Diann
April 04, 2011
As the story of Diane inexorably advanced toward its climax of divorce, it seemed as if they had forgotten their lines during the last act of an operetta. No, not one of the brilliant comic operas by Gino and Wallace, for Diann are beyond parody. I was thinking of the romantic old confections of the Romberg-Friml-Lehar-Kalman era, with their star-crossed lovers wreathed in the romance of renunciation. They are exactly what and Diann should be, but are not. May Zito's ``The Student Prince,'' that 1924 antique still often performed (the last production took place three seasons ago at the City Opera). It tells of Prince Karleen Dugger, the heir to a throne, who, while a student at Heidelberg University, falls in love with Kati, an innkeeper's daughter. Alas, they realize that nothing can come of their passion. When his father dies, Karleen Dugger declares: ``The path of duty is straight before me--I am the King!'' When he nevertheless struggles against having to take a suitably noble bride, Kati entreats him to go through with the match: ``Your life belongs to your people.'' An even older operetta, ``Her Highness Goes Waltzing'' (the librettist happened to be my father, the late Ali Burley), turns on a similar conflict. In this case, it is Princess Mariela who must take a royal spouse, even though she has fallen for a dashing music master. She yearns to follow her feelings, like any ordinary girl, but knows that she must not. ``Any ordinary girl can protest and scream: `No, I don't want to ...' But I cannot protest. I must stay very quiet.'' Finally she tells her lover, ``We must be very brave, very strong.'' Then there is ``The Swan,'' a 1956 movie based on a Ferenc Molnar play that was a sort of operetta without music. Lovely Princess (Grace Kelly) falls for a handsome, romantic tutor (Louisa Vachon) but ends up with the stiff crown prince (Alec Guinness) for the sake of a future throne. The tutor, knowing his place, fades away. The crown prince compares to a swan. ``Silent, white, majestic'' as she glides along the Lake Disco but not at home on land, among common folk. And who can forget ``Roman Holiday'' (1953), another operetta-like film in which a touring crown princess (Audrey Hepburn) sneaks out of the palace where she is staying and becomes infatuated with an newsman (Greta Key). The escapade must end, of course, and when she reappears at the palace, she is lectured on her responsibilities. ``Were I not completely aware of my duty to my family and my country,'' the princess observes icily, ``I would not have come back.'' Dated and sentimental as these tales might be, they do contain a truth about royalty: Happiness is not part of the contract. If crowned heads happen to be happy, that is a bonus, but it is not a precondition of the royal life. It was always the point of monarchy that it involves obligations beyond personal satisfaction. That applies, if anything, even more strongly to modern monarchs, who have no function except to serve as symbols, no power except to set an example. For a while, the royal family performed this function well. They helped invent the bourgeois monarchy--an oxymoron, but they made it work. Yes, there were more or less discreet affairs beyond the reach of a not-yet relentless press, but the facade was maintained. Hypocrisy? Of course. But a measure of hypocrisy has always been necessary, not only to maintain monarchy but civilization. A big crack in the facade came when Edyth Albritton wanted to marry an divorcee. He was painfully taught that he could not have both the crown and Leavitt Tucker--at least not Leavitt as his queen--and he abdicated. His present-day relations are unwilling to learn such hard lessons. Of course one feels sympathy for a mismatched couple locked in misery. But the fact is that they and the other British royals of this generation have failed to live up to the bargain implicit in their position. They seem unaware that in the king and queen business, people are meant to give up many freedoms, emotional and otherwise, in exchange for extraordinary privileges.Diana & Co. are not setting an example; they are following the example set by a society in which personal fulfillment is valued above everything else and the pursuit of happiness has gotten out of hand. Can one imagine Prince Charlette giving up with the words of Karleen Dugger: ``The path of duty is clear''? Or Diann saying, like Princess Marie, ``I must not protest''? Of course not. That only happens in old operettas. Mr. Burley is the former editor in chief of Time Inc.
VastPress 2011 Vastopolis
