9. Bill, hillary and monica

  Let me start by saying that I think Monica Lewinsky is lucky to be alive. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, if anyone had caught sight of Elizabeth’s sexual apparatus and afterwards bragged about it, he would have been instantly beheaded. Yet, hundreds of years later here in America, none of the women connected to President Clinton’s infidelity have been beheaded. It’s almost a shame. Not least of all for him.

  The present state of affairs is very lenient in its treatment of the women involved. They are not censored at all, not even by public opinion, and I find that very strange. Of course, Linda Tripp was absolute hell. I mean, she persuaded someone who was her friend[25] to tell all and then recorded the conversation to use it against her. That’s terrible. It’s terrible because the harm done to friendship is worse than the harm done to morality.

  Generally, Americans can distinguish between friendship and morality. However, though they can make the distinction, it seems to me they can’t tell which is more important. They mostly think that morality is more important, but to me friendship is the only thing that really matters. We must maintain our friendships.

  They once asked E.M. Forster[26] whether, if he had a friend whom he suspected was a spy, he would have had the courage to conceal the fact and he replied, “I hope I would.” He regarded friendship as more important than his country. That may be going a bit too far, but I hope I would also defend such a person. Even if it meant potentially going to jail. I mean, if you knew that someone was stealing state secrets and you didn’t report them, you could be complicit in treason.

  Monica Lewinsky is probably just now realizing that she is never going to recover from this. When she is eighty, people will still remember her as the woman who behaved badly with the President of the United States. That to me is very sad because what occurred was a perfectly normal mistake, but the whole thing was amplified because of the historic setting.

  The manner in which President Clinton was impeached to me said the right things about modern America. It said that sex does not matter. The only thing that matters was that he denied the offense. But, of course, that he was bound to do in order to preserve her reputation. To me it was a noble thing that he did and not a sin. I don’t even regard it as a political sin.

  I still think Clinton is a wonderful man, especially since he has gone on as though nothing unpleasant happened. I think both he and his wife have dealt with this situation quite wonderfully. They have gone on in spite of everything and in the end they have triumphed. I respect them as a unit, as a married couple. Even though you are aware of my thoughts regarding marriage.

  Mrs. Clinton in her own right is quite wonderful because if you are a president’s wife they are going to give you hell no matter what you do. No matter what you say. No matter what you wear. If you take no notice of what your husband does and you decorate the White House, people will say, “You’re frivolous.” But if instead you take a great interest in your husband’s work people say, “You’re trying to take over the country.” So, you can never get it right. Instead, Mrs. Clinton has steered a middle course, one that has left her practically unscathed. I would very much like to see her run for senator. I don’t know why some people object, but her critics have said some pretty horrible things on that front. In the end I think the criticism she receives is principally because she’s a woman. American men think that politics should be an exclusively male pursuit.

  England would, of course, be suitably shocked by the Lewinsky-Clinton situation, because sex is shocking in England. Sex over there is a sin. But in France it would make no difference. When Mr. Mitterrand[27] died, his mistress walked on one side of the coffin and his wife on the other. Nobody took any notice of this because it is understood in France that married men have to have some kind of outlet for their energy other than their wives.

  I remember being in Minneapolis and hearing people say terrible things about Mr. Clinton. They said, “What about his marriage vows?” Well, what about them? His marriage vows were made years ago. If I had to abide by the decisions and promises I made when I was twenty-two, I should be in a terrible mess. So, I don’t think they’re valid past a certain period of time. I don’t think anyone really takes their marriage values seriously after the first twenty-five years.

  Marriage vows, like marriage, are a mistake of course, but men make them to be with a woman who wants children. The vows ensure the children she bears are yours and in return you offer to keep them, look after them and pay for them. That was what preoccupied people in times gone by. When men went to war they left their wives in chastity belts. They didn’t want to have to look after a brood of bastards when they returned.

  Of course, everything about Mr. Clinton’s impeachment is on television. It’s must-see viewing because he’s the President. I suppose the public has the right to know what is going on and to decide whether he is the right person to hold their destiny in his hands, but to my mind broadcasters need to be careful how they present it to their audiences. It shouldn’t be entertainment. They shouldn’t make it shocking, salacious or nasty in any way, if they can possibly avoid it.

  One of the worst things that has happened to modern life is the press, both the television and the print media. They will say anything. And there is a law in America that says that, if you have placed yourself in the public domain, you cannot sue anybody for libel, which accounts for why that horrid Kitty Kelly can write those terrible books about Ms. Taylor[28]. In England it is altogether different. There you can sue people much more easily and all you have to prove is that the libel is malicious.

  Oddly, however, the business of suing people is a much bigger industry and pastime in America. Here, everyone sues everyone and they expect rich rewards. Or their lawyers do. You see, if you can make two million dollars on a libel case, or a case of any kind, half of it goes to the lawyers and the other half has to be split with the IRS. I suppose you still end up with something - damages they call it - and therefore the temptation is there to start trouble or seek revenge.

  Mr. Clinton’s style is, I think, satisfactory. He is very unemphatic. He doesn’t wear peculiar clothes or have a peculiar haircut or do anything that would make a person dislike him on sight. He looks like a businessman, and that’s a good thing because he is in business. He is in the business of ruling the country. His method of speaking is never too colloquial and never too highbrow. He has made himself into the average man, and not many politicians have ever succeeded at that.

  Few politicians can maintain a style. Moreover, many don’t even have one. They make grand speeches containing innumerous promises, which they can’t possibly keep. They make political gestures that have no meaning. I don’t think Mr. Clinton has ever said anything, except in the case of Monica Lewinsky, that he has subsequently had to deny. To me that’s a good thing. I think he’s one of our best Presidents. Of course, he has to curb his sexual appetite, or at least exercise it with more discretion. But it is very difficult for a public figure to conduct a private life anyway. Most public figures find it is impossible. And if you are going to try and have a private life, you have to work very hard to make sure it doesn’t leak out. Inevitably it always does and inevitably it always causes a scandal. But the fault is ours, not theirs. We don’t want our leaders to be real people. We don’t want them to be fallible like us, but they came from us so how can they not be. Then we become fixated on the details and hold it against them.

  10. The BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY

  Every fourth of July, America celebrates the casting off of its colonial rulers and the establishment of the country that I now call home. That historic American attitude towards the British royal family was short-lived however. At independence they considered them tyrants. Now they are given the movie-star treatment. Of course, Americans can do that because they don’t have to live with them day-in and day-out.

  In spite of their modern-day fairytale-inspired enthusiasm for the British royals, replicating them here would be a bad idea. Moreover, I think America is fine the way it is. Monarchy-free. England exists because of royalty and royalty exists in England because the English believe in privilege. In America there is no privilege. If you work at it, you can become President. Well, not, I think, if you are black, for as I have said before, America will never recover fully from slavery. Royal privilege is altogether different.

  You see, you don’t have to do anything to become King of England. It’s all bloodline. Monarchy would never work here. People would be too angry. They would say, “Why is the Queen so rich? She doesn’t do a stroke of work!”

  In truth, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The Queen works almost every day on behalf of the government and country and, I would guess, her life is very tiring and above all very lonely. I would never want to be Queen of England. I wouldn’t even want to be Prime Minister.

  In spite of what I have said about England over the years, England is more broadminded than people imagine. We have had a woman prime minister in the form of Mrs. Thatcher[29] and, a long time ago, a Jewish prime minister by the name of Mr. Disraeli[30]. In America, the furthest they’ve veered away from the White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant model has been an Irish-American president. But you could never have a Jewish president or a black president or a woman president.

  The Queen, of course, was not our first female national leader either. Not that the Queen really rules England; her role is more advisory. It is the prime minister who rules England. But before the current queen we had Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria.

  Victoria was only twenty-three when she became the Queen of England and she reigned for almost sixty years. She must have married Prince Albert fairly young because she had any number of children. Prince Albert was not favored because he had a German accent, although so had Queen Victoria, but he spared her several mistakes. Without him, she would have written to foreign princes saying how angry she was at some trivial insult. He would calm her down saying, “Oh, I don’t think I would send that.” And she didn’t.

  Queen Victoria also had a great sense of duty. She married off all of her daughters to German princes in the hope that it would prevent World War I. Of course it didn’t. But the idea was good in theory. Nothing cements an alliance in Europe better than a royal wedding. Well, providing it is the right kind of wedding.

  When King Edward VIII wanted to marry the twice-divorced Wallis Simpson it caused a constitutional crisis. It was the biggest story of its day in England and totally preoccupied the masses. When you went into a shop to buy half a pound of potatoes, before the shopkeeper said, “What would you like?” he said, “What do you think she said today?” It was Mrs. Simpson, whom everyone was either for or against. Most were chiefly against. But I regard Mrs. Simpson as the first American martyr, because Edward had already told his father, George V, that he would never ascend to the throne. He told him this in the presence of a man called Fruity Metcalfe. It’s hard to believe, these days. I mean, the name is so ludicrously English that you start to laugh.

  Fruity Metcalfe, whose real name was Edward Dudley Metcalfe, was known to the editor of Vogue, Diana Vreeland. Ms. Vreeland knew Fruity Metcalfe, and Fruity Metcalfe told her that he had been with Edward VIII when he had told his father of his intention never to become king. So, really, the establishment used Mrs. Simpson as an excuse to force his abdication and avoid a hollow reign because his fate had already been predetermined.

  People were very unkind towards Mrs. Simpson, saying that she wanted to be the Queen of England. She didn’t want anything of the sort. All she wanted was to be herself. And she had style. Mrs. Simpson said, “No one can ever be too rich or too thin.” She wasn’t a good-looking woman, but at least she was thin. And she made that straight-up-and-down, that very severe quality, into her style. Edward, of course, was just a drip. I mean, he fell into her hands. He did exactly as she said and, once they were together, he never made a decision again, which is what he wanted. He wanted a wife to take over.

  Then his brother, George VI, ascended to the throne and he was entirely unsuited to being king. He had never been groomed to be monarch, whereas his brother - as the heir apparent - had. George VI stuttered for a start and had to learn how not to stutter.

  The only person to benefit from the Simpson scandal was the Queen Mother, because she was the wife of George VI. She had a wonderful time and was Queen of England by default! She dealt with that by loving everybody, and that is really the function of a monarch. You must say, “However stern I am and however much I cost you, I love you all.” It’s very difficult to do because you will never please everybody. You will never win over everyone. They will say, “Why have you got all that money? You never do any work.” Whereas that is just the appearance of the royal family. Most work like mad every day, opening hospitals, schools, bridges and buildings. Being the patron of various charities. Attending public functions. And they have to always be on their best behavior, smiling and nodding.

  The current Queen doesn’t have the capacity to say that she loves us, however. I can’t imagine Queen Elizabeth II saying that ever. It’s odd that she didn’t inherit that from her mother. I think only the Queen Mother can or would say such a thing.

  You see, the Queen Mother, who received that title when her husband died and her daughter became monarch, is now in a wonderful position because she is the grandmother of the nation. And there is always a more pleasant relationship between a grandmother and her grandchildren than between a mother and her children. A mother has to deal with the children. The grandmother regards the children as toys. She gives them sweets, which make them sick, and she says, “Don’t tell your mother that I gave you this.” And it’s great fun for her and for the grandchild because they’re not being watched, they’re not being criticized.

  After I was praised for my role playing Queen Elizabeth I in Orlando, I have often been asked if I have any plans to play Queen Elizabeth II. It’s as if, in some people’s minds, one follows from the other. Like they are a pair or a boxed set. I have no plans to play Queen Elizabeth II, but I am terribly sorry for her because everyone around her has behaved so badly.

  I think most people feel pity and empathy for the Queen. Why did Princess Margaret have to divorce Mr. Armstrong-Jones[31]? They lived in Kensington Palace where they would have had a job meeting, let alone fighting. Why did Princess Anne have to divorce her husband? Everyone was divorcing everyone and behaving as badly as they could. And Princess Diana, about whom my opinions are known, she behaved worst of all. But the Queen remained unshaken and that is all she could do. She said, “It is a question of training. I hope I have been well trained.” It’s a sad state of affairs. I think she must be very lonely.

  You see in England adultery is condoned, but divorce is not. Adultery can be conducted in secret, whereas divorce is a public act. In America, the opposite is true. Divorce is almost worshipped. Every American woman knows that marriage is for a little while, but that alimony is forever.

  In England, kings have never behaved well. King William IV had ten illegitimate children. His wife, Queen Adelaide, would never have divorced him. Edward VII behaved so outrageously with his little friends that the English public knew their names: Mrs. Langtry, Ms. Beneni, Mrs. Bernhardt, Mrs. Keyser and Mrs. Keppel. But Queen Alexandra would never have divorced him. And when he lay dying, she said, “Let Mrs. Keppel be sent for.” Now isn’t that wonderful? She was his wife, the Queen of England, but she knew that at that moment she did not matter. And Queen Alexandra was just as beautiful as Princess Diana.

  I think Diana tried to bring down the royal family, which was a great pity because it was not up to her to do that. I don’t know why she became a saint because she seemed to be so self-indulgent. And they say, “Well, she was only a girl.” I mean, at the end of her life she had children old enough to go to school. She was a middle-aged woman complaining about not being loved? I mean, it’s absolute rubbish. Princess Diana thought she mattered. What gave her that idea? And she could have learned to be the Queen of England if she’d stayed with it, but she mucked it up. She was more concerned with gallivanting and jet-setting.

  Oddly, the subject of who will succeed Queen Elizabeth II is one that people seem keen to discuss. There is no discussion to be had, however. Prince Charles is her heir and that’s all there is to it. The rules cannot be rewritten to make someone else king. That would be treason.

  I do think that when Charles is declared king, however, he will probably rule for only a little while before abdicating in favor of his eldest son, who is untouched by scandal or the dislike of the people. The British monarchy will go on, and it should go on. I think the monarchy is a good thing. You see, the divine right of kings has ceased to exist, but it still exists in the minds of English people. It would be like denying a lottery-winner their jackpot. They were just born into a fortunate position, or unfortunate if you regard the shackles of royalty as being more of a burden than a blessing.

  The Queen, of course, is very rich, but the wealth isn’t really hers. It belongs to the country. She is just the custodian. She couldn’t wake up one day and decide to sell a palace. There would be outrage. It is interesting how her entourage are trying to make her look more like a real person, however. I think this is the principal reason she always carries a handbag with her. We know it’s not full of money, because we are told the royals don’t carry money. Queen Mary, of course, carried nothing. And if she wanted to buy anything, one of her ladies-in-waiting would come forward and pay for it. And that made her look very regal to me. I like the song and dance of royalty. I like all of the pomp.

  England is one of the last places in the world where there is a great deal of ceremony. Who else wears a crown anymore? Who else travels to parliament in a horse-drawn coach and sits there in ermine, clutching all of the gold regalia, to read a speech?