My take on Queen E got some blowback, so I thought I would offer some background.

But, first, let me explain that I am an Anglophile meaning I admire the British commoner, the culture, their films, their books, their civility, their courage in war and hard times, and the land itself. My criticisms are reserved for the monarchy that considers itself above common morality in service of its inviolate place. They put the monarchy above simple human decency.

Young Prince William and his Kate seem not to be of this mold. But they, too, would have run afoul of tradition if it hadn’t just happened by pure coincidence that Kate was acceptable.

Regarding Prince Phillip,Queen Elizabeth’s husband, here is an excerpt from a British web site:

As for not being faithful, this remains the one question mark, the one area of their marriage which upsets the Queen, not because of what Philip may or may not have done, but because of the constant gossip that has for years attached itself to his activities.

There are said to have been blazing rows at times and in racing circles tongues have wagged for years, speculating that she may have "got her own back" on Philip by having an affair with her late racing manager Lord "Porchy" Carnarvon.

Friends accept that Philip has had "a number of affairs" and, for her part, the Queen has always accepted that she married a man who, as one of her circle puts it, "takes a lot of amusing".

As the friend explains: "I believe she has accepted the occasional fling as unimportant because she understands that some men have certain needs, and that doesn't mean they love their wives any less.

(I don’t know about you all, but I wouldn’t put up with that for a nanosecond.)

And my husband, Edward, who knew members of Diana's family, the Spencers, told me Phillip is notorious for his affairs.

Great Martin’s defense of the Queen’s protection of Charles at Diana's expense is that it is the natural devotion of any mother. My response is that any daughter-in-law with such a mother-in-law, royal or not, would be justified in dumping the whole lot. Which is what she did.

In any case, the Queen is first and foremost THE QUEEN, before she is anyone's mother. Her near and dear better not forget that when they run afoul of royal rules. She bows only to the traditions of the monarchy no matter how cruel or mindless they might be. It is true, she is a prisoner of her indoctrination and had no choice. But, those who come of age twisted and flawed, can do great harm when they adhere to draconian traditions and have great power. I feel sorry for Queen Elizabeth. I understand what leads her to behave the way she does. But I do not admire her.

The Queen thought nothing of destroying Diana’s personhood in order to further the family tree. She championed the marriage because Diana was acceptable to the crown and would make a fitting brood mare for her son. Charles, for his part, had no intention of quitting his affair with Camilla Parker Bowles with whom he had been involved for years. When Camilla divorced, the Queen forbade Charles to marry her. If she had just let them marry, Diana would be alive today. Not a princess, but alive. I know what I'd choose.

Charles’s history with Camilla dates from the 70s when they carried on a romantic relationship while marrying other people. A flirty conversation between Camilla and Charles was caught on tape and published in 1992. The tapes included an exchange in which Charles said he wanted to be Camilla's tampon:
• Charles: Oh, god. I'll just live inside your trousers or something. It would be much easier!
• Camilla: (Laughs.) What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers? (Both laugh). Oh, you're going to come back as a pair of knickers.
• Charles: Or, God forbid, a Tampax. Just my luck! (Laughs.)
• Camilla: You are a complete idiot! (Laughs.) Oh what a wonderful idea!

If any of you are not vomiting, I’d like to know why.

Diana was in love with Charles when they married. But, so much for that. She was miserable, she fought back, that was not to be borne. She asked for a divorce. That was not to be borne. She persevered. That was not to be borne. She fled. She died tragically. What a relief! was the reaction from the palace, until the people (remember them?) overwhelmed the country with their grief and the royal family had to backtrack and provide a funeral that was more than a backyard token burial.

Then there was Princess Margaret, the younger and less serious sister of future-queen Elizabeth, who had a glamorous and controversial reputation. Around the time of her sister's coronation, Margaret fell in love with a divorced man, Peter Townsend, who was 16 years her senior. The Church of England, royal family, and the government made it clear she would have to give up her royal life if she chose to marry him, so she caved. (Unlike Diana, who fled when she realized Charles would never love her. If she was all that taken with princesshood she would have sucked it up.)

Margaret then married photographer Anthony Armstrong-Jones in 1960, who became the Earl of Snowdon, but quickly the marriage collapsed in front of the public's eyes. There were rumors of affairs, drug use, and heavy drinking, and questions about his sexuality. When the princess was photographed with a young lover, her husband took it as a chance to divorce, playing the victim. It later came out that Lord Snowdon may have fathered a child months before their marriage.

Margaret should have been allowed to marry Peter Townsend. The monarchy was against divorce. The monarchy came before everything and there was no consideration for Margaret’s happiness.

Before all this, Queen Elizabeth’s paternal uncle, Edward, abdicated the throne to marry Wallis Simpson, a twice-divorced American. It was the greatest scandal of its time, and Edward was variously vilified or admired for turning his back on England for love. It was widely publicized that the Crown’s opposition to the marriage was Walis’s divorced past. But after Edward’s death many years later, uncovered FBI files suggest Edward VIII was forced to abdicate not because of Wallis's divorcée status, but because she was a Nazi sympathizer, passing state secrets to her on-the-side Nazi lover.

We all have our failings, our scandals, our errors of conduct. There are dysfunctional families where parents deny their children. Let’s not glorify the monarchy any more than we do every day failings of every day people because, in truth, that’s all they are, with an enormous amount of money and pomp shoring them up. Understand them, okay. Admire them? Hardly.