Jane Seymour

---

---

When I was a boy, a BBC–produced series called "The Six Wives of Henry VIII" was a big hit on public broadcasting. In six installments, it told the stories of the six wives of Henry VIII of England, whose theory of the divine right of kings was applied in almost every way imaginable during his reign — but perhaps most flagrantly in his treatment of marriage.

Henry's infamous clashes with the pope led to the separation of the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church, permitting the king to annul two of his marriages and execute two of his wives.

His sixth wife survived him, and the wife he married 480 years ago today, Jane Seymour, died less than 18 months later after giving birth to Edward VI, Henry's only male heir to survive infancy. Henry's marriage to Seymour, a former lady–in–waiting, came 11 days after the execution of Henry's second wife, Anne Boleyn. Boleyn was beheaded for treason, incest and adultery; after nearly 500 years, the case against her remains suspect.

Henry's marriages typically ended for one of two reasons (sometimes both) — the perceived failure of the wife to produce a male heir or the allegation of infidelity. That would be infidelity on the part of the wife, of course. Henry carried on many extramarital affairs in his life, but none of his marriages ended because of his infidelity, which would have been far easier to prove.

I can't claim to have read much about Henry VIII and his six wives. I watched most of the PBS series with my parents, but that was many years ago. Nevertheless, my impression at the time was that Henry was a narcissist, even though I had no idea what that was, and Jane Seymour was probably the only one of his six wives he truly loved.

D-Day: The Beginning of the End

---

---

"Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force!

"You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty–loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers–in–arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

"Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle hardened. He will fight savagely.

"But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940–41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man–to–man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men.

"The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to Victory!

"I have full confidence in your courage and devotion to duty and skill in battle.

"We will accept nothing less than full Victory! Good luck! And let us beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking."

Dwight Eisenhower's Order of the Day, June 2, 1944

---

I thought about writing about those who gave their lives in service to this country last week on Memorial Day — but my thoughts of late have been on today's 70th anniversary of D–Day so I waited.

"Long after they happen," wrote historian William Manchester, "historic events take on an air of inevitability."

He was writing of D–Day, the invasion of Normandy that catapulted the Allies into Nazi territory. It was the beginning of the end of World War II, a conflict that had claimed millions of lives and would claim millions more before the wars in Europe and the Pacific ended.

"[W]e assume that the Germans in France never had a chance — that [Eisenhower's] crusade was as good as won," Manchester wrote. "It wasn't."

Historian Jim Bishop observed, "In the history of man, no force matched the assemblage of ships and men waiting in chaotic order along the south coast of England."

But the outcome was far from certain for those who were about to unleash that force — and all that most of the more than 150,000 Allied soldiers who were about to participate in it knew was that many of them were not expected to return. What they would encounter on those beaches was anyone's guess.

The landings along the French coast that day must have been frightful, a soul–scarring experience for all who survived — and thousands did not.

It inspired the most intense combat sequence ever made in the movies — 14 or 15 disturbing minutes in "Saving Private Ryan," which probably wasn't nearly as intense as the real thing.

---

---

And more than a decade before "Saving Private Ryan" was made, it inspired one of the most memorable speeches of Ronald Reagan's presidency, delivered on the 40th anniversary of D–Day.

Perhaps Manchester was right about that "air of inevitability" stuff. In the rearview mirror of history, events always seem to be inevitable, don't they? No matter how lopsided or narrow the outcome turns out to be. They happened, and they're in the history books. It seems to be impossible to imagine a different outcome.

But that is with the benefit of hindsight, which they wisely say is 20/20. On the threshold of D–Day, there was much doubt — as there usually is before a critical mission is launched.

Eisenhower prepared a statement in case the invasion failed. He never had to deliver it, but it reveals the conflict that raged within his mind on the eve of the invasion.

---

"Our landings in the Cherbourg–Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone."

---

Combat has always struck me as being the closest thing to hell on earth that a human being is likely to endure. A battle isn't neat and orderly. It isn't like a football game or any other competition that is likened to war — because nothing else is like war. It is sure to be chaotic and terrifying.

(Before a battle begins, soldiers can't tell themselves it will all be over in 30 minutes or an hour — as a civilian might say about something he/she has been dreading, like a trip to the dentist or the Department of Motor Vehicles. Battles last as long as someone from each side refuses to give in.)

Even so, the success of D–Day was due to a combination of factors. The absence of any one might have meant the failure that Eisenhower clearly feared.

"Much has been made of the rough weather and how it hampered landing operations," Manchester wrote. "It was really a blessing" because essential German officers, believing the Allies would never invade in such conditions, were absent when the invasion began.

Radio broadcasts from Germany suggested that the Nazis knew an invasion would come, but there was disagreement about where it would be. At one point, Hitler believed the invasion would occur at Normandy and began moving forces and equipment into position there, but he changed his mind and agreed with his advisers, who believed the invasion would happen at Calais, farther north and a shorter trip across the English Channel.

"This was the best possible piece of luck for Eisenhower," Manchester wrote.

Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, who was in charge of defending the French coast against the Allies, also was not present when the invasion began. He had left for Germany to celebrate his wife's birthday with her. There seemed to be no reason for him not to. Historian William Shirer observed, "There were the usual reports from German agents about the possibility of an Allied landing ... but there had been hundreds of these since April and they were not taken seriously."

The Germans had 10 panzer divisions available to repel the invaders; only one saw action, but it managed to drive back the British and force an extended battle for the city of Caen in northwest France. If even two or three additional panzer divisions had participated in the battle, the outcome might well have been different.

In Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt told his wife that the long–awaited invasion would occur in the morning. "She said she wished, in a way, that he had not told her," Bishop wrote, "because she knew she wouldn't sleep."

Roosevelt, "who could will himself to sleep, failed on the night of June 5," Bishop wrote. "[H]e was on and off the phone to the Pentagon until 4 a.m." By that time, FDR knew that the invasion was under way.

---

---

And the tide of the war had turned. In Europe, anyway.

Of course, that part wasn't immediately clear — but it became clear in the days and weeks that followed.

By noon the day of the invasion, Winston Churchill notified Roosevelt that the initial landings had been successful, and Roosevelt summoned the press. He was in a jovial mood, but he cautioned the reporters that "[t]he war isn't over by any means.

"You don't just land on a beach and walk through — if you land successfully without breaking your leg — walk through to Berlin. And the quicker this country understands it the better."

The presidency always demands a certain amount of leadership skill, but it required a lot of it from Franklin D. Roosevelt in June 1944. As he was finalizing the plans for the invasion of Normandy, he was contending with the escalating cost of the top–secret Manhattan Project. He had managed to finance the project in the early years, Bishop wrote, by "manag[ing] to squeeze secret funds into the War Department budget,"

That month, the head of the Manhattan Project reported needing $200 million immediately. "[S]omeone would have to take Congress into this most secret of projects," Bishop wrote.

Roosevelt dispatched Secretary of War Henry Stimson, Gen. George C. Marshall and Office of Scientific Research and Development director Vannevar Bush to lobby congressional leaders for huge appropriations with few, if any, questions asked.

"It wasn't an easy assignment," Bishop wrote, "but leaders of both parties worked it out."

And, while few may have realized it at the time, the tide of the war in the Pacific had turned as well.

Sometimes a Kiss is Not Just a Kiss

---

---

"You must remember this,
A kiss is still a kiss,
A sigh is just a sigh,
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by."

Herman Hupfeld
"As Time Goes By"

---

The royal newlyweds are off on their honeymoon today, and, to be perfectly honest, I'll be just fine if I don't see or hear anything more about this royal wedding for awhile.

But I realize that some people are really into this.

It does appear to have drawn a higher audience (in England, at least) than Charles and Diana's wedding in 1981 — which makes sense, I suppose. The world's population is larger today than it was then. If the audience was higher in England, it would follow that it would be higher elsewhere.

I slept right through the whole thing, but I know some women who got up at 3 a.m. just to watch the royal wedding — and excitedly exchanged their thoughts via Facebook, where the first to post a picture of the couple kissing on the balcony of Buckingham Palace was hailed by her friends as some kind of conquering hero.

That was what they had been waiting for. Not the traditional bride and groom kiss in the church, but that kiss, the one at the palace.

"It's like a fairy tale," wrote one of my friends. I could imagine the others nodding in virtual agreement.

Anyone may kiss in a church, but only a few people get to kiss at Buckingham Palace on their wedding day.

---

---

I guess they were waiting for the same thing in 1981. There were very few personal computers in those days, no commercial internet, little in the way of cable news. It was, by comparison, a technologically primitive time.

But I'm sure that photos and video clips of Charles and Diana kissing at Buckingham Palace were what everyone was waiting for. And the couple obliged.

OK, I'm a guy, and most of the guys I know just aren't into that wedding thing. Guys know that weddings really aren't about them. They are expected to show up and say "I do" at the appropriate time, but no one really seems to care, for example, about what a groom is wearing.

And if a groom tosses his boutonnière, well, I don't think that would be received too kindly by the guests. My guess is it might be interpreted as a hostile gesture.

Unless, of course, the groom happens to be a member of the royal family.

Anyway, yesterday I sort of watched from the digital shadows as my female friends conversed excitedly, speculating about which of them would be the first to post a picture of William and Kate kissing on the balcony of Buckingham Palace.

And it occurred to me that sometimes a kiss ain't just a kiss.

---

---

I remembered an old episode from All in the Family, when Archie objected to neighbor Irene's gift of a reproduction of Rodin's statue "The Kiss" to Mike and Gloria.

Archie thought the statue was obscene because the two people in it were naked. As far as Archie was concerned, a kiss is not just a kiss.

Nor, I suppose, was a kiss just a kiss more than a century ago, in the early days of filmmaking, when a brief film called "The Kiss" scandalized folks in 1896.

---

---

The man and woman in that film were fully clothed, and the viewers saw them only from the neck up, anyway, but that 47–second film was considered indecent by many people in those days.

I doubt that anyone would feel that way now, and I can only imagine how the people of 1896 would react if they could see some of the things that are in movies today. Standards change, and, for that and many other reasons, I believe most of the people of the late 19th century would not be comfortable in the early 21st century.

But I suspect that one thing that has not changed much is the public's fascination with royal weddings. They were probably waiting eagerly for royal newlyweds to kiss on the balcony hundreds of years ago. We just don't have the photographs to prove it.

No doubt about it. Sometimes a kiss isn't just a kiss.

The Royal Wedding

---

---

Tomorrow, England's Prince William will marry his fiancee, Kate Middleton.

The wedding will take place in Westminster Abbey, the same place where his grandparents (Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip) exchanged vows in 1947.

There is nothing special to be taken from that observation, I suppose. Westminster Abbey has been the traditional site for coronations, funerals and weddings for centuries, but Prince William's wedding will be the first royal wedding at Westminster Abbey since William's uncle, Prince Andrew, married Sarah Ferguson there nearly 25 years ago.

William's parents, Charles and Diana, weren't married in Westminster Abbey. They were married in St. Paul's Cathedral, one of the oldest and most famous landmarks in London.

That is where Sir Winston Churchill's funeral was held. It is where Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee was held. It is where celebrations marking the end of the two World Wars were held.

And three–quarters of a billion people the world over watched on TV as William's parents' "wedding of the century," as it was called, was held there.

I really doubt that tomorrow's ceremony will draw the same kind of audience that Charles and Diana did — even though Westminster Abbey is bound to be more recognizable to most Americans than St. Paul's. Nothing against William and Kate. But Diana was always a shining star, a charismatic figure who brought a breath of fresh air to the stuffy atmosphere of Buckingham Palace.

The world simply fell in love with her when Charles introduced her as his bride to be. Charles was much older and had been a bachelor all his life. His relationships with prominent women were frequently in the news. Diana was young, beautiful, seemed a bit naive and fragile.

She was still an unknown, yet the world fell in love with her.

---

---

She turned out to be a lot tougher than she appeared on first impression, too, and I felt that she must have passed along much of that toughness to her sons. They certainly needed it to hold up so well under such public scrutiny when their mother died in the tragic car crash in Paris in 1997.

(Diana didn't seem so tough on that July day nearly 30 years ago when she and Charles were married. In fact, to me she appeared rather small and frail. She had just turned 20, and she was being thrust into the glare of a spotlight that, tragically, would be her undoing.

(I felt, when I watched that wedding, that Diana was clearly nervous. Perhaps that is why, when she was asked to repeat her fiancee's names — he has four of them — she reversed the second and third names. It is, to be sure, a "gilded goldfish bowl," as Richard Quest writes at CNN.com.)

She grew up a lot in the time between the announcement of her engagement and the wedding. When she was first introduced to the public, she was a young kindergarten teacher. The world bore witness to her transformation.

William and his brother Harry have grown up before our eyes as well. ("That is the way monarchy works," Quest reminds us.) William was barely 15 when Diana died; Harry was not yet 13.

Now, William is nearly 29, and he is getting married, almost 30 years after his parents were married — in a place that is probably more recognizable to non–Britons than the place where Charles and Diana tied the knot.

And there is much speculation about William's future. Most people assume he will one day sit on the throne. What seems to be uncertain is when.

His grandmother, the queen, is in her mid–80s. Charles, who is next in line, is in his early 60s. Common sense says William, who is next after his father, will probably be king by the time he is in his 50s — if not sooner. I have heard some people suggest, though, that Elizabeth might change her mind, buck tradition and designate her grandson to succeed her when she dies, bypassing her son completely, and the Washington Post says a recent poll indicates nearly half of Britons would prefer to have William as king.

(I wonder how Charles would feel about the designation of "King Father.")

That, though, is definitely not how things work in a monarchy, as Quest no doubt would tell you, and even those Britons who would like to see William leapfrog Charles to the throne must know there is simply no way it is going to happen. I have the feeling, though, that, regardless of his prospects, William's wedding won't draw the same audience his mother's did — although I have heard predictions that it will match, if not exceed, it in viewership. I have my doubts about that, but it might have — if Diana had lived to participate in it.

That's kind of an odd thought, isn't it? I mean, it's sort of hard for me to imagine Diana in her 50s — and, technically, she wouldn't be. Not yet. In the mind's eye, Diana will always be the young, vibrant, beautiful woman she was in life — not entirely consistent with the image one tends to have of the mother of the groom.

But neither her marriage nor the wedding day were consistent, either.

And she will be there, if only when others compare Diana to Kate or Diana's wedding 30 years ago to the one that will take place tomorrow.

Like so many of the things in her life, Diana would not have coveted that — and I don't believe it is the kind of thing she would have wished on anyone else, least of all her daughter–in–law.

Now, I never met Diana so maybe I am not qualified to make that kind of judgment. My only contact with her was the same as it was for millions. I saw her on TV. I read about her in newspapers and magazines. From those things, I formed my opinion.

Still, based on that, I honestly believe that Diana would never have wanted to take any attention away from her son on his wedding day — even if she felt (as I'm sure she did — and as I believe she was entitled to feel) that she was deprived of the royal treatment that just about every bride gets.

(It's ironic, isn't it? On Diana's wedding day, she actually was joining a royal family, but when I watch footage of that wedding now, I get the sense that most of the royals regarded her as an outsider, an intruder — that they felt they had a much better time a dozen years earlier at Prince Charles' investiture when it was exclusively the royals with no pretenders or wannabes.)

On that day in 1981, Diana was more of a prop than anything else. I think anyone who watched it would tell you that occasion had all the pomp and circumstance one could imagine. Diana wore a beautiful dress, she carried herself regally, and the rank–and–file adored her (and continued to adore her until the day she died).

She just wasn't accepted by British upper crust. Never was, really. She was only grudgingly accepted — posthumously — by the queen.

Perhaps there are lessons in that for Kate.

If Diana had not died nearly 14 years ago, I am certain she would have been content to remain in the shadows tomorrow.

But I'm equally sure she would not hesitate to share with Kate her thoughts and experiences in dealing with the royal family and the paparazzi — after being asked.

It was never Diana's style to intrude.