This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/03/andrew-rawnsley-monarchy-outmoded
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Diamond jubilee: congrats, Ma'am, on preserving the monarchy in a populist age | Diamond jubilee: congrats, Ma'am, on preserving the monarchy in a populist age |
| (1 day later) | |
| What do you give the wealthiest woman in the world? Of all the tokens of esteem to mark Elizabeth Windsor's 60 years on the throne, the one that may give her most satisfaction is approval ratings that any elected politician would kill for. Many things may have changed since her distant Norman ancestors landed in England, but the principal objective of a dynasty remains the same and that is to stay on the throne. Her most fundamental achievement has been to preserve a hereditary monarchy in an age of democratic populism and to do so over six decades of tumultuous change in the rest of society. | What do you give the wealthiest woman in the world? Of all the tokens of esteem to mark Elizabeth Windsor's 60 years on the throne, the one that may give her most satisfaction is approval ratings that any elected politician would kill for. Many things may have changed since her distant Norman ancestors landed in England, but the principal objective of a dynasty remains the same and that is to stay on the throne. Her most fundamental achievement has been to preserve a hereditary monarchy in an age of democratic populism and to do so over six decades of tumultuous change in the rest of society. |
| Globalisation and immigration are just two of the forces that have made the Britain of 2012 a dramatically different country from the Britain of 1952. The British are much more socially liberal (as has been demonstrated by the royal family's recent history). They are much more multiethnic (something you would never know from the waving scene on the Buckingham Palace balcony, where the cast is still all-white). Most potentially threatening to a hereditary monarchy, the British have become much less reverential towards and much less trusting of their rulers. | Globalisation and immigration are just two of the forces that have made the Britain of 2012 a dramatically different country from the Britain of 1952. The British are much more socially liberal (as has been demonstrated by the royal family's recent history). They are much more multiethnic (something you would never know from the waving scene on the Buckingham Palace balcony, where the cast is still all-white). Most potentially threatening to a hereditary monarchy, the British have become much less reverential towards and much less trusting of their rulers. |
| At the time of her accession, the monarchy was one of several national institutions in which the British invested great faith. One explanation for the endurance of the Queen is that all those other repositories of national pride and sentiment have suffered crises of confidence and trust. The army, which still glowed with victory when she came to the throne, has in recent years suffered humiliation in southern Iraq and defeat in Afghanistan. The BBC, the monopoly broadcaster at the time of the Queen's coronation, now has a cacophony of competition. The Church of England is divided in its beliefs and confused about its role. The City of London is feared and loathed for what the bankers did to the economy. At the time of the accession, the House of Commons was held in such esteem that a book could be published with the title The Glory of Parliament, not a proposition that would today secure an advance. For republicans, Britain will never be a complete democracy so long as the head of state is chosen on the basis of his or her birth certificate. But making that argument has never been harder when there is such a crisis of trust in politicians. It makes more potent the monarchist's sneering challenge: "President Blair?" | At the time of her accession, the monarchy was one of several national institutions in which the British invested great faith. One explanation for the endurance of the Queen is that all those other repositories of national pride and sentiment have suffered crises of confidence and trust. The army, which still glowed with victory when she came to the throne, has in recent years suffered humiliation in southern Iraq and defeat in Afghanistan. The BBC, the monopoly broadcaster at the time of the Queen's coronation, now has a cacophony of competition. The Church of England is divided in its beliefs and confused about its role. The City of London is feared and loathed for what the bankers did to the economy. At the time of the accession, the House of Commons was held in such esteem that a book could be published with the title The Glory of Parliament, not a proposition that would today secure an advance. For republicans, Britain will never be a complete democracy so long as the head of state is chosen on the basis of his or her birth certificate. But making that argument has never been harder when there is such a crisis of trust in politicians. It makes more potent the monarchist's sneering challenge: "President Blair?" |
| Amid so much turbulence, part of her formula has been to remain a constant, calm and reassuringly unexciting figurehead. Those qualities helped the monarchy to survive its own institutional crisis. It was in 1992 that she lamented that she had suffered an "annus horribilis", but it was the whole decade that was rotten for the royals. The marriage of Prince Charles and Diana fell apart in the most poisonous and public fashion. Princess Anne divorced. The Duchess of York was snapped having her toes sucked by an American. Windsor Castle caught fire and the public rebelled against footing the bill for the repairs. | |
| Some argue that the Queen has kept the monarchy afloat by incremental adaptation, by doing the same thing but doing it slightly differently. The royal publicity machine has become much more professional. The Windsors have learned from fellow aristocrats such as the Devonshires about how to turn a profit from heritage. Tourists can pay to visit selected parts of Buckingham Palace, an idea unthinkable in 1952. The Queen now pays some tax on her fabulous personal wealth, though precisely how much remains a mystery. There have been infusions of new blood to refresh the family brand, which seems to be working well with Kate Middleton, but went disastrously wrong in the case of Diana. | Some argue that the Queen has kept the monarchy afloat by incremental adaptation, by doing the same thing but doing it slightly differently. The royal publicity machine has become much more professional. The Windsors have learned from fellow aristocrats such as the Devonshires about how to turn a profit from heritage. Tourists can pay to visit selected parts of Buckingham Palace, an idea unthinkable in 1952. The Queen now pays some tax on her fabulous personal wealth, though precisely how much remains a mystery. There have been infusions of new blood to refresh the family brand, which seems to be working well with Kate Middleton, but went disastrously wrong in the case of Diana. |
| Her death in 1997 was the other crisis point for the monarchy when the Windsors secluded themselves at Balmoral while the masses mourned outside Buckingham Palace. Yet those republicans who thought this might be their moment were soon proved deluded. After all, the tabloid bellow at the Queen to "show us you care" and the crowds in the Mall clamorous for her presence were not asking for less monarch. They were demanding more. With some artful guidance in mob management from Tony Blair, she resolved that crisis with an unprecedented live broadcast. | Her death in 1997 was the other crisis point for the monarchy when the Windsors secluded themselves at Balmoral while the masses mourned outside Buckingham Palace. Yet those republicans who thought this might be their moment were soon proved deluded. After all, the tabloid bellow at the Queen to "show us you care" and the crowds in the Mall clamorous for her presence were not asking for less monarch. They were demanding more. With some artful guidance in mob management from Tony Blair, she resolved that crisis with an unprecedented live broadcast. |
| Looking at it with the benefit of perspective, it is striking how little she really conceded to those who wanted less of the stiff upper lip and more of the trembly lower one. There was a clue to what she really thought of Diana and the emotional spasm triggered by her death in the Christmas broadcast of that year, when the Queen dwelt longer on her sadness about the decommissioning of the royal yacht than she did on the demise of the mother of her grandchildren. | Looking at it with the benefit of perspective, it is striking how little she really conceded to those who wanted less of the stiff upper lip and more of the trembly lower one. There was a clue to what she really thought of Diana and the emotional spasm triggered by her death in the Christmas broadcast of that year, when the Queen dwelt longer on her sadness about the decommissioning of the royal yacht than she did on the demise of the mother of her grandchildren. |
| Such glimpses into what goes on inside her head are exceptional. One of the most remarkable things about the woman who has been so "long to reign o'er us" is how little we know about her. She has had many biographers, some of them very accomplished historians or extremely resourceful journalists, and not one has ever found anything sensational to reveal about her. Perhaps that is because she, uniquely among modern public figures, can keep her secrets secure. More likely, it is because there is not that much to know. She is fond of corgis, passionate about horses, believes in God and is motivated by a sense of duty to country and dynasty. | Such glimpses into what goes on inside her head are exceptional. One of the most remarkable things about the woman who has been so "long to reign o'er us" is how little we know about her. She has had many biographers, some of them very accomplished historians or extremely resourceful journalists, and not one has ever found anything sensational to reveal about her. Perhaps that is because she, uniquely among modern public figures, can keep her secrets secure. More likely, it is because there is not that much to know. She is fond of corgis, passionate about horses, believes in God and is motivated by a sense of duty to country and dynasty. |
| In an age in which everyone from the prime minister to the most trivial TV performer thinks personal revelation is the way to get purchase on public affection, the Queen remains a closed book. Junior members of her family have played the celebrity game, but she adheres to Walter Bagehot's injunction not to let in "daylight upon magic". She has never given an interview – not one. | In an age in which everyone from the prime minister to the most trivial TV performer thinks personal revelation is the way to get purchase on public affection, the Queen remains a closed book. Junior members of her family have played the celebrity game, but she adheres to Walter Bagehot's injunction not to let in "daylight upon magic". She has never given an interview – not one. |
| The tributes paid to mark this diamond jubilee have told us nothing. According to the Archbishop of Canterbury, she's "extremely funny in private", but we are left to take his word for it since he does not share with us one of Her Majesty's rib-ticklers. According to Sir John Major, "she's extremely well-informed" as well as being, says David Cameron, "a fount of time-tested wisdom". Since they don't furnish examples either, we again have to take their word for it, bearing in mind they would hardly be likely to say: "The Queen? Clueless actually." | The tributes paid to mark this diamond jubilee have told us nothing. According to the Archbishop of Canterbury, she's "extremely funny in private", but we are left to take his word for it since he does not share with us one of Her Majesty's rib-ticklers. According to Sir John Major, "she's extremely well-informed" as well as being, says David Cameron, "a fount of time-tested wisdom". Since they don't furnish examples either, we again have to take their word for it, bearing in mind they would hardly be likely to say: "The Queen? Clueless actually." |
| We can have an informed hunch about her politics – Prince Philip without the rough edges, I'd say. But unlike her more reckless son, she never, ever expresses an opinion unless it is on a state occasion when it has been put into her mouth by someone else. For 60 years, she has retained the inscrutability of the sphinx. This defiance of the spirit of the age has paradoxically been the key to her success. | We can have an informed hunch about her politics – Prince Philip without the rough edges, I'd say. But unlike her more reckless son, she never, ever expresses an opinion unless it is on a state occasion when it has been put into her mouth by someone else. For 60 years, she has retained the inscrutability of the sphinx. This defiance of the spirit of the age has paradoxically been the key to her success. |
| There is a cost to pay for her achievement. The British monarchy surrendered formal executive powers to elected politicians long ago, but it still wields the potent power of symbolism. It says something good about American meritocracy and that country's capacity for renewal that its elected head of state is the son of a Kenyan goatherd. It says something less encouraging about Britain that we are celebrating 60 years of a hereditary head of state. | There is a cost to pay for her achievement. The British monarchy surrendered formal executive powers to elected politicians long ago, but it still wields the potent power of symbolism. It says something good about American meritocracy and that country's capacity for renewal that its elected head of state is the son of a Kenyan goatherd. It says something less encouraging about Britain that we are celebrating 60 years of a hereditary head of state. |
| The coalition government has just published an investigation into the lack of social mobility in Britain, written by a former Labour cabinet minister. Alan Milburn gathers a lot of evidence behind his eloquent lament that for the vast majority of Britons the circumstances in which they were born will determine how they will live. This has something to do with the fact that this is a country in which the pinnacle of society and constitution is occupied by someone who holds the position because an early 18th-century parliament fixed the throne for her Hanoverian great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather. | The coalition government has just published an investigation into the lack of social mobility in Britain, written by a former Labour cabinet minister. Alan Milburn gathers a lot of evidence behind his eloquent lament that for the vast majority of Britons the circumstances in which they were born will determine how they will live. This has something to do with the fact that this is a country in which the pinnacle of society and constitution is occupied by someone who holds the position because an early 18th-century parliament fixed the throne for her Hanoverian great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather. |
| The focusing of patriotic sentiment on the monarchy has the effect of cutting Britain off from other rich traditions, some of them more radical. We celebrate the longevity of a monarch rather than gifts to the world such as the Magna Carta. But any realistic republican must know that this is not a weekend in which those arguments will get much of a hearing and even the most diehard has to acknowledge that sustaining a hereditary monarchy into the 21st century is a remarkable achievement. | The focusing of patriotic sentiment on the monarchy has the effect of cutting Britain off from other rich traditions, some of them more radical. We celebrate the longevity of a monarch rather than gifts to the world such as the Magna Carta. But any realistic republican must know that this is not a weekend in which those arguments will get much of a hearing and even the most diehard has to acknowledge that sustaining a hereditary monarchy into the 21st century is a remarkable achievement. |
| It is the personal nature of this in which republicans might find one sliver of consolation that their cause may not always be as lost as it looks now. The oddity of monarchy is that it is an institution embodied in a personality. In a democracy, it survives only by popular consent and that depends on the character of the incumbent. If republicans want a straw of comfort, then it might be found in polling that indicates that only 39% of the public want the crown to pass on to Prince Charles, more preferring it to go to Prince William – which demonstrates that most Britons either have an infirm grasp of the principles of hereditary monarchy or not much respect for them. The Queen may pass on the throne to her heirs and successors. What they can't inherit is her personal popularity. | It is the personal nature of this in which republicans might find one sliver of consolation that their cause may not always be as lost as it looks now. The oddity of monarchy is that it is an institution embodied in a personality. In a democracy, it survives only by popular consent and that depends on the character of the incumbent. If republicans want a straw of comfort, then it might be found in polling that indicates that only 39% of the public want the crown to pass on to Prince Charles, more preferring it to go to Prince William – which demonstrates that most Britons either have an infirm grasp of the principles of hereditary monarchy or not much respect for them. The Queen may pass on the throne to her heirs and successors. What they can't inherit is her personal popularity. |
Previous version
1
Next version