When Harry weds Meagan

What’s with all the hoopla over the announcement of Henry Windsor’s engagement to onetime actress Meghan Markle? With the exception of the twenty million delusional young women world-wide that were hoping against hope that they’d snare the prince as their own, who actually cares?

Personally I’d prefer if they’d just elope and be done with it. Mind you, it’s probably difficult to run off to Gretna Green in secret with two or three body guards in tow all the while being chased by three or four dozen camera-toting paparazzi. Still, it would save us all from another six months or more of articles, news flashes and sound bites describing every twist and step of the process as they march to the altar.

To be fair, they‘ve started off on the right foot. First they had a very low-key press conference during which they themselves managed to appear a little overwhelmed by the fuss their impending nuptials are causing. They also announced they weren’t going to do the deed in drafty old Westminster Abbey like Will and Kate did. Instead they are downsizing to the chapel at Windsor Castle which holds a mere 800. I’m sure there will be all kinds of difficulty trimming the guest list.

Royal weddings have always received a lot of attention. Part of it revolved around the dynastic implications. Up until fairly recent times anyone in the family who had even a remote chance of becoming the next monarch had to have the reigning king or queen’s permission to tie the knot. This was to prevent an unsuitable alliance with, a catholic, a divorcee, anyone of the wrong colour, a mental incompetent, a non-virgin or, heaven forbid, a commoner.

As recently as the brief reign of Edward VIII, these restrictions ruled the day. When Eddie announced he was going to marry the twice divorced Wallis Warfield Simpson, a well-known socialite of questionable virtue who had captured his heart, the crown hit the fan. The upshot was that Edward abdicated in favour of his brother and he and Wallis lived happily ever after as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. They did, however, live anywhere but in Great Britain where the family, in the best royal tradition, had nothing to do with them.

More recently Prince Charles was finagled into marrying Diana Spencer, the daughter of the Viscount Althorp who later became Earl Spencer. She was considered a perfect match being from a family as old as the Windsors and too young to have had a “past.” We know how that turned out. Fortunately the times they are a changin’ and upon Diana’s death Charles was allowed to marry the person he loved, Camilla Parker Bowles, also from a good family but a divocee. They couldn’t get married in a church, however, so they and a few hundred close friends snuck off to the local registry office.

The next generation has opened the flood gates. When Prince William announced he was going to marry Kate Middleton, a school chum from the University of St. Andrew’s, nobody batted an eye. Kate was beautiful, poised, talented and one of the dreaded common folk: not so much as a Duke, Earl, Baron or a Marquis in the entire family.

Still, the British press can’t let it die. Harry’s bride to be, as they continually point out, is not only an American, an actress, a Roman Catholic and of mixed race, she is also a divorcee and three years older than the Prince. The point is, the royal family doesn’t care. The Royal Crier who announced the engagement should have said “Hear ye, hear ye the Royal Family has finally come to its senses!”

All that remains now are the preparations and the couple have said they are going to do the planning themselves, helped, I am sure, by Kate’s family who are in the event-planning business. What we do know is that Harry and Meghan will live in Nottingham Cottage on the grounds of Kensington Palace and that the wedding won’t be in April when Kate is due to have her third child and the Queen will be busy meeting with the

DEAR EDITOR,

WCommonwealth heads of government.

Other than that, there will probably be more daily bulletins and updates than the Weather Channel’s coverage of the latest hurricane. Stay tuned. ell into the second decade of the 21st century we as a global society are still wrestling with historical and current practices and attitudes towards the many visible and not so apparent differences between us. On a daily if not hourly basis we hear of all too common stories of racism, sexism, ageism. ‘Ethnic cleansing’, Gay bashing, religious, cultural and economic discrimination and sexual harassment all seem to pervade daily life at every turn. We have a long way to go to achieve even a semblance of the longed for “Just Society” but at least for now we're talking about most it.

With one exception.

Still ‘In the closet’, still locked away, out of sight and mind is found one class of citizen continuing to be shunned, marginalized and preferably forgotten. Unless forced by circumstances to ‘deal' with a “problem patient” we find the many frightened, neglected and under-cared for ‘Psychologically Ill’.

The term “Mental Illness” with its innumerable labels and sub-labels after all these centuries of what is commonly referred to as ‘Modern' society seems to denote an all-inclusive agglomeration of diverse conditions and symptoms, too general and vague to be truly beneficial. “Psychological Condition” on the other hand differentiates the cognitive functions from the emotional, social, spiritual and physical, of which we are all composed of as well.

Each and every one of us are, at any given moment, a complex combination of many aspects, attitudes, perspectives and perceptions. None of us, individually are omniscient. Everyone of us believe certain things unique to our understandings and ‘see’ things in a certain light from a vantage point distinctly our own. So it would not be a stretch to assume that both you and I have at least one or two notions and assumptions about ourselves or the world around us that if scrutinized and investigated more closely would turn out to be inaccurate at best, mistaken, or blatantly erroneous, on the far end of the scale. They may be simple, harmless ‘superstitions,’ so to speak, or a weak knowledge of the laws of physics resulting in tragic automobile accidents. Some may have more mistaken understandings than others but there is a fine yet poorly defined line between simple misunderstanding and delusion.

It seems that the only defining criterion of the difference between the acceptable so-called “normal” psychological state and the un-acceptable “psychotic” break with reality is nothing more than how that thought process affects the lives of the individual and those around them and to what degree. Are we all a little “off” to believe an alcoholic or an abusive partner when they say that was the “very last time...it will never happen again”?

Why then do we, society or the system, leave the masses of diagnosed and undiagnosed victims of psychological disorders and their families to fend for themselves, alone in the shadows, fumbling along trying to find their way to someone willing and able to reach out a hand of compassion and assistance when things are at their bleakest?

Why is this subject still relegated to the dark ages of hushed “taboo” conversation behind closed doors, to be discussed only with the earliest available professional?

Speak to me. I am here and I matter.

JOHN MACKLEY SAWYERVILLE

The Record welcomes your letters to the editor. Please limit your letters to 300 words. We reserve the right to edit for length, clarity, legality and taste. Please ensure there is a phone number or email where you can be reached, to confirm authorship and current town/city of residence. Names will not be withheld but the address and phone number of the writer are not published, except by request.

Preference is given to writers from the Eastern Townships.