15 April 2006
For richer, for poorer

Just over a year ago, the UK was awash with rumours and speculation that a General Election was looming on this side of the Atlantic – rumours which were, as it turned out, completely correct. The strange thing about the rumours, though, was not how accurate they proved to be but how little coverage they were given in the UK media. The reason, of course, was that there was something else to report; something less newsworthy, perhaps, but something guaranteed to sell more papers and garner a larger share of that week’s viewing figures – the engagement of Prince Charles to Camilla Parker-Bowles.

Now, the link between this and the world of comics may not be immediately apparent but it did make me think about one thing – the importance of a good story.

I’ve complained before about the tendency of comic book stories to wallow in the same pool as soap operas but that weekend made me wonder like never before why this should be the case. If newspaper and TV journalists can make so much out of a simple every day matter like a wedding between a middle-aged couple, how much more should we expect from a story about bizarrely-costumed crime-fighters?

Let’s take another look at the story lines the media managed to weave out of that particular event.

Unsound constitution

Firstly, there were those stories which portrayed the marriage as being of great importance for the very institution of monarchy and its place within the (arguably non-existent) UK constitution.

The anti-monarchists, as might have been expected, held up the marriage as proof that the monarchy is out of touch with the common people and should therefore be abolished without further ado. Personally, I’m not quite sure why these two things should be linked. After all, it’s at least arguable that no heads of state have ever really been in touch with the people they supposedly govern (or serve). It doesn’t matter – it made for a good story. Could there really be a revolution in the offing? Unlikely. Figures differ but, at the last count I heard, the monarchy costs each person in the UK about 61 pence (USD 0.90 – USD 1.20) per person per year. Sorry guys but, at that price, it seems like far better value than a presidency and certainly not enough to start a revolution for.

Then, of course, there were the pro-monarchists who dared (albeit mutedly) to acknowledge that Camilla might actually make a reasonable job of being Queen when the time comes. Although, in deference to perceived public opinion, it seemed then that she would have to do so without the title that goes with the job. Only time will tell whether Camilla can fulfil that promise but, in story terms, the tale of a woman dedicating herself to the salvation of an ideal and never being accorded her due recognition has always had them cheering in the aisles.

Beyond belief

But then there were those story-tellers whose sights were set on things even loftier than tales of the salvation (or destruction) of the British monarchy. According to some, the very future of the Anglican Church was at stake. The King or Queen of England is, after all, also head of the Church of England and carries the title “Defender of the Faith” (which is, by the way, why British coins have the abbreviation “Fid Def” or, more recently, “F.D.” on them).

The nay-sayers had all sorts of problems with the future head of the church being (a) married for a second time, (b) married to a divorcee and (c) on account of (a) and (b), married in a church. The fact that lesser mortals do this all the time, often with the full knowledge and blessing of their local clergy, was lost on them. The story they preferred to spin was that the above would constitute serious grounds for disestablishment. Not being a theologian, I find this a difficult thread to follow but – as a story – we’re now in epic territory. The complete eradication of a nation’s religion? We haven’t seen anything like that in these isles since the Romans purged the country of the druids.

But there was yet a further twist! According to another group, the marriage wouldn’t mean the end of the Anglican Church at all. (Phew!) In fact, it transpired that the future Defender of the Faith had in fact found a way to do just that. By deciding to marry in a civil ceremony and to follow it with prayers, the Prince silenced any possible doubt that he didn’t take his duties to God as seriously as he should. Didn’t he?

Losing the plot

In addition to these epic tales of a prince fighting to save (or being responsible for the fall of) his nation’s religion and of his bride-to-be selflessly working to save (or being the cause of the revolution that brings down) the monarchy he represents, there were also plots worthy of a Tom Clancy/John Grisham pot-boiler.

The conspiracy theory story had all the makings of a blockbuster. Since the death of Princess Diana (now, to all intents and purposes, Saint Diana) the conspiracy theorists have had a field day. To put this in context, the death of Princess Diana is to the UK what the Kennedy assassination is to the US.

Depending on the story you chose to read, the person or persons responsible for engineering Diana’s demise have included the royal establishment (jealous of her popularity and concerned about the damage her sexual indiscretions were doing to their public image); and/or the Government (exceedingly worried about her connection to Al Fayad Junior by whom, according to some, she may even have been pregnant); and/or – then gaining much wider currency thanks to the marriage announcement – Charles himself (not because she was an obstacle to his relationship with Camilla so much as because she was attracting more publicity than he was!) Somehow, most of these theories also managed to attribute blame to the paparazzi which, at the end of the day, seems far more credible but which hardly constitutes a conspiracy.

A classic tale

But, in a world in which the everyday drama of reality TV and the soap opera dominates all forms of fiction, the most popular stories wrung out of the announcement were inevitably the two big “human interest” stories.

After all this time, there remains strong interest in the wronged woman story – the story first told by Princess Diana in her now famous (or, perhaps, infamous) doe-eyed TV interview. The story of a beautiful princess, married to an insensitive husband who callously refused to relinquish his relationship with a married woman. Imagine this as a movie with Natalie Portman as the wronged princess, crying out for affection and eventually being driven to her death by an indifferent husband (Alan Rickman?) and his cold, calculating mistress (surely a part tailor-made for Glenn Close). It would be an instant classic.

However, back in February 2005, another story was also tentatively starting to do the rounds. It hadn’t been fully fleshed out back then but the main elements were certainly being suggested albeit in the vaguest of terms. Eight years after Diana’s death, Charles and Camilla were finally being portrayed as having something of the heroic victim about them, too.

Picture this

The new story was this. Charles was in love with Camilla but, due to his position as heir to the throne, a marriage was forbidden by all the means the political, religious and monarchical establishments could muster. Cognisant of Charles’ responsibilities, Camilla bravely does the honourable thing and marries another, leaving him free to do the “right thing” by his country. With the stiffest of upper lips and in a spirit of self-sacrifice, therefore, he marries the candidate chosen for him.

Of course, in true Hollywood fashion, the love which he and Camilla feel for each other doesn’t abate over the years but gnaws away at them and affects all those around them. At the end of the movie, following a tragic accident in which his young wife is killed, the powers-that-be recognise the pain which their restrictions have caused to all parties and the couple are finally allowed to marry.

This is the story that was first being outlined just over a year ago and the one which will presumably be built upon further as the years go by. And if you’re not convinced by this version, it’s probably just a symptom of “poor casting syndrome”. Diana was glamorous while Camilla is … well, to put it kindly, she’s not Diana. Undoubtedly wrong though it is, it’s always easier to feel affection (and, therefore, sympathy) for an attractive woman. Try re-casting the movie. Put Natalie Portman in the role of the woman who gave up her claim to the Prince for the good of the country, leaving him free to marry someone deemed a far more suitable Queen (Glenn Close). Following the death that allows Natalie to finally marry her Prince, there wouldn’t be a dry eye in the house.

Stranger than fiction?

So there it is. Or was. Our journalists – supposedly reporters of fact – managed to wring enough stories out of a simple engagement to stock a small municipal library while our fiction writers (and, especially, our writers of comic fiction) still struggle to find an original take on a megalomaniac plotting world domination.

Why is this? If there’s any excuse at all, I suspect it may lie with the material itself. As far as the Charles/Diana/Camilla stories are concerned, they couldn’t possibly be suitable material for fiction … after all, you just couldn’t make this stuff up.

[The substance of this article first appeared in a slightly different form at Comic Avalanche on 16 February 2005 and is reproduced by kind permission of Mr Avalanche. The views and opinions expressed in this column are entirely those of the author. If you wish to agree or disagree with any of the views expressed in this column, please leave your comments in the Forum].