't healthy for a monarchy.
honest aj (of women) chaste.
The power of the British monarch is unlimited, as long as he or she does not choose to exercise it. If he should, no one knows what would actually happen.
Who becomes the monarch has to do with sperm, offspring of a monarch. Not who is married to one.
Elizabeth II will be missed, she was a class act.
To install or not install crown moldings is the question. I missed the denouement, what is the answer?
"If I were a British subject I would work to abolish the leeches..."
Then you'd also be abolishing a large percentage of your country's tourist industry. Still worth it?
'Technically the Monarch has a lot of power. It is tradition that keeps the Mknarch from exercising it.'
What's the point of having 'Fuck you' money if you never say 'Fuck you.'
I guess my point is, 'technical' power is pointless if it is never applied.
And I stand by my virulent anti-monarchy position.
A bunch of lazy, spoiled, inbred brats. Get real fucking jobs...
'Then you'd also be abolishing a large percentage of your country's tourist industry. Still worth it?'
Yes.
British subjects should be ashamed of being ruled on principle alone.
At least we in the U.S. can pretend that we have free choice...
On why Elizabeth never abdicated or retired, listen to her 21st birthday speech -- "My whole life . . ." -- and you'll understand why she couldn't. (It's on YouTube, three minutes.)
I love the phrase "make an honest woman." If more men felt an obligation to make an honest woman out of their baby mama, we'd have stronger families. Right now we have reproductive chaos.
I miss the Queen. She was the real deal to me, a woman trying to do her absolute best in the tradition of the Crown, the House of Windsor, and the Empire. I think she used every fiber of her strength to do it. But it's gone now.
She was right to hang on to the throne, Charles is a churlish, callow poser. I have hopes for William, though.
The rest of them can go hang. But she was a class act.
"If I were a British subject I would work to abolish the leeches..."
The royal family are independently productive, albeit with public benefits, in the conventional mold of investors, managers, and directors.
I think the show reflects its times, each of them, with a high degree of fidelity. A young Elizabeth was at least adjacent to substantial world events like WWII. One of the most famous Brits of the 20th century, Winston Churchill, seemed very deferential to her and the monarchy. These were serious times that required serious people.
The early seasons showed the sweep of history, whereas the Diana era showed the sharp turn of society to media-driven narratives and tabloid fodder. The royal family became more famous for this than their political influence and leadership.
The rise of Margaret Thatcher seemed to flummox Elizabeth, who already showed some tendencies toward avoiding controversial events (like the Welsh coal mine collapse that wiped out half a town, including a school full of kids). Her inability to contribute much to the Cold War set the tone for a monarchy that was much more of a figurehead than a consequential office.
I do agree the late seasons are not as good, but that's because they reflect where we've come as a society. It's especially jarring as we saw from the early seasons where we started and what we accomplished. Life has become constant navel-gazing and media consumption, and these later seasons showcase the unfortunate life of Diana that helped set that in motion.
One thing I still applaud the royal family for is their commitment to military service. Charles & Diana's sons both served in war zones. Compare that to American politicians who are way too comfortable sending someone else's kid to die overseas. We would do well to follow their example, and we could stand a lot more consideration before committing our troops to these constant, feckless, overseas interventions.
Within the long story told in the series, I assume the answer is that she abhorred what her uncle had done in abdicating.
+ 1
Blogger AMDG said...
It should be noted that the ritish armed forces swear allegiance to the King/Queen.
Not wrong but not quite right either.
The British armed forces swear allegiance not to "the King/Queen" in the abstract. They swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth personally. When she died, they had to take the oath anew swearing allegiance to King Chuck personally.
Not just the armed forces but all civil servants (All govt employees?) as do all mambers of the House of Commons and Lords. Ditto cabinet ministers.
If King Chuck orders the military to take some action that is not specifically in violation of a specific law and were to refuse they would be guilty of the crimes of treason and, possibly, mutiny.
Nobody swears an oath to the constitution as in the US, to the govt or the country. They are bound to Chuck.
Even Justin, up in our hat, swears an oath to Chuck in his capacity as king of Canada. Justin is appointed by the Governor General who is appointed by King Chuck. Some "democracy", huh?
John Henry
Althouse's (and Balfegor's) answer is kind to Charles, but not sure I buy it. Abdication at an early age like her uncle or James II is obviously different than stepping aside at 80 or 90. Hard to believe that the UK subjects would've seen that as shaking the foundations of the monarchy.
If I were a Brit, I wouldn't want Charles to feel compelled to occupy the throne 25 more years. As we are seeing here in the USA, rule by the superannuated itself can undermine the constitutional order.
I enjoyed the first two seasons. Clair Foy was the best Elizabeth. Elizabeth Debicki did a fairly good job as Diana the last two seasons, although she was much taller than Diana. She did, however, seem to capture her look and personality.
Re: "honest woman".
There is something to be said for the double standard, but much much more to be said against the modernist, feminist conceit that men and women are The Same™.
Once I started watching this season, I had to keep going, not knowing why. But I do that with novels, too. It was flaccid, limp, impotent.
But the last three minutes were oddly emotional. If they'd put as much thought into the rest as they did the end, it might've been a worthwhile season, notwithstanding the distance between climax (Diana's death) and denouement.
John Henry and AMDG continue the fiction that the British monarch has almost unlimited powers, as they do every time the subject comes up. In fact the monarch could exercise any of those powers. Once. The next day the power would be taken away by Parliament. Depending on the issue it might be the end of the monarchy. This is why you almost never see the monarch exercising its unlimited powers. Even the power to dissolve parliament is only exercised at the recommendation of the Prime Minister when the government wants to call new elections.
I actually saw Queen Elizabeth once, in person, and she stood not more than an arms length from me. In February/March 1980 I spent about 8 weeks working at a small manufacturing plant our company had in the Lake District. On the Friday I was wrapping up the project and planning to leave on a late afternoon train to London the Queen and Prince Philip came to the small town where I was working to open an arts center at noon. I left the plant early enough to go into town and got a nice spot on the sidewalk just across the street from the entrance. As it got closer for them to arrive the crowd got very large and I gave up my spot on the front row to let a group of nice little gray-haired ladies get in front of me. Wouldn't you know it, when she and Philip came out of the arts center following the ribbon cutting, she walked directly across the street and stopped right in front of me and talked to the woman who had taken my place. She then walked on down the street for a block or so, with Philip walking several feet behind, stopping to talk to random individuals along the way. I followed her down the street with my 35mm camera, shooting up a whole roll of Ektachrome slide film along the way. The slides turned out pretty good. It was a lot of fun, and I feel very lucky to have had the opportunity to see her in person. A photographer for the local paper, The Cumberland Star, took a picture of her during the walkabout that included me in the background in the crowd. She came back again about 20 years later for another opening and the paper produced a commemorative insert from the 1980 visit and ran that same picture again and a friend at the plant sent me a copy.
TV show The Crown fails to acknowledge Queen Elizabeth II rein over the near-complete dismantlement of former British Empire. London has become a non-English city. Southern England is still beautiful, bucolic, and prosperous; the remainder, not so, with Brexit coming too late, too little.
Show does state the obvious, however, when young Elizabeth counsels old Elizabeth that the next generation is not capable nor worthy of throne.
The Crown lost me with their portrayal of Margaret Thatcher.
Ann Althouse wrote: “ Within the long story told in the series, I assume the answer is that she abhorred what her uncle had done in abdicating.”
Must disagree. It was clearly (to me, anyway) that Elizabeth didn’t trust or even like Charles. She was a good judge of character.
Most mystifying thing to me about the series was the complete silence of the Beatles. Lots of other pop songs to set context but nary a Beatles tune. I mean, Paul McCartney did say, “Her Majesty’s a pretty nice girl” didn’t he?
Why wouldn't she abdicate?
In addition to the reason above, Charles is a blithering idiot.
“ Phrase in the article that I thought no one would use anymore: "makes an honest woman of." ”
…is that because we are now so “with it” that fornication, adultery and infidelity, by its ubiquity, is rebranded as Modern Love? Because Watching last season and this season of the crown is a good reminder of the absolute catastrophe that is divorce and infidelity on children. It really screws them up for life. And yes, Charles and Camilla’s relationship was furtive and deceitful for years.
Andrew Parker Bowles made "...an honest woman of Camilla." She reverted to form with Charles.
We'd watched all the seasons up to now, but lost interest in the current one after about 3 episodes. Maybe we'll come back to it but we've moved on to other shows.
It was clearly (to me, anyway) that Elizabeth didn’t trust or even like Charles. She was a good judge of character.
And here I was thinking I was one of small minority who feel that way about Charles III.
If I were a British subject I would work to abolish the leeches...
A good case can be made that having a ceremonial head of state who is different from the political head of state can be useful. Right now the President of the United States has both roles and may find himself forced to engage in some meaningless dog and pony show when he’s needed elsewhere as the head of the Executive Branch. IIRC this happened to Jack Kennedy at the start of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Blogger mongo said...
John Henry and AMDG continue the fiction that the British monarch has almost unlimited powers, as they do every time the subject comes up. In fact the monarch could exercise any of those powers. Once. The next day the power would be taken away by Parliament.
Even you seem to agree that the monarch has unlimited absolute powers. You seem to think it is impossible for him to use them. I think it is unlikely. I think if he tried to use them openly in any significant way, it is difficult to predict what would happen.
In other words, we are not even in significant disagreement. I think our main disagreement is that you want to pretend these powers do not exist and should not be talked about. I think the non-use of the powers depends on the better nature of the monarch at the time and, per Heinlein: "Never depend on another mans better nature. He may not have one."
It might be that the courts have some authority over the king if he acts illegally. That would leave the question of how to enforce their authority. But for sake of argument, let us say he does not violate any law or statute.
To use your example, we both agree that he has the authority to dissolve parliament. Tradition (I hesitate to call it a constitution) says that he can only do that via his PM. But it is his PM, and a position that has no legal or official basis other than 200+ years of tradition.
So ignoring the PM and dissolving parliament on his own would certainly be legal and the courts would have nothing to say about it.
Suppose parliament refuses to go home. The king can send his army to remove them. Any illegality would be by parliament refusing to go home. If the army refused to obey the order, it would be mutiny, treason or both on the basis of their oaths.
Or maybe parliament can pass a law saying that they can't be dissolved. Yeah, that's the ticket. Except that no law is valid without the King's "assent" He can decline to sign it or even allow it to be received at the palace.
Then what? Back to you.
Oh, maybe the people will rise up! Yeah, right. They are so beaten down that if Putin invaded they would just lie down. And if they did rise up, with what? Sticks and stones? Nobody other than the army and some police have any arms. And remember they are sworn to the king. British subjects are not even allowed to have knives. Other than small ones.
I agree with you. I suspect that everyone else does too. In the unlikely event that the king tried to use his power it would be a hell of a mess.
All the Brits can do is rely on Chuck's good sense and adherance to tradition. Chuck is the same age as me and I've been watching him, or more correctly having him forced into my view, for more than 60 years. He has never impressed me as being the sharpest knife in a warehouse full of rather dull knives.
the boy prince doesn't seem much better. Not as public so perhaps perceived better by many. But I doubt it.
Anyway, not my circus, not my monkey. The Brits are free to operate however they see fit unless they drag us kicking and screaming into a 3rd useless European war. Then we should declare war on them. Or something.
John Henry
Maybe the thought of retiring never crossed her mind, the crown was hers whether she wanted it or not, and she accepted the role for life, and meant it.
It's a role, not a job.
As to the power of the Crown, that is all a matter of checks and balances, the Parliament and the Courts, the precedent from Magna Carta on.
The rules of succession are clear enough, and the Queen mother and Camilla and Diana were not in the line of succession.
The last few Dutch queens abdicated in their 60s or so. Theirs was belittled as a "bicycle monarchy," but I haven't heard that evocative phrase in decades. If you're going to have a monarch, do it right, just not absolutely.
People call the Windsors inbred because Phil and Liz were 3rd cousins and Charles looked dorky (unlike them) as a kid, but the Scandinavian royals (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) married each other again and again. Lots of first cousin marriages. Those crazy Lutherans!
there is the Spanish queen, distant kin who seems to be in a bit of quandary, with her significant other, the kings father had similar issues,
If we didn't have a monarchy (which traces its roots back to Cerdic of Wessex c500, a Saxon/British eorldorman. I can trace the descent from Charles III to Cerdic of Wessex in 30secs. The time it takes to send my infant grandson to sleep)we'd have an elected President.
No thanks.
I'd rather we had a monarchy that represents us than some anonymous party hack. And the likes of Elizabeth and George understood duty.
Did you know that the root of king is 'of the kin'?
Crown Season 1 was very good. Thereafter, steadily got worse
"a woman born before the invention of television"
Layers and layers of fact checkers. Sigh.
Post a Comment