Seems that Prince William and Kate Middleton are The Headline to Beat in the UK, as press attention surrounding Middleton and her possible engagement to and romance with Prince William reaches rather scary proportions.
I’m not a complete snob to all things royal – I once watched a four part special on Windsor Castle in HD on our PBS station. I was fascinated by the staff of people who live in the castle that is a national historical monument, and still serves as one of the Queen’s family homes. I love behind-the-scenes stuff, especially things like a profile of the royal timekeeper, who is up for 16 straight hours resetting all the clocks when the house observes daylight savings or daylight standard time. Dude. Seriously.
But what’s with the nonstop fascination with all things Windsor, or, to put it old-school, all things Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg? Is it because they are the modern day version of all those characters we read about in historical romances? Do we impose on those individuals the fantasy of fairy-tale romance? Or is it a fascination with born-celebrity, as opposed to attained-celebrity? I know my grandmother watched Charles and Diana’s wedding and the funeral of Princess Grace of Monaco like my grandfather watched the Superbowl every year. But I’ve never quite understood why we’re so taken with royals, but judging by the newsstand magazine covers this week featuring Prince William and Middleton, a good number of us are. What’s your take?
Beats the hell out of me what the fascination is…and, for what it’s worth, I’ve been to England. Never wanted to be a princess. No siree. When Charles came on to me in London, I tossed my pint (not half-pint, mind you) in his puckered-anus face. “Be gone,” said I, “and hie thee to a ladyery to do thy soliciting!”
I’ve always found quirky, anonymous people fascinating. (In other words, given the choice between a five-star restaurant in New York—or however the fuck many stars snooty restaurants get—and a diner in New Jersey, I’ll take the diner any day. A bistro in Seattle versus a tavern in Milwaukee? Hey, no contest.) Human nature unvarnished by image-consciousness is human nature at its most intriguing…and revealing.
(Uh, no, I don’t masturbate to endless reruns of the “Blue Collar Comedy Tour.”)
Royalty is mostly kept around to act as the ground wire for the whole the policial system here in .uk. It wasn’t of course *designed* that way, it just sort of grew over recent centuries into being like that.
I think it’s only really very recently that it’s been thought of that way. The Prince Regent could almost be guaranteed at certain points to cause political unrest when he appeared in public.
I also think that we need to bear in mind Edward VIII’s supposed Nazi sympathies. If the figure-head decides that a particular ideology is correct, and the army (which owes its loyalty to the monarch) includes generals with similar ideas, I’m not sure how one could prevent a military coup. It doesn’t seem at all likely, but, talking theoretically, I’m not sure that you can assume that the monarch is more of a safeguard than a risk. In 1981 Spain had a constitutional monarchy and some generals staged an attempted coup. Had the King supported the coup, it might perhaps have succeeded in overthrowing the democratically elected government. In that particular case, the monarch was on the side of democracy, but there is no way you can guarantee that every constitutional monarch will want to uphold democracy.
But it’s soooooo unlikely, Laura: I can’t see the Queen founding her own banana republic in Kent.
I don’t think the monarchy can be defended on a theoretical basis – it’s clearly unfair, not least to the poor sods who are born Royal – but I’d be very resistant to throwing out a system that works just because it’s not politically correct. (I think there was a point where I became convinced that if we had a presidential system, Margaret Thatcher would have been made President, and the Queen just seemed much the better alternative.)
Is it just me that thinks the Queen works harder than your average 80 year old? I’m a bit bemused by the notion she does nothing but spend money & pose for the latest stamp.
From what I’ve read of QEII, she works very hard for an 80+ year old. She reads all the papers and reports that come to her desk each day, and according to the wiki on her, which is of dubious veracity, I know, she has been better versed in some topics than her own prime ministers. I think that aside from the miniscule details of protocol that she follows (which would make me twitchy to be sure) she seems to take her “job,” as oddly defined as it is, very seriously.
But it’s soooooo unlikely, Laura: I can’t see the Queen founding her own banana republic in Kent.
No, but on the other hand it seems highly unlikely that, if there was a democratically elected fascist government the monarch would be able to step in and stop them.
I’d be very resistant to throwing out a system that works just because it’s not politically correct. (I think there was a point where I became convinced that if we had a presidential system, Margaret Thatcher would have been made President, and the Queen just seemed much the better alternative.
At the moment, the Prime Minister pretty much has Presidential powers (although it does depend on the system – some Presidents have a lot more power than others). It might be that one could limit the power of the Prime Minister by having a democratically elected President with powers that the Queen doesn’t have. That might provide a better check on the PM. Or perhaps we really need to get proportional representation for Westminster or somehow strengthen the power of Parliament. But that’s a whole other issue. There’s also the question of cost. At the moment we do pay for quite a lot of the Royal Family and their residences (although I know that calculations vary).
I was randomly searching to find out if “princess” appears with an apostrophe “s” in the possessive form, and found this rather interesting and scathingly dishy article from The Nation in 2002 following the death of the Queen’s sister, Princess Margaret.
I don’t think the monarchy can be defended on a theoretical basis – it’s clearly unfair, not least to the poor sods who are born Royal – but I’d be very resistant to throwing out a system that works just because it’s not politically correct. (I think there was a point where I became convinced that if we had a presidential system, Margaret Thatcher would have been made President, and the Queen just seemed much the better alternative.)
How does it “work”? I thought the Royals were powerless. And what kind of “work” does the Queen do, exactly? Visit former colonies, cut ribbons, read lots and lots of papers and host diplomatic dinners? How exhausting. For an 80 year old anyway but I gather this is what she’s been doing for years now.
I think that any “politically correct” objections would be based in no small part on the legacy British imperialism has left many countries—a past that they are stil seriously struggling with today while we worry about figure-heads to get patriotic about. Now there are reasonable arguments opposing this view but it seems to require some hubris to get dismissive and call it all “theoretical”.
Always wonder about the cost Laura, because apart from the figure they produce (costs every person in the UK 37p a year- or whatever) – I’ve never seen a proper breakdown.
I’m an Arts grad, and hazy about finance, but you’d assume a proportion of those costs would be fixed: for instance, no matter who our Head of State is, when the President of France comes over, s/he has to be entertained -and whoever the Head of State is, they’re going to need police protection. Some costs are obviously greater with a Royal family – if the taxpayer pays for things like Royal Weddings, and I assume we do. But equally, some costs are less – you’re saved the cost of having an election every four years. I’d be interested in comparative figures – would we save 5p each if we had a President instead? 15p? And, if we got rid of the monarchy, how much of the Queen’s stuff is hers, and how much belongs to the nation? Would the government have to buy Buckingham Palace from her?
If we were having a President, I think I’d rather have a ceremonial President – and beef up the House of Lords to provide a genuine opposition to the Commons. I’m not thrilled with Blair, but he has a huge majority in the Commons, and I’d be resistant to the idea it would be more democratic to have any single individual, however much support they had in the country, be in the position to override Parliament.
Arethusa – not often accused of hubris. I don’t argue anyone else must share my views. Theoretical in the sense that I think that in theory a monarchy is a bad idea. And that contrasts with my position in practice, which is that I’d choose to retain the monarchy for now.
Works in the sense that the monarchy has popular support.
Politically correct – I’m intigued by that. If Blair said he was abolishing the monarchy because the monarch personified the evils of the Empire and colonialism, what would happen? Do you think it would be seen, outside the UK, as a genuinely enlightened atep?
There wouldn’t be any need to have a President as well as the PM and two elected Houses.
I think it would be possible to increase the power of the House of Lords (while making them more democratically accountable). Then you could have the PM and Deputy PM meet and give banquets to visiting dignitaries, and that would minimise the number of palaces that would need to be kept occupied, transport costs, etc.
That would be a system more similar to that of the US, really, since there would be two elected Houses and one elected person (whether directly or indirectly elected) who acts as Head of State. Wouldn’t that be cheaper?
I wonder if we are, in any case, heading towards a breakup of the UK/greater powers for regional bodies (and national non-UK ones, namely the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly).
Yes, I’d agree there’d be a number of the monarchy’s functions that you could incorporate into the existing structure of government. I’m wrapping my head round the idea of having the PM as the Head of State.
Or of course, as you point out, we could go for broke and have four Heads of State, one for each parliament. Make it even more fun, each country could then choose whether to have a monarch or president. King Ian the First of Northern Ireland…
I’m British, and yeah, William’s fling was headlines. For about 12 hours.
Truth is, royalty doesn’t sell papers any more, or boost ratings. It stopped doing that a while back.
Headlines this week were that David Beckham is effectively retiring from football by moving to America and taking 1 million pounds a week from the club. Not many football (the real thing, you understand!) can see the point, but it might mean that David can keep up with Posh’s credit card bills.
The tabloids will miss him. Becks sold far more papers than the Queen recently.
Headlines right now? That George Bush is sending more troops out to Iraq while Hilary Clinton is having lunch with Blair.
Oh, and btw the House of Lords was reformed almost 10 years ago. Hereditary peers no longer have the automatic right to a seat in the House.
When you see characters like Lord Bath, you understand why.