Anachronism

 “An anachronism (from the Greek ἀνά ana, 'against' and χρόνος khronos, 'time') is a chronological inconsistency in some arrangement, especially a juxtaposition of persons, events, objects, language terms and customs from different time periods. The most common type of anachronism is an object misplaced in time, but it may be a verbal expression, a technology, a philosophical idea, a musical style, a material, a plant or animal, a custom, or anything else associated with a particular period that is placed outside its proper temporal domain.

An anachronism may be either intentional or unintentional. Intentional anachronisms may be introduced into a literary or artistic work to help a contemporary audience engage more readily with a historical period. Anachronism can also be used (intentionally) for purposes of rhetoric, propaganda, comedy, or shock. Unintentional anachronisms may occur when a writer, artist, or performer is unaware of differences in technology, terminology and language, customs and attitudes, or even fashions between different historical periods and eras.”

Thinking about Meghan and Harry.  But first, perhaps a little history, to place them in context.

 “The Kingdom of England begins with Alfred the Great, who initially ruled Wessex, one of the seven Anglo-Saxon kingdoms which later made up modern England. Alfred styled himself King of the Anglo-Saxons from about 886, and while he was not the first king to claim to rule all of the English, his rule represents the start of the first unbroken line of kings to rule the whole of England, the House of Wessex.

Arguments are made for a few different kings thought to control enough Anglo-Saxon kingdoms to be deemed the first king of England. For example, Offa of Mercia and Egbert of Wessex are sometimes described as kings of England by popular writers, but it is no longer the majority view of historians that their wide dominions are part of a process leading to a unified England. Historian Simon Keynes states, for example, that "Offa was driven by a lust for power, not a vision of English unity; and what he left was a reputation, not a legacy." This refers to a period in the late 8th century when Offa achieved a dominance over many of the kingdoms of southern England, but this did not survive his death in 796.

In 829 Egbert of Wessex conquered Mercia, but he soon lost control of it. It was not until the late 9th century that one kingdom, Wessex, had become the dominant Anglo-Saxon kingdom. Its king, Alfred the Great, was overlord of western Mercia and used the title King of the Angles and Saxons, but he never ruled eastern and northern England, which was then known as the Danelaw, having earlier been conquered by the Danes from Scandinavia. His son Edward the Elder conquered the eastern Danelaw, but Edward's son Æthelstan became the first king to rule the whole of England when he conquered Northumbria in 927, and he is regarded by some modern historians as the first true king of England. The title "King of the English" or Rex Anglorum in Latin, was first used to describe Æthelstan in one of his charters in 928.

The Principality of Wales was incorporated into the Kingdom of England under the Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284, and in 1301 King Edward I invested his eldest son, the future King Edward II, as Prince of Wales. Since that time, except for King Edward III, the eldest sons of all English monarchs have borne this title.

After the death of Queen Elizabeth I without issue, in 1603, King James VI of Scotland also became James I of England, joining the crowns of England and Scotland in personal union. By royal proclamation, James styled himself "King of Great Britain", but no such kingdom was actually created until 1707, when England and Scotland united to form the new Kingdom of Great Britain, with a single British   parliament sitting at Westminster, during the reign of Queen Anne, marking the end of the Kingdom of England as a sovereign state.

The title of Duke of Sussex (e.g.,Harry) was first conferred on 24 November 1801 upon Prince Augustus Frederick the sixth son of King George III. He was made Baron Arklow and Earl of Inverness at the same time, also in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. The title became extinct upon Prince Augustus Frederick's death in 1843.

Although Prince Augustus Frederick was survived by a son and daughter by Lady Augusta Murray, their marriage (purportedly solemnized at St George's Hanover Square Church, Westminster, in 1793) had been annulled for lack of royal permission under the Royal Marriages Act 1772, rendering the children illegitimate under English law and unable to inherit titles from their father. Both children by the annulled marriage died childless, rendering the issue of their inheritance moot.

On 2 May 1831, Prince Augustus Frederick married secondly (and again in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act 1772), Lady Cecilia Gore at Great Cumberland Place, London. Not being the Prince's legitimate wife, Lady Cecilia could not be received at court. On 30 March 1840, she was given the title of Duchess of Inverness in her own right by Queen Victoria.

Second creation, 2018

In 2018, the dukedom of Sussex was recreated and granted to Prince Harry, the grandson of Queen Elizabeth II, to mark the occasion of his wedding to Meghan Markle, who thereby became the first woman in history known as Duchess of Sussex. 

On 19 May 2018, it was announced that Prince Harry would become Duke of Sussex in England, with the subsidiary titles of Earl of Dumbarton in Scotland and Baron Kilkeel in Northern Ireland. In 2019, an heir to the dukedom, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, was born.”

OK, so Harry and Meghan’s role within that system of royal “rulers” has a long history, as does, of course, Elizabeth’s.  BUT, we no longer live within that same system of laws and Royal powers. No, we live in that pseudohuman state of being, labeled 2021. In Great Britain, Parliament rules the roost and the royal families are quaint, rich people (at least some of them) with no serious claim on “Rule”. 

So, why do they (Brits) persist in this quaint custom of royalty when it now serves no purpose other than to entertain us via the news media and other entertainment outlets?  I suppose we could conclude that anything that entertains us and essentially does no harm might be preserved, since we have so few sources of entertainment (aside from the Boris Johnson’s and Donald Trump’s of the world).  And I suppose that may well be true.  But it always seems to me that it is akin to living in a land surrounded by a fairy tale land invented by  Walt Disney. Now, to be fair, we Americans live in a land surrounded by a fairy tale land invented by Jeff Bezos and Donald Trump.  And they are probably not nearly as entertaining as the British Royalty.  I mean MaraLago is not nearly as grand as Buckingham Palace.  In fact, every time I watch British mysteries on TV, I am treated to a tour of some grand estate that was at one time a part of the British Royal system of inherited wealth.  I guess, were one to tour the grand homes in America, one might get a similar sense of awe. But these are simply tourist attractions, much like Niagara Falls, as distinct from a system of early absolute rulers.

But, still, I begin to wonder when the British people will tire and say “Enough”. Maybe it will take the passing of Elizabeth for the game to be declared OVER.  Aside from the continuing system of inherited wealth, where estates and money transfer according to legal “Last Wills and Testaments”, which is I assume necessary to prevent feuds and fratricides becoming the preferred method of transferring family wealth, I imagine the royal designations could be declared quaint but unnecessary. 

I must confess that I did not watch the Harry & Meghan interview. Why? Well, I guess I was not sufficiently interested in learning just why Meghan was driven to the point of near suicide, as I assume was Diana, who managed to remove herself from that scene, albeit with a tragic outcome. But I no longer find the British royalty entertaining, even if they remain amusing at times, and provide a source of historic context while watching movies, or TV series.   Meghan and Harry decided some time ago to break themselves free of the stifling family system of royal do’s and don’ts.  Good for them.  But I had no compelling reason to learn the details of their separation. It would, I think be akin to listening to a TV interview with a couple who had separated and were now going to go off on their own, mainly because of intrafamily cruelties and personal idiocies.

But good for Oprah. She captivated a large TV audience otherwise bored to death by the pandemic and Donald Trump. Now, what I would love to watch would be a TV series, sort of like the Masterpiece Mysteries, in which Oprah interviews the heads of state of British Commonwealth countries about their continued presence as members of that Commonwealth.   Just listening to the rationale for continuation would be, at the least, entertaining.  Perhaps the Commonwealth will begin coming apart now, and how fascinating would that be, especially for the future of Great Britain, as we watch it throughout the series revert to its former status as that tight little island.  It might even be entertaining to listen to interviews with places like India and Pakistan that opted out of Commonwealth status early, becoming republics instead.

That would be fun, huh??

And then, on to the next Grand Series on the disappearance of that anachronistic thing we call Organized Religion, as it collapses into yet another fairy tale land, with grand churches being sold to the Jeff Bezos of this world. Wonder how much Jeff would offer for the Sistine Chapel?? Stay tuned.