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/29/in-bed-with-charles-ii-george-iii

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

Version 0 Version 1
In bed with Charles II and George III In bed with Charles II and George III
(6 months later)
Of course, anybody who's anybody will be Up Pompeii this weekend, sifting through the ashes in the British Museum. However, once its rumblings have subsided, consider a jaunt to Hampton Court's Secrets of the Royal Bedchamber, this week's other great exhibition opening. It was provisionally entitled In Bed with the King, until a public vote gave it the blander name – the first of the show's many unexpected lessons in democracy.Of course, anybody who's anybody will be Up Pompeii this weekend, sifting through the ashes in the British Museum. However, once its rumblings have subsided, consider a jaunt to Hampton Court's Secrets of the Royal Bedchamber, this week's other great exhibition opening. It was provisionally entitled In Bed with the King, until a public vote gave it the blander name – the first of the show's many unexpected lessons in democracy.
And what an achievement it is: three years in the plotting, in the wake of half a century's conservation of six baroque beds, four of which were royal beds of state. Enthusiasts for the revival of interest in the British baroque will be flushed with excitement. Those with a staunch, Govian view of history will delight in its focus on the formative, yet curiously overlooked, hundred years from the accession of Charles II to George III. "Secrets" delivers the obligatory post-Downton snapshot of those below stairs, and is chock full of compelling women – not least Anne, Britain's most ignored queen. It is installationy without being irritating and provides much by way of the requisite Great British lavatory humour.And what an achievement it is: three years in the plotting, in the wake of half a century's conservation of six baroque beds, four of which were royal beds of state. Enthusiasts for the revival of interest in the British baroque will be flushed with excitement. Those with a staunch, Govian view of history will delight in its focus on the formative, yet curiously overlooked, hundred years from the accession of Charles II to George III. "Secrets" delivers the obligatory post-Downton snapshot of those below stairs, and is chock full of compelling women – not least Anne, Britain's most ignored queen. It is installationy without being irritating and provides much by way of the requisite Great British lavatory humour.
But its central message is rather sophisticated: namely, that bedchamber pomp served a serious purpose. For that century of monarchical all-change from which modern Britain started to emerge, the royal bedchamber provided an interface between the public and private realms in which real politics could be played out – a psychogeographical space for the incubation of democracy, if you will.But its central message is rather sophisticated: namely, that bedchamber pomp served a serious purpose. For that century of monarchical all-change from which modern Britain started to emerge, the royal bedchamber provided an interface between the public and private realms in which real politics could be played out – a psychogeographical space for the incubation of democracy, if you will.
The bedchamber had been political territory before the Restoration, but its significance grew when Charles II, steeped in French ceremonial, brought Britain the levée – or ceremonial public waking and dressing of the king – and couchée, its bedtime counterpart. Before and after these public events, monarchs could retreat to their private bedchamber. There they could lock themselves in – away from the flatterers and flunkies, the ambassadors and arse-wipers – and what a pleasure this must have been. Nevertheless, for the purposes of politics and patronage, the visibility of power to a select few was key. Wedding nights, eating and defecation, childbirth (albeit not conducted on the scale favoured by the French): these were all fair game.The bedchamber had been political territory before the Restoration, but its significance grew when Charles II, steeped in French ceremonial, brought Britain the levée – or ceremonial public waking and dressing of the king – and couchée, its bedtime counterpart. Before and after these public events, monarchs could retreat to their private bedchamber. There they could lock themselves in – away from the flatterers and flunkies, the ambassadors and arse-wipers – and what a pleasure this must have been. Nevertheless, for the purposes of politics and patronage, the visibility of power to a select few was key. Wedding nights, eating and defecation, childbirth (albeit not conducted on the scale favoured by the French): these were all fair game.
The hundred years after the civil war were, of course, marked by the emergence of a gradually stronger parliament. As the nation became more democratic, so the rituals of royal authority grew more elaborate and ostentatious. The cessation of bedchamber ceremony, when it came, proved no less symbolic. Despite being familiar with the joys of damask, George IV boasted no state bed: politics had gone public and parliamentary.The hundred years after the civil war were, of course, marked by the emergence of a gradually stronger parliament. As the nation became more democratic, so the rituals of royal authority grew more elaborate and ostentatious. The cessation of bedchamber ceremony, when it came, proved no less symbolic. Despite being familiar with the joys of damask, George IV boasted no state bed: politics had gone public and parliamentary.
All this is fascinating in itself, but it also leads the viewer to muse upon the ways in which spaces dictate political content. The House of Commons, as every schoolchild knows, is structured with its factions only two sword-lengths and a foot apart, rendering conduct adversarial, while not lethal.All this is fascinating in itself, but it also leads the viewer to muse upon the ways in which spaces dictate political content. The House of Commons, as every schoolchild knows, is structured with its factions only two sword-lengths and a foot apart, rendering conduct adversarial, while not lethal.
The Commons was also designed to be too small to house all MPs at any one time, ensuring that debates would be confrontational yet intimate. Churchill recognised the way in which this impacted upon its proceedings when he argued that the house should be rebuilt on the same lines after the war: "We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us."The Commons was also designed to be too small to house all MPs at any one time, ensuring that debates would be confrontational yet intimate. Churchill recognised the way in which this impacted upon its proceedings when he argued that the house should be rebuilt on the same lines after the war: "We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us."
British bedroom politics made policy small, elite and gossipy on the French model. Subsequently, whenever politics has been conducted away from its modern parliamentary home it has flirted dangerously with elitism, be it in the salon, private house or gentlemen's club. The bedchambers of Hampton Court may be gorgeous museum pieces. But after a 50-year period in which Wilson's beer and sandwiches has led, via Blair's kitchen cabinet, to Cameron's Notting Hill dining table, they're not bad as political metaphors either.British bedroom politics made policy small, elite and gossipy on the French model. Subsequently, whenever politics has been conducted away from its modern parliamentary home it has flirted dangerously with elitism, be it in the salon, private house or gentlemen's club. The bedchambers of Hampton Court may be gorgeous museum pieces. But after a 50-year period in which Wilson's beer and sandwiches has led, via Blair's kitchen cabinet, to Cameron's Notting Hill dining table, they're not bad as political metaphors either.
Twitter: @HannahJBettsTwitter: @HannahJBetts
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.