The Utility of the Windsors
"Survival depends on convincing the British public the monarchy is relevant."
The British monarchy is no longer a game of thrones. Instead, it's a mundane game of consent. Interesting fact: Countries that have Kings and Queens are empirically freer and have higher levels of social justice. That statement contradicts rationality.
Yet, look at the freest countries. Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Spain, Luxembourg and Great Britain all top the league. All have high levels of freedom, social justice and a constitutional monarchy. Something is going on. The correlation is unclear - but it can't be a coincidence. I know folks on the left - in particular, the regressive left - baulk at this idea. They reject the evidence.
As some do, you could argue that the monarchy, as an institution, acts as the national glue. It brings together a people. That argument has some resonance. Of course, in modern times, Kings and Queens are above politics or should be. However, the feckless Prince Charles is stretching that principle somewhat.
With its rich history and traditions, the monarchy serves as a focal point for national pride and a vessel for collective sorrow during times of strife. This unifying force transcends the often sordid business of politics, with Queen Elizabeth II embodying this role with grace and dignity. The pageantry associated with the monarchy, as acknowledged even by Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols, adds to its appeal. However, amidst this admiration, it's essential to question the purpose and appeal of this grand show.
Walter Bagshot, writing in the late 1800s, encapsulated the issue. "The mystic reverence, the religious allegiance, which are essential to a true monarchy, are imaginative sentiments that no legislature can manufacture in any people. You might as well adopt a father as make a monarchy." Thus, in his view, the monarchy remains beyond rational explanation.
As it stands now, the winning party leader in an election travels to see a 91-year-old woman. She then invites them to form a government. Convention dictates that she must invite. Further, the leader can't form a government without having had that invite. It's all absurd.
Further, laws exist only through Elizabeth II's signature. But she only signs what her ministers ask her to. She can't act unilaterally. Moreover, none of this is written down. Convention and practice prevail. This has progressed over time as Parliament asserted itself, with the monarchy in gradual retreat. In that sense, the monarchy evolves; it morphs with the times, adapting. This is odd because the monarchy's role is continuity, that connection to the past.
Although the Queen has no direct political power, she can theoretically exercise the royal prerogative. She could decline to sign a bill or order parliament to close. Of course, such a move would provoke unforeseen consequences, including the end of the monarchy, so her powers are held in check.
In the past, Kings and Queens fought for power, slaughtering their opponents while jealously guarding a bloodline. These days, soft power prevails. Soft power, a term coined by political scientist Joseph Nye, refers to the ability to influence others through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion. Real political clout has been surrendered for the right to be consulted. Yet, the motivation remains the same: protect that bloodline.
The PR machine that controls and contorts every image of Queen Elizabeth II and her family is a slick operation. It manages all opportunities to the greatest impact, never missing a beat. In 2013, Prince Harry sat outside a tent in Afghanistan, giving an interview. Then, by luck, the scramble alarm sounds.
He sprints for his combat helicopter. It's an image of the Battle of Britain… another young man in a war zone fighting for freedom. The nation gasps in jingoistic delight. Strangely, we never see the helicopter lift off nor see the carnage our prince wrought on the nasty enemy. But the impression lingers. "Harry, the lad", is doing his bit. All good stuff, you may conclude.
Survival depends on convincing the British public the monarchy is relevant. In this regard, the role of heredity, scorned by the Republicans, has one distinct advantage. It settles once and for all the issue of who gets the job. There's no political fighting, no contest. A smooth, seamless transition assures stability at a time of potential crisis.
A monarchy that exists by consent is fragile and not without inconsistencies. Great legal minds continue to debate the monarch's exact powers and the reach of those powers. The 'muddle and compromise' refers to the ongoing debates and negotiations that shape the monarchy's role and powers. Nothing remains settled; it's all a muddle and compromise. Queen Elizabeth II has kept the ship balanced and on an even keel in some choppy seas.
In recent times, the only real threat came in the shape of Saint Diana of Harrods. Diana took on the Royals in a PR battle that, in bold moves, canonised her in the public's mind. In the process, Charles got demonised, while the Queen Mother took some flack.
The Windsor PR machine was on the back foot, fighting a rearguard action against a wronged woman. Organisations can be slow to change, but a dynasty that has survived hundreds of years wasn't agile enough on this occasion. Hence, when Diana died in that Paris underpass, the Windsors failed to comprehend the new sentiment game. A paucity of solemn condolences drew swift and unrestrained public bile. The target was the Queen.
Her absence from London, sitting remotely in her Scottish Castle, didn't play well. While the nation mourned, the public conjured up images of some dark Shakespearean episode: a ruthless Queen hiding away, deaf to her nation's despairing wails. Bit-part players included a young, ardent Prime Minister. In the shadows, a sulking Prince skulked around, fearful for his own life.
The Windsors fell short because the frontwoman needed to have read the nation's mood. The 'Windsor PR machine' refers to the team responsible for managing the public image and perception of the royal family. Folklore has it that only the intervention of the Prime Minister brought about a change in heart. Eventually, the Windsor PR machine fired up its engines. The Queen co-opted plans for her mother's funeral to roll out all the public-appealing pageantry. It worked.
Some blame for this episode must rest with the inept Charles Windsor. A man is sitting out the longest apprenticeship in history. He's made some daft decisions that threatened to scuttle the whole enterprise. Therefore, I suspect his mum is holding off on letting him have the top job.
Except for that one slip-up, Queen Elizabeth II is beyond reproach. She's kept a steady hand on the helm. She reigned through thirteen UK Prime Ministers and a hundred-plus Commonwealth equivalents. Her insights are considerable. No one in history has had that breadth of exposure. Of course, we don't know her personal opinions, nor should we hear them. Sometimes, discretion is a virtue.
Aside from the Diana saga, she has suffered occasional lousy press, sometimes accused of being aloof and cold. I heard one anecdote that refutes this. A surgeon who'd served in a war zone invited to the Palace for lunch gets seated next to the Queen. The surgeon is suffering from post-traumatic stress. He'd seen terrible things, including amputations of children. The pressure of the event got to him, and he started to shake.
The Queen immediately called her dogs over. She produced treats from her pocket for the poor chap to feed the dogs. She encouraged a dog to sit in his lap. Calm returned. These are not the actions of a heartless, callous person but someone who'd recognised a fellow human being in distress.
I was also struck by how she conducted herself on a visit to Ireland in 2011. This state visit topped the reconciliation process that began with the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. The following year, in Northern Ireland, she greeted a man who'd likely had a role in the assassination of her uncle. Shaking hands with Martin McGuinness, she transformed the situation by normalising relations.
That was a profound moment of rapprochement that signalled things had changed. A politician undertaking the same act could be a cynical gesture. She brought gravitas to the whole process by having no public agenda.
When King Farouk of Egypt was removed from his throne in 1952, he remarked that "soon there will be only five kings left". The list consisted of the kings of spades, diamonds, hearts and clubs – and the King of England. Only time will tell.
The monarchy will be precarious when Charles takes over because his wife does not enjoy broad public support. How this plays out is anyone's guess. Consent to sit on the throne is by no means certain. Fickle public sentiment could again swing against the House of Windsor.
September 2017
Yet, look at the freest countries. Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Spain, Luxembourg and Great Britain all top the league. All have high levels of freedom, social justice and a constitutional monarchy. Something is going on. The correlation is unclear - but it can't be a coincidence. I know folks on the left - in particular, the regressive left - baulk at this idea. They reject the evidence.
As some do, you could argue that the monarchy, as an institution, acts as the national glue. It brings together a people. That argument has some resonance. Of course, in modern times, Kings and Queens are above politics or should be. However, the feckless Prince Charles is stretching that principle somewhat.
With its rich history and traditions, the monarchy serves as a focal point for national pride and a vessel for collective sorrow during times of strife. This unifying force transcends the often sordid business of politics, with Queen Elizabeth II embodying this role with grace and dignity. The pageantry associated with the monarchy, as acknowledged even by Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols, adds to its appeal. However, amidst this admiration, it's essential to question the purpose and appeal of this grand show.
Walter Bagshot, writing in the late 1800s, encapsulated the issue. "The mystic reverence, the religious allegiance, which are essential to a true monarchy, are imaginative sentiments that no legislature can manufacture in any people. You might as well adopt a father as make a monarchy." Thus, in his view, the monarchy remains beyond rational explanation.
As it stands now, the winning party leader in an election travels to see a 91-year-old woman. She then invites them to form a government. Convention dictates that she must invite. Further, the leader can't form a government without having had that invite. It's all absurd.
Further, laws exist only through Elizabeth II's signature. But she only signs what her ministers ask her to. She can't act unilaterally. Moreover, none of this is written down. Convention and practice prevail. This has progressed over time as Parliament asserted itself, with the monarchy in gradual retreat. In that sense, the monarchy evolves; it morphs with the times, adapting. This is odd because the monarchy's role is continuity, that connection to the past.
Although the Queen has no direct political power, she can theoretically exercise the royal prerogative. She could decline to sign a bill or order parliament to close. Of course, such a move would provoke unforeseen consequences, including the end of the monarchy, so her powers are held in check.
In the past, Kings and Queens fought for power, slaughtering their opponents while jealously guarding a bloodline. These days, soft power prevails. Soft power, a term coined by political scientist Joseph Nye, refers to the ability to influence others through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion. Real political clout has been surrendered for the right to be consulted. Yet, the motivation remains the same: protect that bloodline.
The PR machine that controls and contorts every image of Queen Elizabeth II and her family is a slick operation. It manages all opportunities to the greatest impact, never missing a beat. In 2013, Prince Harry sat outside a tent in Afghanistan, giving an interview. Then, by luck, the scramble alarm sounds.
He sprints for his combat helicopter. It's an image of the Battle of Britain… another young man in a war zone fighting for freedom. The nation gasps in jingoistic delight. Strangely, we never see the helicopter lift off nor see the carnage our prince wrought on the nasty enemy. But the impression lingers. "Harry, the lad", is doing his bit. All good stuff, you may conclude.
Survival depends on convincing the British public the monarchy is relevant. In this regard, the role of heredity, scorned by the Republicans, has one distinct advantage. It settles once and for all the issue of who gets the job. There's no political fighting, no contest. A smooth, seamless transition assures stability at a time of potential crisis.
A monarchy that exists by consent is fragile and not without inconsistencies. Great legal minds continue to debate the monarch's exact powers and the reach of those powers. The 'muddle and compromise' refers to the ongoing debates and negotiations that shape the monarchy's role and powers. Nothing remains settled; it's all a muddle and compromise. Queen Elizabeth II has kept the ship balanced and on an even keel in some choppy seas.
In recent times, the only real threat came in the shape of Saint Diana of Harrods. Diana took on the Royals in a PR battle that, in bold moves, canonised her in the public's mind. In the process, Charles got demonised, while the Queen Mother took some flack.
The Windsor PR machine was on the back foot, fighting a rearguard action against a wronged woman. Organisations can be slow to change, but a dynasty that has survived hundreds of years wasn't agile enough on this occasion. Hence, when Diana died in that Paris underpass, the Windsors failed to comprehend the new sentiment game. A paucity of solemn condolences drew swift and unrestrained public bile. The target was the Queen.
Her absence from London, sitting remotely in her Scottish Castle, didn't play well. While the nation mourned, the public conjured up images of some dark Shakespearean episode: a ruthless Queen hiding away, deaf to her nation's despairing wails. Bit-part players included a young, ardent Prime Minister. In the shadows, a sulking Prince skulked around, fearful for his own life.
The Windsors fell short because the frontwoman needed to have read the nation's mood. The 'Windsor PR machine' refers to the team responsible for managing the public image and perception of the royal family. Folklore has it that only the intervention of the Prime Minister brought about a change in heart. Eventually, the Windsor PR machine fired up its engines. The Queen co-opted plans for her mother's funeral to roll out all the public-appealing pageantry. It worked.
Some blame for this episode must rest with the inept Charles Windsor. A man is sitting out the longest apprenticeship in history. He's made some daft decisions that threatened to scuttle the whole enterprise. Therefore, I suspect his mum is holding off on letting him have the top job.
Except for that one slip-up, Queen Elizabeth II is beyond reproach. She's kept a steady hand on the helm. She reigned through thirteen UK Prime Ministers and a hundred-plus Commonwealth equivalents. Her insights are considerable. No one in history has had that breadth of exposure. Of course, we don't know her personal opinions, nor should we hear them. Sometimes, discretion is a virtue.
Aside from the Diana saga, she has suffered occasional lousy press, sometimes accused of being aloof and cold. I heard one anecdote that refutes this. A surgeon who'd served in a war zone invited to the Palace for lunch gets seated next to the Queen. The surgeon is suffering from post-traumatic stress. He'd seen terrible things, including amputations of children. The pressure of the event got to him, and he started to shake.
The Queen immediately called her dogs over. She produced treats from her pocket for the poor chap to feed the dogs. She encouraged a dog to sit in his lap. Calm returned. These are not the actions of a heartless, callous person but someone who'd recognised a fellow human being in distress.
I was also struck by how she conducted herself on a visit to Ireland in 2011. This state visit topped the reconciliation process that began with the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. The following year, in Northern Ireland, she greeted a man who'd likely had a role in the assassination of her uncle. Shaking hands with Martin McGuinness, she transformed the situation by normalising relations.
That was a profound moment of rapprochement that signalled things had changed. A politician undertaking the same act could be a cynical gesture. She brought gravitas to the whole process by having no public agenda.
When King Farouk of Egypt was removed from his throne in 1952, he remarked that "soon there will be only five kings left". The list consisted of the kings of spades, diamonds, hearts and clubs – and the King of England. Only time will tell.
The monarchy will be precarious when Charles takes over because his wife does not enjoy broad public support. How this plays out is anyone's guess. Consent to sit on the throne is by no means certain. Fickle public sentiment could again swing against the House of Windsor.
September 2017
Copyright © 2015