The news programs today are covering the 60-year celebration of Queen Elizabeth’s reign. They are full of praise and calling her dignified and graceful and everything you can think of that would apply to a woman who has little else to recommend her.

I was around at her coronation. She was, at that young age, reasonably appealing. Then she married Phillip and had children, all of whom have turned out to be, if not self-destructive, exceedingly self-serving. Charles and his failed marital life is classic. There was even talk of going around him with regard to succession. She is not giving up her throne, which would be a natural thing to do at this age but even she knows that abdicating in favor of Charles is a no-win. So she’s toughing it out. She probably feels that the best she can do is die and not have to watch how he handles things after she is gone.

Now you can blame the rigid rules of the monarchy for the excesses of the royal family and for the ruination of a fine young life when Charles’ dilly-dally life totally eclipsed Diana. To her credit, she fought back. Diana might have absorbed the confinement of a royal life if Charles had loved her. But he married her because she was acceptable and was needed to be his brood mare for socially acceptable children. He never intended to give up his divorced mistress. Bless her, when she caught on she started addressing her own needs and asked for a divorce. What a shock wave.

And during the days following Diana’s tragic death, this graceful, genteel, wuss of a Queen, tried to downplay the national grief and give her a minimal funeral without the honors of royalty, since she had been demoted.

So I am not at all quar and trembly about 60 years of this particular queen. Instead I’m thinking anti-nausea medication.

xx, Teal