We're Having THAT Conversation
I will not be siLENT or siLENCEd
Even if you didn’t know me well enough to know this, you could probably assume that I’m not a very good sleeper—I’ve had insomnia for thirteen years and no matter how many alarms I set, I always sleep through at least two of them.
So imagine my surprise when I’m suddenly wide awake at 6 am this morning. What else is happening at 6 am this morning? Queen Elizabeth’s funeral.
It’s nice to see the repressed Anglophile in me who taught herself how to talk in a subpar British accent to impress Robert Pattinson at the height of Twilight fever (I was twelve) and woke up at dawn to watch both of Princess Diana’s sons’ weddings is still alive and well, unlike the queen… too soon?
Don’t take this the wrong way—I did like the queen because I do love the royal family. Like a frat boy who hasn’t stopped requesting Ignition (Remix) at the pregame, the royal family remains as important to me as it was when I woke up early to make finger sandwiches and scam my mom into letting me go to middle school late so I could watch Prince William and Kate Middleton get married.
But now, in my wise old age, I can also acknowledge the violent and problematic shortcomings of an institution founded potentially in the 800s and built up by centuries of racist colonization. It’s unsurprising that the death of the longest reigning British monarch would be met with a wide range of reactions but it’s important to understand why others might not share yours.
This week, I talked to my friend, co-worker, and Princess of Wales (don’t google that) Sherri Puzey about the royal family’s recent and historical scandals, her reactions to other's reactions to the queen’s passing, and whether or not it’s possible to still be a fan of the family while being critical of the British monarchy.
Hi y’all, I’m Sherri. My background is in international studies, Mandarin, and finance. When I had my first child, I quit my job to be a housewife (not desperate) and stay-at-home mom for several years. I feel so lucky that when I returned to the workforce I managed to turn my passion for books into a job at a new publishing house. I read too many books, and my husband and daughters get tired of hearing me say, “Let me just finish this chapter."
I love traveling, organizing and purging my house, and eating ice cream. I am entirely unqualified to be on E4P but I’m grateful to Emily for indulging my lifelong obsession with the Royal Family. (Picture me wearing my HRH sweatshirt as I type this.)
If You’re Supporting the Royal Family, Stay In Line!!!
Like most villain origin stories, my love for the royals began by wanting something I could never have: birthright citizenship in the United Kingdom.
I know my mom’s love began with admiration for Princess Diana because she had a beating heart and her name wasn’t Camilla Parker-Bowles. I wanted to know how Sherri, my fellow American, fell in love with the Crown:
Emily: What does the history of your relationship with the royal family look like?
Sherri: I can’t remember whose pictures were hanging on the walls of my girlfriends’ rooms in the early 2000s, but my own walls featured Tom Brady (no hate) and Prince William. My fascination with the royal family only grew over time as William and Harry became adults, Kate and Meghan entered the scene, and the Queen’s reign extended to its sixth and then seventh decade.
I woke up early on that April day in 2010 to watch Will and Kate’s wedding (though I did not don a fascinator), and I am currently very into Meghan’s new Spotify podcast Archetypes. But I’m here for more than the sartorial choices and the latest royal gossip. I have an ever-growing collection of books on the various members of the royal family and really love reading their biographies and going beyond what’s covered in the latest People magazine (that I also read when it lands in my mailbox each week).
Emily: What do you like most about the family? Why do you think so many people adore them as well?
Sherri: I wouldn’t say I’m a traditionalist, but there’s something about the dedication to the Crown and the customs and sentimentality of it all that speaks to me.
The Queen is/was my favorite member of the family, and much of what I love revolved around her and the way she carried out her role. I can’t listen to or read that line from her 21st birthday speech—“I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service”—without getting teary-eyed. I have a hard time committing to something for six weeks, so her lifelong commitment is admirable and stands in contrast to the lack of dedication in our culture and world today.
I also love the novelty of it all, and I think many Americans feel the same way. We can observe from a distance without it having any bearing on our own lives. Someone once said (ok, it was Emily) the royals are the original Kardashians. That may be a stretch, but I get to read about their appearances and charity work and the smallest of snippets they share about their family lives without giving any tax dollars or having to reconcile the darker sides of the history of the Crown as a citizen of the UK.
Oh, we’re going to do the darker sides of history now??
I don’t think anyone reading this is naive enough to assume the Crown had a squeaky clean backstory, but I do think it’s surprising to learn exactly what they’ve been involved in. We don’t have time to unpack the entire history of feudalism, Anglo-Saxon heptarchy, and the role a man named Cnut played in all of it, so let’s start with America, obviously.
In case anyone is unfamiliar, the best way for Americans to understand colonialism—a practice we were taught in school was bad when other people did it but was considered Manifest Destiny or a covert operation when we got involved—and why it is such a monumental fuck up is by remembering our own villain origin story.1
When we grew tired of how our imperial parent, Britain, was treating us (taxation without representation, forcing British troops to stay in American homes, everything else Jonathan Groff sang about in Hamilton), we waged war. It wasn’t easy (as the Cast of Hamilton sings about in Hamilton), but the idea of living under a tea-soaked oppressor any longer was so horrifying that we fought and overthrew them.2
I feel like I shouldn’t need to prove to you that colonization in regions where the population was predominantly people of color was infinitely worse than what the Thirteen American Colonies endured because of course it was. The top operating belief was that colonizers were domesticating “savage” people because accepting that an unfamiliar culture was just that was so much harder than centuries of rebellions from people who were sovereignly governed before you arrived.
The impacts of colonisation are immense and pervasive. Various effects, both immediate and protracted, include the spread of virulent diseases, unequal social relations, detribalization, exploitation, enslavement, medical advances, the creation of new institutions, abolitionism, improved infrastructure, and technological progress. Colonial practices also spur the spread of colonist languages, literature and cultural institutions, while endangering or obliterating those of native peoples. The native cultures of the colonized peoples can also have a powerful influence on the imperial country. (X)
Ok, but why are we talking about all this now? Well, because this mentality didn’t stop with “decolonization” and it didn’t stop under Queen Elizabeth’s rule either: between 1952 and 1960, Kenyans waged their own fight against oppressive colonial rule during the Mau Mau rebellion. The war, which took place between the Kenya Land and Freedom Army (or Mau Mau) and British authorities, was driven by the UK’s desire to preserve a colony that was desperate for independence. The way the British saw the rebels was blatantly racist, and, despite the lessons the world supposedly learned immediately after WWII, the treatment of Mau Mau featured the use of labor camps and resulted in at least 12,000 deaths.3
Everything in me wishes the Queen, in her symbolic yet powerful position, had said something to stop this, but she didn’t. She also seemed to have a lovely relationship with Meghan Markle but didn’t stop the press from attacking the duchess so violently. She also protected her favorite child from too much public scrutiny after his ties to Jeffrey Epstein’s pedophilia came to light.
But could she have, or did she have to talk through the Crown, an institution that is, notably, resistant to any kind of change or deviation from tradition?
I asked Sherri:
Emily: What do you think of the Crown's policy to never address its problematic behaviors, such as their involvement in colonization, the racism directed towards Meghan Markle individually and people of color throughout the Commonwealth collectively, its proximity to Nazism during WWII, and its protection of sexual abusers like Prince Andrew? Has this influenced how you see them?
Sherri: It’s definitely influenced how I see them.
Though the Crown has obviously not been free of racism based on treatment toward its colonies and people across the Commonwealth, hearing that it persists and affects some of the closest members of the family (read: Meghan) is so upsetting. I have no tolerance for that. The scandals of individual Royal Family members are problematic, but the reaction and response from the Crown—or lack thereof—are also problematic.
“Never complain, never explain” no longer applies. These things need to be addressed. It seems like it would be easiest to start with the most personal issues that are in greatest proximity to their family, specifically the racism that’s been directed toward Meghan and how they’ve protected Prince Andrew and glossed over his sexual transgressions. It’s time to chime in. Start there and then move to the long history of colonization, genocide, slavery, racism across the Commonwealth.
I wonder if there will be more (glaring) opportunities for the Crown to speak up in the days ahead.
Barbados removed the Queen last fall, and I think that was the first country to do so in decades. Now that the Queen has died and Charles is King, it would be a natural time for others to follow suit. If so, I really hope that the Crown takes the opportunity to address these issues in meaningful ways, beyond a nod or a bow or one measly line in a speech. Silence has been seen as a way to preserve the dignity of the crown, but how is that working out for them?? It's well past time for them to really speak out.
Because of the secrecy that has always shrouded the British monarchy, we don’t necessarily know the individual roles any member of the royal family has played in any of these horrifying developments. If the private conversations featured in Peter Morgan’s The Crown are to be believed, the current members of the family genuinely believed that they were to never publicly display emotions, political affiliations, or reactions to world affairs—they were just the pretty face on the whole of the United Kingdom.
To a degree, this is understandable as this is a part of what American presidents often have to face—many people still like the person who served as president while remaining critical of the office itself (and yes, I’m going to leave this one open to interpretation).
Do I agree with all of Sherri’s points that the Crown has not spoken out about enough that it’s been complicit in? Easy yes. Do I understand the cognitive dissonance some people have when they say, “Well the Queen herself didn’t do that?” Yeah, I get where they’re coming from; I still like Obama. Do I think this line of thinking absolves the entire royal family of their guilt by association with the monarchy? No, and that’s because of the key people who constantly show their dirty, grimy hands.
Those people… are Charles and Camilla. (And also Andrew, obviously, and to some extent, Will and Kate—I’m sorry!!!!)
This Is an Anti-Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles Publication
Last year, Oprah spoke with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to talk about why they decided to leave their positions as senior members of the royal family. Several things were revealed, including the fact that conversations took place “with an unnamed member of the royal family about ‘how dark’ [their son] Archie's skin would be.”
Harry went on to say that he’ll never reveal more info about those conversations or who it was with, which is likely because we can all infer who it was with:
In 2017, “the king” and his former side piece were caught laughing at a performance by Inuit throat singers during a visit to Canada.4 Maybe that's where the Oprah rumors stem from. Maybe it's from his fondness for his Nazi-sympathizing great-uncle. Maybe it's just because we took a look at him and got that vibe.
In any case, up until last year (when everyone realized things could have been so much worse if Prince Andrew had been born first), nearly half of the British public wanted Charles to abdicate immediately after Queen Elizabeth’s death.
In my opinion, it definitely had something to do with how he had The People’s Princess murdered.
Emily: Do you believe
mythe conspiracy theory that Camilla and Charles were in cahoots with the Queen to have Diana killed?Sherri: I refuse to believe that QEII could have had a hand in plotting to kill someone, but tell me more!!!
Thank you so much for asking, Sherri. You take a woman who doesn’t support other women and pair her with a man who’s waiting for his mom to die. She’s smart, she’s like Amy Coney Barrett-diabolical smart, right, so she marries money, strings Mommy Issues McGee along for YEARS, then cuts loose from her first when the money isn’t outweighing the crown anymore.
Now she’s got the money and the guy, but while his ex is out of the castle she is not out of the limelight, so what do you do? You steal the limelight, that’s right. How do you do that? You have her killed—foolproof. You get his mother involved because, well, wouldn’t this be a nice way to bring sympathy back to The Family at a time when public support is low? This could be the way there! But of course, they can’t even do fake emotions right. However, at least then the ex is not there to compete with and your scandalous love affair fades from the front of the public’s mind—but not mine!!!
Anyway, in all seriousness (ish), I asked Sherri:
Emily: What are your thoughts on Camilla and Charles, my sworn enemies?
Sherri: I wish I had a simple answer for this.
Camilla and Diana were pitted against each other for so many years, even to the point of Charles and his own role in this infamous love triangle being minimized. Not okay!!! The anguish Diana experienced for years because of Charles and Camilla’s relationship is heartbreaking. Charles misbehaved and mishandled his marriage and made a royal mess (pun intended) of things. But also, he’s waited decades to inherit the throne. What a weird way to live the majority of your life. He eventually ended up with the love of his life and he and Camilla seem much better suited than Charles and Diana ever were, so maybe I am kind of happy for him in a very small and weird way?
But it’s like he wants his cake and wants to eat it, too, and that doesn’t settle well when it all came at such a great cost. Camilla has been incredibly loyal to Charles and to the role she plays in his life and in the Firm. The Queen eventually accepted her. William and Harry seem to have accepted her. Can the rest of us put the past behind us and move on? It’s proving difficult for many, including myself. Are you dizzy yet?! Because I am. I could talk circles around myself and my complicated feelings toward this couple all night.
My favorite Charles moment was when he walked Meghan down the aisle after all of the drama and fallout of things with her dad. But then that endearing moment was completely erased after hearing what Meghan told Oprah about the comments and concerns of family members about her and Harry’s children’s skin color. I think many of us think that Charles made those comments, and it is utterly sickening.
There has been so much pitting women against each other in the royal family, and it has recently ended in death and suffering. One way forward—at least for Kate and Meghan because Diana is dead and I think Camilla did it—is to perhaps stop going on these tone-deaf Commonwealth trips Will and Kate have been sent on that only really remind the world of the painful and racist history of colonization.
I get, in part, why the Queen would have not wanted to take a stance on something seeing as the Institution told her not to throughout her entire reign, but haven’t they (the Firm, the Institution, the secret, scary mean people) learned by now that, general humanity and empathy aside, silence is the worst thing for their brand image?
Yet, even without any changes or progress, support for the Crown still exists. I asked Sherri:
Emily: After so many scandals and so much violence, why do you think the monarchy persists?
Sherri: Change is difficult and takes a significant amount of time, especially when it relates to identity, and the royal family is undeniably tied to the identity of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. But, as I mentioned, I wonder if now that the Queen is gone and we’re entering a new era, the monarchy as we see it will change more.
Emily: Why do you believe people still idolize it?
Sherri: I don’t know!! I think it goes back to what I said earlier about the novelty of it, the almost secrecy of the inner workings, and how this family functions. In a lot of ways, I think it was easier to idolize the royal family with the Queen as the head. She was old, she was faithful to her duties, she prioritized the Firm and the Crown. I think people have or will have a lot less respect for Charles, so that may diminish the idolizing of the family as a whole.
Most importantly, I had to ask:
Emily: You already have so much on your plate so you can only save one from the traumas they endured at the hands of the Royal Family: do you help Diana or Meghan?
Sherri: My first inclination was Meghan, but I’m going with Diana. Both suffered from the inexcusable behavior of royal family members in myriad ways. But Meghan has had the constant support and devotion of her husband, something that couldn’t be said of Diana.
Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes? No?
Following the queen’s passing, there were those celebrating Ol’ Lizzie’s demise which resulted in a wave of royalist backlash. But, in light of all of what has already been said here (which is glossing over a lot, as we can imagine!!! The Crown is going to be at least five seasons and they’re glossing over a lot), I have to ask if the critiques are not at least a little justified for some:
Emily: What are your thoughts on those who celebrated Queen Elizabeth's death? What are your thoughts on those who were outraged that some people weren't upset with it?
Sherri: This may be because my own grandmother with whom I was close died earlier this year, but I keep thinking about those who are mourning the death of the Queen in very personal, intimate, familial ways. Every death is personal for someone.
But we should absolutely acknowledge and condemn the colonization and genocide and violence that was perpetrated across the Commonwealth under the advisement of its government and Crown. But I think going to Twitter and wishing excruciating pain on someone in their death is taking it too far. What does it accomplish?
On the flip side, people shouldn’t be outraged at others for not being upset by her death. For many, she is a symbol of this violence that was painful and personal for them and their families. Both sides know the sentiments of the other side—it’s not a surprise. But I think the response can be both/and. There can be mourning for the Queen and the end of her reign. There can be acknowledgement of extreme wrongdoing.
There’s a tension there, and even I feel it personally.
Finally, I wanted to know:
Emily: Do you think the British monarchy will ever be abolished?
Sherri: Abolish? No. Morph over time as subsequent generations inherit the throne? Yes—that’s inevitable.
It may evolve into something that looks vastly different, maybe even unrecognizable as the British monarchy as we now know it, but I don’t think it will be completely eliminated. It’s actually kind of exciting to think about what may lie ahead during Charles’ reign, but especially with William’s and George’s.
I think, for those of us who want to still love the royal family, perhaps this is the only solution: the optimism that maybe, just maybe, things will get better with each successive white man. I say that only half-jokingly because I do want it to be true. I want George to be the most Gen Z monarch ever and actually make amends for the history that came before him rather than dooming himself to repeat it.
He’ll find this message on his TikTok FYP soon enough but the tarot card says you’re meant to break generational traumas, George. Like, follow, and share to lock in this message.
A billion thank yous to Sherri who convinced herself this wouldn’t be good or entertaining, and who was thoroughly wrong!!!!!
At the end of it all, I just have to say:
The US, like several other nations, is actually still an imperial power with our most recognizable territory being Puerto Rico. Colonization is not just a thing of the past.
With a lot of money and military support from other foreign powers like France (as Daveed Diggs sang about in Hamilton).
The exact number is still disputed, with many historians claiming much larger figures.
Throat-singing typically ends with one of the performers running out of breath or laughing, which is why many defended C&C. However if you look at everyone else in the audience, they’re the only ones laughing.