Between the seemingly constant controversy surrounding the Bush administration and University President Lawrence H. Summers’ recent public implosion, it’s easy to grow tired of presidential controversies.

Luckily, only an ocean away, there lies a country without a president and with plenty of entertaining controversies of “leadership” (however ceremonial). The country is Great Britain, and the scandal is as follows:

Charles, Prince of Wales, with all his boyish good looks, has learned that his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, plans not to attend his April 8 wedding to his longtime paramour, Camilla Parker Bowles. Never failing to serve scandals on a silver platter, the Queen’s ambiguous reasons for not attending her son’s wedding appear to amount to nothing less than a royal snub.

In a country where monarchy is a longstanding tradition, it is ironic that this particular royal mess ignores another of Britain’s established realities. As titular head of the Anglican Church, the Queen is undoubtedly familiar with the story of Henry VIII and his precedent-setting marriage after a previous divorce. Thus, it seems slightly bizarre that she would choose to avoid her son’s second marriage, despite its strong sanction from English history.

That being said, it is interesting to note that the Queen has stated that while she will not attend the civil ceremony, she will be present for the religious blessing of the marriage. Perhaps this is linked to the fact that there were some issues regarding the legality of the Prince’s marriage to Bowles in terms of civil marriage law applying to the Royal Family. These qualms, however, have been resolved by the Lord Chancellor who has declared that the marriage would in fact be in accordance with the Marriage Act of 1949.

The Queen, or rather her aides, has responded to questions of the legality of her attendance at her son’s wedding by stating that she wishes to ensure that the event remains “low key.” This seems silly, though, when one remembers that no royal event—especially one attended by heartthrob heir Prince William and Prince Harry, a headline-grabber in his own right—is ever “low key.”

If Buckingham Palace does not make a clearer statement explaining why the Queen will not attend the wedding, it will be impossible to pretend that this is not, in fact, a royal rebuff. If the Queen has some personal distaste for the wedding itself that would justify her matrimonial absence, it can no longer remain hidden. As the head of a Royal Family wanting in popularity, the Queen has a responsibility to improve relations with her subjects. And, in the eyes of the British people, only 47 percent of whom believe the monarchy should be maintained after the Queen’s death, Elizabeth II alone can make such an improvement.

Queen Elizabeth might save herself some trouble by borrowing a page from Summers’ newly-written book of wisdom. Words and actions cease to be personal for those in observable positions of power, and can have a significant impact on institution one represents (be it monarchy or University). The Queen might consider putting her best face forward, especially considering she is the face of the British Monarchy.

Neesha M. Rao ’08, a Crimson editorial comper, lives in Canaday Hall.