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/2013/mar/15/royalists-make-royals-life-misery

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Royalists make the lives of the royal family a misery Royalists make the lives of the royal family a misery
(7 months later)
For those of us who need to be reassured, it was probably reassuring to see the Queen, on Monday evening, conducting business as usual at a Commonwealth reception. She had missed a Commonwealth Day Observance service earlier in the day, and footage of Prince Philip attending the event at Westminster Abbey without his wife had been broadcast. Which must have been rather less reassuring.For those of us who need to be reassured, it was probably reassuring to see the Queen, on Monday evening, conducting business as usual at a Commonwealth reception. She had missed a Commonwealth Day Observance service earlier in the day, and footage of Prince Philip attending the event at Westminster Abbey without his wife had been broadcast. Which must have been rather less reassuring.
For those of us who have no need of reassurance, the forensic attention and breathless speculation that has been directed at an 86-year-old woman because she is too unwell to work can seem both prurient and unnecessary. But Monday evening's event was too important, it seems, for the excuse of an inflamed stomach to wash. The Queen signed a new charter calling for equal rights in all Commonwealth nations. Obviously, this is significant.For those of us who have no need of reassurance, the forensic attention and breathless speculation that has been directed at an 86-year-old woman because she is too unwell to work can seem both prurient and unnecessary. But Monday evening's event was too important, it seems, for the excuse of an inflamed stomach to wash. The Queen signed a new charter calling for equal rights in all Commonwealth nations. Obviously, this is significant.
In some Commonwealth countries, such as Nigeria and Uganda, homosexuality is illegal. Can the Queen's endorsement of the charter be seen as a criticism of such repression? Apparently not. A Buckingham Palace official said: "The Queen is apolitical and is signing the document in her capacity as head of the Commonwealth."In some Commonwealth countries, such as Nigeria and Uganda, homosexuality is illegal. Can the Queen's endorsement of the charter be seen as a criticism of such repression? Apparently not. A Buckingham Palace official said: "The Queen is apolitical and is signing the document in her capacity as head of the Commonwealth."
So – signing the charter was important enough for a sick octogenarian to feel she had to turn up for it, while at the same time her own views and opinions were irrelevant, even unwelcome. It's strange, isn't it, this huge investment in the visible presence of an individual, but only under the condition that her individual thoughts and feelings should not be part of the package. No wonder some of us subjects have difficulty grasping the concept.So – signing the charter was important enough for a sick octogenarian to feel she had to turn up for it, while at the same time her own views and opinions were irrelevant, even unwelcome. It's strange, isn't it, this huge investment in the visible presence of an individual, but only under the condition that her individual thoughts and feelings should not be part of the package. No wonder some of us subjects have difficulty grasping the concept.
The comedian and presenter of BBC Radio 4's News Quiz, Sandi Toksvig, for example, was criticised in some quarters for complaining of the Duchess of Cambridge: "I can't think of a single opinion she holds – it's very Jane Austen." D'oh, Sandi! That's the point. It's precisely because the Duchess of Cambridge keeps any opinions she may have entirely to herself that she's been welcomed so enthusiastically into the royal family. They promised to learn from the experience of bringing Diana, Princess of Wales into the firm, and the lesson has been that vivid and complex personalities are a royal PR disaster.The comedian and presenter of BBC Radio 4's News Quiz, Sandi Toksvig, for example, was criticised in some quarters for complaining of the Duchess of Cambridge: "I can't think of a single opinion she holds – it's very Jane Austen." D'oh, Sandi! That's the point. It's precisely because the Duchess of Cambridge keeps any opinions she may have entirely to herself that she's been welcomed so enthusiastically into the royal family. They promised to learn from the experience of bringing Diana, Princess of Wales into the firm, and the lesson has been that vivid and complex personalities are a royal PR disaster.
Being royal in contemporary Britain is all about resisting self-expression, projecting yourself as an archetype, because anything else risks being perceived and discussed as a stereotype. No one has yet explained this better than Hilary Mantel. In her now notorious London Review of Books speech, Royal Bodies, Mantel said of Diana: "Her tragedy was located in the gap between her human capacities and the demands of the superhuman role she was required to fulfil."Being royal in contemporary Britain is all about resisting self-expression, projecting yourself as an archetype, because anything else risks being perceived and discussed as a stereotype. No one has yet explained this better than Hilary Mantel. In her now notorious London Review of Books speech, Royal Bodies, Mantel said of Diana: "Her tragedy was located in the gap between her human capacities and the demands of the superhuman role she was required to fulfil."
I can hardly believe that I'm obliged to describe Mantel's essay as "controversial". But reports that the much-celebrated novelist had described the Duchess of Cambridge as "plastic" or "a shop-window mannequin" who is "at no risk of showing character" were designed to make the essay appear controversial. If it was, the essay was "controversial" in the way that it described pity for the recipients of royal attention, suggesting that the most avid royalists were the people who made the position so difficult. No wonder it was resented by such people. It was they who were being criticised, not the duchess.I can hardly believe that I'm obliged to describe Mantel's essay as "controversial". But reports that the much-celebrated novelist had described the Duchess of Cambridge as "plastic" or "a shop-window mannequin" who is "at no risk of showing character" were designed to make the essay appear controversial. If it was, the essay was "controversial" in the way that it described pity for the recipients of royal attention, suggesting that the most avid royalists were the people who made the position so difficult. No wonder it was resented by such people. It was they who were being criticised, not the duchess.
In fact, all of Mantel's supposed criticisms of the duchess were prefaced by the word "appears". Mantel wasn't being critical of Kate as a woman. She was being critical of the image that a woman joining the family was obliged to project and fulfil. (People who are members of the family by birth are given a bit more leeway than incomers, at least until they're on the throne. Perhaps that's because they are perceived as having had no choice in the matter.)In fact, all of Mantel's supposed criticisms of the duchess were prefaced by the word "appears". Mantel wasn't being critical of Kate as a woman. She was being critical of the image that a woman joining the family was obliged to project and fulfil. (People who are members of the family by birth are given a bit more leeway than incomers, at least until they're on the throne. Perhaps that's because they are perceived as having had no choice in the matter.)
Mantel has explained that her words were taken out of context, in order to make a "hate figure" of her. She's right. It's an astonishingly sad and savage indictment of the British media that an essay so wonderful, so full of wisdom, insight and beautiful writing could have been butchered and misrepresented so wickedly, when all that it contained deserved instead to be read carefully and discussed with some measure of gratitude.Mantel has explained that her words were taken out of context, in order to make a "hate figure" of her. She's right. It's an astonishingly sad and savage indictment of the British media that an essay so wonderful, so full of wisdom, insight and beautiful writing could have been butchered and misrepresented so wickedly, when all that it contained deserved instead to be read carefully and discussed with some measure of gratitude.
Unlike Toksvig, Mantel had sympathy for the duchess. Mantel understood how strange and dehumanising her public role is likely to be in the future. She is never going to be able to defend herself, so she is never going to be able to expose herself. And ironically, of course, she will be attacked anyway, precisely because she is obliged to be so passively pleasing. To a woman such as Mantel – so fiercely curious, intellectual, creative, and driven – this must seem like a life of insidious torture. And that's the great paradox. Those who dislike the monarchy because it embodies aristocratic privilege tend to hold their views at least in part out of resentment and envy. There are better reasons for disliking the monarchy – such as the horror of locking people in a gilded cage and denying them the most basic freedom of all, the freedom to be themselves.Unlike Toksvig, Mantel had sympathy for the duchess. Mantel understood how strange and dehumanising her public role is likely to be in the future. She is never going to be able to defend herself, so she is never going to be able to expose herself. And ironically, of course, she will be attacked anyway, precisely because she is obliged to be so passively pleasing. To a woman such as Mantel – so fiercely curious, intellectual, creative, and driven – this must seem like a life of insidious torture. And that's the great paradox. Those who dislike the monarchy because it embodies aristocratic privilege tend to hold their views at least in part out of resentment and envy. There are better reasons for disliking the monarchy – such as the horror of locking people in a gilded cage and denying them the most basic freedom of all, the freedom to be themselves.
Likewise, the most fervent of royalists tend to be the people who appoint themselves as warders of the prison. They insist on their right to scrutinise royal bodies, not just their dresses or hairstyles, but their pregnancy bumps or their bowels. They analyse every word or half-word. Is it a daughter that Kate has in her tummy? Did she let it slip? No word can be unguarded. The degree of self-censorship that these supporters of the royal family impose on the people they value so much is grotesque.Likewise, the most fervent of royalists tend to be the people who appoint themselves as warders of the prison. They insist on their right to scrutinise royal bodies, not just their dresses or hairstyles, but their pregnancy bumps or their bowels. They analyse every word or half-word. Is it a daughter that Kate has in her tummy? Did she let it slip? No word can be unguarded. The degree of self-censorship that these supporters of the royal family impose on the people they value so much is grotesque.
The Labour MP and historian Tristram Hunt suggested in the Times that all those "commentators reaching for the 1937 and 1953 Regency Acts that legislate for a transfer of functions to a Regent if 'the Sovereign is by reason of infirmity of mind or body incapable for the time being of performing the royal functions'," were being "both premature and unhelpful". Hunt was more helpful. "However, the palace does need to think carefully about the political, presentational and constitutional management of an ageing sovereign," he warned. In short, if we are going to be seeing less of the Queen in the coming years, and more of the Prince of Wales, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry, then we need to be eased gently into this discombobulating new scenario.The Labour MP and historian Tristram Hunt suggested in the Times that all those "commentators reaching for the 1937 and 1953 Regency Acts that legislate for a transfer of functions to a Regent if 'the Sovereign is by reason of infirmity of mind or body incapable for the time being of performing the royal functions'," were being "both premature and unhelpful". Hunt was more helpful. "However, the palace does need to think carefully about the political, presentational and constitutional management of an ageing sovereign," he warned. In short, if we are going to be seeing less of the Queen in the coming years, and more of the Prince of Wales, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry, then we need to be eased gently into this discombobulating new scenario.
Perhaps he's right. Perhaps we need to understand that Charles, with his baggage of opinions, must now be treated as though he had never uttered them. Perhaps we need to understand that the process of priming us to discount his wife completely has begun. Perhaps we need to understand that it is time for the Queen's children, her in-laws, their children and their in-laws, to be deconstructed, their personhood forgotten, their mistakes expunged from our minds, so that it's easier for us all to pretend that they are different and special in a necessarily indescribable way. Hunt called it "the cruel, morbid calling of the crown". I call it atavistic and simplistic fantasy.Perhaps he's right. Perhaps we need to understand that Charles, with his baggage of opinions, must now be treated as though he had never uttered them. Perhaps we need to understand that the process of priming us to discount his wife completely has begun. Perhaps we need to understand that it is time for the Queen's children, her in-laws, their children and their in-laws, to be deconstructed, their personhood forgotten, their mistakes expunged from our minds, so that it's easier for us all to pretend that they are different and special in a necessarily indescribable way. Hunt called it "the cruel, morbid calling of the crown". I call it atavistic and simplistic fantasy.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.