THE MUSINGS OF A NOT-SO-NAKED CIVIL SERVANT

BRITISH ROYALTY AND THE EQUESTRY - A LONG AND HAPPY TRADITION

In a spectacle noted more for its decided austerity than for its jubilee, Prince Charles, the eldest son of Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United  Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith and The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (as decreed by Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, etc. etc. etc.) and first (as of this day) in line to the English throne, married his mistress (concubine,  harlot,  whore,  siren, wench, temptress,) Her Royal Highness the Princess Charles, Princess of Wales (technically correct but not in use,) Her Royal Highness the Princess Charles, Duchess of Cornwall (used every-where but Scotland,) and Her Royal Highness the Princess Charles, Duchess of Rothesay (used only in Scotland,) nee Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles and expected to be, upon Charles' ascension to the throne, Her Royal Highness The Princess Consort, in a double ceremony - one a civil union at the local union hall, the other a blessing in the chapel of Windsor Castle. 

It would be easy to look at today as nothing more than what it really was - the first race in the 2005 Ascot season - were it not for the political, moral, constitutional, ethical and decency concerns that it has raised.  Every season, Ascot is a singular society event that calls, from the four corners of the realm, the most important families in the Empire to a near hahj-like ritual that is not only encouraged, but expected, of any person or family wanting to be noticed and patronized by the Queen.  Princess Diana was a regular attendee, as was her sister-in-law, the Duchess of York.  At the event - which is, at its core, a tea-time costume ball for the ladies of the court - the most famous participants are not the sleek Arabians that are raised specifically for the season; no, they are the millinary creations sported by the afore-mentioned ladies and their numerous dopelgangers.  As is befitting the opening race of the season, today's wedding of Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall featured more wide brims, feathers and netting than the costume shoppe at the Olde Globe Theatre, and will be remembered as much for the crowds' difficulties in seeing the face of the bride as it is for the slap in the face that the entire event was to the memory of Diana.

As if orchestrated by some insane party planner, Queen Elizabeth carried the theme of today's festivities to its almost divinely-inspired conclusion - by toasting the winner of today's four-legged horse race before she toasted the second marriage of her eldest son:

"I've got two things to announce to you of the greatest importance," declared the monarch on the auspicious event.  "The first is that the Grand National was won by Hedgehunter. The second is to say to you that despite Becher's Brook and The Chair (two obstacles on the Aintree race course) and all kinds of other terrible obstacles, my son has come through and I'm very proud and wish them well." 

A lovely sentiment from the world's greatest mother...

And, in a moment that Diana certainly created from beyond this earthly plane, the newest  (though certainly not the youngest) member of the royals actually - and you are NOT going to believe this! - threw a horse shoe while greeting the crowds outside of Windsor, and then reacted with a quite audible whinny and a neigh.  Not since the other royal equine, Princess Anne, was thrown from her mount during competition as a British athlete in the 1976 Montreal Olympics has one of the royals so closely mirrored the behavior of the beasts that they resemble, and so clearly suffered a significant episode of hoof-in-mouth disease in response.

As if the horse and pony show played out by the Duchess weren't enough to cast a pall over the ceremonies, protesters took to the streets near Windsor to decry the marriage in  both the name of Diana - to whom most Britains remain completely devoted - and as a blatant thumbing of the royal probiscusis to the country's homosexuals that, as in the United States, are not allowed to marry in Britain.  Making matters worse, the British press - long known for both its judiciousness and its yellow journalism - tossed aside convention by continuously reminding the populace that the marriage marked the union of two people that had been in an intimate, marriage-like relationship for thirty-five years - fourteen of which were while he was married to the mother of the future kings of England, Prince William and Prince Harry.  Granted, the only person that didn't know about Charles and Camilla was the Queen Mum, who lived her final days in a gin-besotted haze that not even the scandal of divorce or the murder of Diana could penetrate, but one would have thought - given the supposed sophistication and propriety of the British people - that with Diana's children and the world in attendance, some measure of dignity and decorum would have been observed.  But, with two mares attending Christmas dinner this year at Sandringham, and it now a foregone conclusion that the Queen has sanctioned her new daughter-in-law's eventual ascent to the throne, who the hell cares about decorum?

Now, if you've ever been to a horse race, you know that the action on the track is often not the most interesting in the park.  Oft-times, it's the machinations in the stands and stables that garner the most attention, and today's hoped-for only running of the Bowles Cup was no exception.  Obviously completely recovered from the devastating death of their mother - and choosing not to bear a grudge against their new Mummy for the part that she played in the disolution of their parent's marriage - both Harry and William were active participants in the ceremonies  (William attended his father,) and throughout the day's events were seen to be quite convivial and bouyant.  Miraculously, Harry - who gets better-looking every day - was even able to elicit a laugh from his usually-stern Grandmama, though no confirmation about the humorous exchange having its genesis in the tossed shoe incident of horse number 7 can be confirmed nor denied.  What can be confirmed, however, is the number of comments made during the day-long festivities about the almost clone-like appearance of Prince Harry to a certain Captain of the Guard, James Hewitt, that was a very close friend of Princess Diana's.  The phrase "stunt-double" was the most popular, though not the only, moniker applied to the dashing prince throughout the day.

Because we are observing the royals in their natural environment, it is important to remember that all manner of scandal and innuendo and grief always accompanies any important rite that the family participates in.  The opening of Parliament every year becomes a tradition-steeped afternoon during which the Queen gets to break-out the good jewelry, even though it's just a matter of showing up and saying "Get to work," and weddings become the one opportunity that the family has to put forward their best face and prove to the English that they are worth every single one of the millions of pounds spent each year to keep them in the style to which they are accustomed.  Even Diana's and Charles' wedding over twenty years ago was shrouded in scandal because it was said - by the hard-working British press - that Diana was not a virgin, as is required by the Church of England as a means of protecting the most sacred bloodline of the Windsors.

Today's wedding was, as could be expected, no exception.  While the couple was walking down the aisle towards the blessing of their union, ancestry and royalty experts were announcing the findings of their exhaustive research - research that showed that Charles and Camilla are either 9th cousins, due to the commonality of Henry Cavendish in their bloodlines, or half-cousins once removed, thanks to the affair that Charles' great, great-grandfather, King Edward VII, had with Camilla's great-grandmother, Alice Edmonstone - which produced Camilla's grandmother, Sonia Keppel.

PROVO, Utah, April 4 /PRNewswire/ -- When Prince Charles first met Camilla Parker-Bowles at a polo match in the early seventies, she said to the prince, "My great-grandmother and your great-great grandfather were lovers, so how about it?" Today, genealogical research shows they have an even stronger bond, they are ninth cousins. According to family history experts at Ancestry.com, a service of MyFamily.com, Inc., Prince Charles and Camilla are ninth cousins once removed.

Prince Charles and Camilla are both descendents of Henry Cavendish, 2nd Duke of Newcastle. Prince Charles' family history can be traced back to the Duke's elder daughter Margaret Cavendish, while Camilla's family tree leads to the Duke's younger daughter Catherine Cavendish.

A second and more scandalous possible tie also exists that would make the soon-to-be married couple half second cousins once removed. It is believed that Camilla's grandmother, Sonia Keppel, was the illegitimate daughter of King Edward VII. If this is true then she and Charles would be half second cousins once removed. The half denotes that Charles and Camilla are descended from different partners of Edward VII (Charles from Edward's wife and Camilla from Edward's alleged mistress, Alice Edmonstone).

Thank God it's safe to assume that Camilla is past child-bearing age. 

Thankfully, that was pretty much the end of the drama, and the balance of the day was left for family to join together to celebrate what is supposed to be the beginning of the happy years for Charles.  Edward and Sophie, Charles' brother and sister-in-law, the Earl and Countess of Wessex, were there; so was Andrew, the groom's other brother, with his daughters by the Duchess of York Sarah Ferguson, Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice.  Princess Anne was in attendance, with her daughter Zara Phillips and son Peter Phillips by her marriage to Captain Mark Phillips.  But what wasn't there was an excuse - not even an explanation - for all of the many improprieties that today's union brought to light.

Let's forget, for a moment, that it's just tacky that the future king of England is marrying his concubine after 35 years of shacking up in drafty palaces and castles throughout England - while Diana was giving birth to the next-in-line to the throne and dealing with a press that vilified her for what it declared was her lack of attention to her marriage - only to be murdered by the "grey men" that were brought out of the shadows - the M5 - in Fergie's autobiography. 

And let's forget that Elizabeth's sanctioning of the union is both a very public rejection of Diana's memory as the legitimate Queen Mother once William becomes king and a very vocal statement of support in favor of Trigger Bowles.  In addition, as the defender of the Faith, Liz's blessing of the marriage is much like a papal blessing - in essence, declaring that the divorce of Charles and Diana was irrelevant and the marriage of a whore and an adulterer - with the blessing of the Church of England - completely relevant and completely acceptable in the eyes of the church.

The forgotten element of today's events are the lone and quiet gay rights' protesters that pointed out just how hypocritical and prejudicial and downright un-constitutional the marriage laws in both America and Britain are.  While Charles and Camilla both take a second honeymoon trip to Scotland, gay and lesbian couples in a majority of countries fight for custody rights and visitation rights and the right to end a partner's suffering and a host of other things that 90% of the planet take for granted. 

But, hey, who has time to think about 10% of the population.  Charles and Camilla are finally legally wed.  And bookies are laying 2-1 odds that this filly is going to finish out in front.

And Camilla's happiness is what it's really all about...at least it has been for the past 35 years...

Good show, Camilla.  Now, give the old girl a carrot.

Ding, Dong The Pope is Dead...

By the time most of you read this, Pope John Paul II will have left the planet.  As a recovering Catholic, my only concern involves whether or not the prophecy that there are only two popes left before Armaggedon is true; as a human being, my only concern is whether the planet that John Paul is leaving is worth saving from destruction. 

Much has and will be said about John Paul and his incredible magnetism and appeal and, as the tributes begin, much will be said about the hundreds of self-less and Godly acts committed by the Pope in the name of Catholicism.  He will be remembered and lionized as the man that ended communism and spent the better part of his papacy traveling the world in an effort to unite the over 1 billion members of the Catholic faith and to bring even more non-Catholics into the fold.

What will not be mentioned, however, is John Paul's continuing demonizing of homosexuality, which virtually rubber-stamped hatred towards and violence against gays and lesbians worldwide; his virtual obfuscation of the church sex scandal, which shook the faith of the faithful but caused no widespread reform in the church to address the issues of priests as predators and choir boys as their objects of lust; his continued rejection of contraception to curb exploding populations in the poorest countries on Earth, since it is the Catholics of those countries that form the foundation of the church's wealth; his less-than-forceful condemnation of the war in Iraq and its satanic instigator, George Walker Bush; nor his hands-on policy of dealing directly with oppressive regimes while doing nothing for the citizenry being oppressed. 

In many ways, John Paul shouldn't be remembered for those things - he was, very much like Ronald Reagan, a popular pontiff that will in all probability be remembered as the most popular of the many hundreds that have reigned over and governed the largest Christian denomination on Earth.  As a man, that popularity is understandable - but, as God's representative (and alleged mouthpiece) on this plain of existence, he fell far short of the teachings of the Christ and the spirit of God's love. 

The world's wealthiest entity - Vatican City - houses the papal government while hiding the entire history of mankind in its  bowels.  The things that we know about this history is that it does not follow the principles so ardently asribed to by John Paul.  It all paints a very different picture of the "creation" of man, the life of the Christ and the ultimate fate of our home world.  This information is kept hidden so that the people under papal control will remain devoted to the faith and thus support the massive corporation that is the Catholic Church.  If any of it were to be revealed, the masses would have no need for religion and, therefore, no need for the church.

Which is what, ultimately, needs to happen.  Christ stated that the only way to the Father was through Him - He didn't mention churches or synagogues or mosques or temples, and He certainly didn't prescribe clergymen as the intermediary for communication with the Almighty.  Apparently, God's word is meant to be edited.

I've never been able to reconcile the Church's tenets that call for love and compassion for all with the same church's blatant discrimination towards women and gays and lesbians.  The God of my understanding wants us to love one another support one another and help one another.  He, at no time, preaches hatred or discrimination.  God's word, you see, is contained in the Ten Commandments - which simply do not support the contention that gays and lesbians should be shunned and denied civil liberties, or that priests should be given a pass to abuse children or that the impoverished should be condemned to a life of starvation and disease and indignity so that the Church and other corporations can continue to operate without government interference or taxation. 

And that, you see, is what must be remembered about this pope.  He was an astute politician, much more so than a devout prelate.  He actively sought to drive a wedge between the divergent factions of the Catholic Church and to promote an image of moral and spiritual superiority over those of opposing viewpoints.  Having gained immense popularity because of his support of the Polish labor unions that eventually brought communism to its knees, he continued to rely on politics to advance the causes of the Church and allied and aligned himself and the Church with leaders and governments which human rights records and fostering of liberty and justice were at least as questionable as his own. 

I'm sorry that the Pope is dying - truly, I am.  His death heralds the final chapter of our collective histories, and signals - like Gideon's trumpets - the pounding hooves of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.  But the fact remains that John Paul II was, like Jesus, merely a man - guilty of human foibles and human failings.  He was not perfect and he was not God.  If we agree with that, then we must agree that many of his proclomations were false, and that much of what passed for the word of God during his papacy was merely political posturing to maintain his control.

Rest well, John Paul...your work is, thank God, done....

'Til Death Do Us part...

I'm not prone to getting into political discourse anymore, given the hideous results of the 2004 election cycle and the current occupant of the White House, who I choose to block out of my consciousness for fear that - should I let him occupy too much time or space - I will be rendered completely unable to function and in desperate need of a bottle of what Judy took just before she yelled "Micky Dean, Micky Dean," from the loo.

But, something is happening - which I told everyone would - that is beyond the pale and borders on an America so warped and so completely disparate from the America envisioned by the framers of that now-forgotten document, The Constitution of these United States of America, that I simply cannot stay quiet.

I am speaking, of course, about Terri Schiavo, the Florida woman that has become the center of a controversy so monumental and so unbelievable that I cannot even believe that any of us are devoting time to it.  In a nutshell - as if you haven't already heard more than enough about it - the poor thing has been non-functioning now for fifteen years now, as the result of a heart-stoppage that cut off the flow of oxygen to her brain.  She can breathe on her own, but is incapable of caring for herself or of speech.  Her husband obtained a court order allowing him to disconnect the feeding tubes that sustained her, but her parents - swayed by the prognostications of some snake-charmer physicians that swear on a stack of bibles that the woman can be rehabilitated - have challenged that order, and now we find ourselves in the constitutional quagmire that we do.

For a man that avows that God is his guide and the bible his road map, as George Bush does, to overlook some of the most powerful words written in that book as they pertain to marriage is no longer just a laugh-riot - it is blashphemy...heresy.  For Mr. Bush would have us believe that he acts in God's interests, yet again he has found reason to oppose God and oppose the bible, all the while pleading that he is a man of devout faith.  Here are just two passages from the bible about marriage and the relationship between the husband and wife:

(1 Corinthians 7:2-4 KJV)
(2) Nevertheless, {to avoid} fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. (3) Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. (4) The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

(Ephesians 5:22-33 KJV)
(22) Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. (23) For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. (24) Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so {let} the wives {be} to their own husbands in every thing. (25) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; (26) That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, (27) That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. (28) So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. (29) For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: (30) For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. (31) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. (32) This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (33) Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife {see} that she reverence {her} husband.

I am not a theologian, nor am i particularly devout when it comes to religion, but I am capable of reading and comprehending even the writings of long-dead men that professed to know something about what God wanted for the world.  It seems to me that, in those passages, mankind is told that the husband is the decision-maker in matters concerning the marriage and the wife.  This being the case, it seems to me that the ruling set down by the judge in favor of Mr. Schiavo is the closest thing to God's will that a human judiciary can achieve.

All of that notwithstanding, when did it become the dominion of the government to decide which life should be spared and which one lost in cases such as this one?  Why, all of a sudden, is Terri Schiavo's life so important to Mr. Bush - or to the fate of the nation, for that matter?  And when did it become incumbent upon the government to interfere in the personal lives of its citizens to such a degree that the right to die with dignity is no longer a personal choice? 

Certainly, this is NOT a matter of national defense.  Terri Schiavo's life nor death will not determine whether another terrorist attack occurs; nor whether democracy is established in the Middle East; nor whether Social Security will be "rescued" with private accounts.  It will determine nothing - except how far Mr. Bush and his demogogue cabal will stoop to undermine the Constitution and rob us of our rights as individuals and citizens of a country that used to hold personal Liberty and Freedom to be THE most important and fundamental elements of our society.

Mr. Bush has gone too far...and yet the sheep continue to blindly follow - just as the prophets foretold.  It is a dark day in America, but not because of Mrs. Schiavo.  It is because George W. Bush has proved, once again, to be the very essence of evil...the anti-Christ.

May God help us all!

SPORTY GAYS

Many people seem to be of the mistaken opinion that homosexuality and sports are two mutually-exclusive states of being or endeavor.  America's past-time - baseball - for example, is in the midst of a potentially history-making event which will see the "outing" of one of its players after a recent survey of major league players revealed that 76% of them don't have a problem with a gay team mate.  Granted, there are more than enough vocal members of the remaining 24% that will make the event a media circus, but the fact remains that there are and always have been gays in sport and, pretty soon, we're all going to know exactly who they are.

It all started with the Greeks, actually - and those bloody Olympics.  For those of you that haven't studied the subject, homosexuality was a much-practiced and, in fact, encouraged sexual activity, both because of the bonding that occurred between the two men involved as well as the realization that men needed to be sexual but women were supposed to be virgins upon marriage so some accommodation simply had to be made.  That accommodation was homosexuality.  Homosexuality was, in fact, so prevalent in ancient Greece that even soldiers were gay - and were often encouraged to be so because, it was rightly believed, a lover was more likely to look out for his partner and protect him than was some stranger conscribed to the same sleeping tent. 

Change came, as it always has, when the Catholic Church got into the act and declared homosexuality to be a sin.  Prior to that edict, the population was still worshipping all manner of dieties, from woodland elves to multiple gods assigned to myriad tasks.  But the Church, under married and warring popes, decided that to amass power and control the populace, it had to establish itself as a political, as well as spiritual, entity singularly capable of providing people with everything that they needed in this life and the next. 

Of course, standing in the way of the great papal plan was a little thing called civil government, i.e. the various monarchies that ruled the civilized world and, ostensibly, had the power to govern and control the peoples of the planet.  Needless to say, confrontation became the order of the day, as the king declared that he would put a transgressor to death and the pope declaring that he would condemn a transgressor to eternal damnation.  The pope usually won out.

Except at a little meeting called The Council of Vienne that took place during the early 1300's and resulted in the installation of a third pope to challenge the legitimacy of the two reigning popes, as well as authorization to launch a holy war against the Muslims in order to wrest control of the Holy Lands away from them.  This council, as well as one two hundred years later dubbed The Council of Trent - which acted to counter the Protestant revolution with a hardening of Catholic dogma and a definitive "consequences of your action" punishment system that could be applied throughout the church.  It was at this council that homosexuality became a hot topic, it being an obvious and grievous sin and all. 

So, in one fell swoop, gays in the military weren't out - and neither were Olympians or any other sportsmen that wanted to curry favor from the church and other sponsors.  Thus began the association of manliness and machismo (read not gay) with sports.  Gays were, after all, "light in the loafers," and could not be expected to summon the necessary strength of body and character to toss a football or kick a soccerball or hit a line drive.  Ice skating, possibly; cheerleading, definitely - but quarterback?  Never.  This, despite the fact that sports is literally rife with homoerotic player terms...such as "tight end" and "catcher." 

Of course, there have been a few pro players that have come out - once they had left the game, of course.  David Kopay, a running back for the 49'ers, the Lions, the Redskins and the Saints, made history when, in 1977, he officially came out, via his autobiography, The David Kopay Story.  Since then, Greg Louganis, Rudy Galindo, Martina Navratilova and Billy Bean have all added texture to the gays-in-sports montage, but notice one thing:  Diving, ice skating, tennis and, okay, baseball.  Not the most macho of sports.  Except for former Dodger, Billy Bean, the sports in which the afore-mentioned athletes participated were viewed as "acceptable" sports for gays and lesbians to participate in.  Except for David Kopay, the number of gay football players to announce their preferences is miniscule, if countable at all.

This isn't to say, however, that gays haven't been a formidable presence in sports, albeit in the stands on on the sofa in front of the TV, and this is in no small part because...well, face it - jocks are hot!  Oh, yeah...all that testosterone packed into those tight pants and oh-so-brief Speedos is frigging luscious.  And you won't find one gay man that will admit to not fantasizing about an after-game locker room session that includes more than the standard cool-down.  Jocks and socks and uniform pants and cleats and all of the equipment and accoutrement of the sportsman become erotically-charged paraphernalia and memorabilia for the man that's banned from playing the game but not playing around.  I'm not too proud or to shy to admit that I'm one of them.  Billy Bean would be exhausted if I were allowed to do all of the things to him when he's in uniform that I want to.  Just something about a baseball player....

So, what happens when the possible becomes a fact?  What happens when gays and lesbians are not just rumored to be in pro sports but are, in fact, highly visible participants.  How will it change the game, for the players and the spectators?

Of course, it's all conjecture at this point, but - aside from the new meaning that after-point-making butt pats will have - there won't be much difference for the spectators.  During fan days or photo days at the park, one might see John and Bob behind a table signing player's cards - instead of John and Roberta - and at-home profiles of players in the sports sections of the newspapers might have two handsome faces staring back at them, rather than a beautiful male-female couple, but other than that, it just won't affect the game for the spectator.  Unless, of course, humans are as base as they seem to be, and yelling "faggot" and "queer" and "cocksucker" from the stands after a bad play becomes the norm.  Would there be fines, do you suppose?

As for the players...well, it's hard to say.  I mean, truth be told, there are already gays in the game.  Will knowing their names make that big a difference?  I'm still enough of a "fag" to think that there's a lot of gay action going on during those road trips.  I think there are some pitchers and catchers that are doing just that in their hotel rooms after the game.  Of course, no one's gay...just horny...what with the wife being at home, and all.  And let's not forget those kinky equipment managers and all that free time that they have both during and after a game.  There's a lot that can be done with some tape and bandage.  All in all, though, I think that it can be as beneficial to team morale as it was for the Greeks.  Imagine how much more watchful we would be over our lover on the playing field than we would be for just some schmo from UCLA that we were forced to room with during away games.  Why risk being refused sex, after all, if you actually let your boyfriend get sacked, as it were.

When you think about it, though, the entire argument for and against gays in sports - or in the military or anywhere else - is trivial and unimportant.  The fact is, we are everywhere and everyone knows it.  Now, all we need to do is ensure that the government provides us with the same rights and benefits that it does to every other American citizen.  Or maybe we'll just take our ball and go home...