The royal wedding…and the fate of ‘the firm’?
Sometimes it’s fun to play historian or anthropologist. One might put a given culture or country under a microscope and examine how it compares to other social or political arrangements.
Enter the topic of royalty. Obviously, it’s changed quite a lot over time. For the better, I dare say.
In a constitutional monarchy – like Canada – royalty has largely been relegated to symbolism. Hereditary monarchs now rule in a ceremonial way. Current convention would be monstrously upset if the queen (or a subsequent king) tried to exert actual authority over elected bodies of government. There are a few rare occasions where doing so might be necessary and defensible. But normally it should not come up.
Her Majesty Elizabeth II understands all this and it’s part of her wide popularity. She inherited a real job (a life sentence of sorts) and she does it exceptionally well.
What the public wants out of royalty, and what royalty might want for itself, continues to evolve. Will countries now happy to call Elizabeth their Queen feel the same way about her successors?
That’s among the questions explored in a fascinating article in the Globe and Mail by Doug Saunders entitled “Britain’s crisis of succession: Charles and the story behind the royal wedding”.
The article quotes Victorian political analyst Walter Bagehot on how the crown can balance atop it all, as an asset, not a faction:
The nation is divided into parties, but the Crown is of no party. Its apparent separation from business is that which removes it from both enmities and from desecration, which preserves its mystery, which enables it to combine the affection of conflicting parties – to be a visible symbol of unity to those still so imperfectly educated as to need a symbol.
But – according to this article – Prince Charles takes a very different view.
The heir to the throne has spent the past decade transforming himself from the morose face of regal indifference into a powerful businessman, outspoken political activist and aggressive lobbyist. The “black spider” letters and meetings with ministers are only the beginning. Laws that have apparently angered him into action, according to official records, have involved health, education, the national budget, foreign policy and the military; for a lengthy period, he attempted to have the Labour government abolish or radically reduce the powers of its 2000 Human Rights Act.
Some worry that activist streak puts Charles’ suitability to take the throne into question.
“Insofar as the constitution defines any duties, there is a clear duty to stay away from areas of political controversy,” Lord Lester QC, then a constitutional adviser to the British government, told The Guardian newspaper at the time. “It is not the constitutional function of members of the Royal Family to seek to take advantage of their public position to influence planning or other decisions affecting private rights and the public interest.”
According to Saunders, William and Kate actually requested a low-key wedding, but they were over-ruled:
The hope is that this great blast of royal love will be sharply etched in the public’s memory, for a decade or more, as the matter of succession becomes uglier.
I’ve already lost readers who don’t care about any of this, which does pale beside more pressing cares of the world. But if you follow ‘the firm’ (a nickname for the House of Windsor) I do recommend Saunders’ full article. The PR, marketing and survival issues that face this dysfunctional, dynastic family rival the most outlandish soap opera imaginable!
Something a bit deeper to think about, when the Friday wedding blitz hits the world. Or you can just call it a wedding and enjoy the show.
Tags: canada, Constitutional Monarchy, Doug Saunders, Prince Charles, Royal wedding
The royal family trinkets will more than pay for the tax payer cost of having a royal family.
The royal family is the Brit’s answer to Disney World.
I hope this is the first, last and only blog entry about the royal wedding.
Sorry Brian-MOFYC not NCPR, it’s actually my second blog on the wedding!
The first was on a video spoof that I find quite funny. The second one (this one) is only marginally about the royal wedding, which I haven’t been following very closely.
Here’s the thing: as we all know, the US has three branches of Gov’t, including the Presidency.
What if – for some reason – it became necessary or topical to discuss getting rid of the office of President? Or adding some equivalent replacement?
That would be a tricky nut to crack, I should think. Deserving much forethought & discussion.
Well, it’s not going to happen, and there’s no particular need for that, either.
But in Canada (Australia, New Zealand, etc.) I can guarantee the question of constitutional monarchy is going to come up with more vigor sometime after the current reign ends. Doubly so if Charles inherits, as he now stands to.
There’a good case for keeping the current structure. There’s a good case for moving on. But I have yet to hear what the choices for moving on might be.
Though much influenced by the example of the US, Canada does not have a president. (Heck, voters here don’t even directly elect the PM.)
As partisan as the role of Prime Minister is, it would probably be a mistake to morph that office into the equivalent of the sovereign, the Gov General or a US-type president.
But it would be hard to just drop the royal structure too. If that happened, Canada loses a unifying symbol and creates an even greater imbalance of power than already exists.
A majority PM would be accountable to virtually no one, until the next election rolled around. (US-style checks and balances are less part of the structure here, which strikes me as problematic, at times.)
Anyway, for me it’s really another side of a poly sci question: monarchy forever or evolution into something else? And, if so, toward what?
Not a very compelling issue for Americans, I’ll admit. For boring readers with that, my apologies!
As for the wedding, mass hysteria will burst out now and again. Thankfully, the ‘off’ buttons should still work for those who prefer to stand aloof!
It’s useful for the UK and Commonweatlh countries to have the Queen serve as National Symbol/unity etc while the PM of the moment is the nation’s partisan political leader….
….to me the Royal Wedding is like American Idol in that I’ve never seen the program and have no interest in the contestants but am willing to understand that lots of people do watch and care.
I enjoyed this morning’s comment from Nigella Lawson on Morning Edition saying, as a Brit, she felt feigning disinterest in the Wedding was an “affectation.”
i really enjoyed the article you posted, puts a lot of backstory to the house of Windsor. I didn’t realize Charles was so politically/corporately active. If/when he is put on the throne, there could be some serious repercussions.
My distaste is aimed at the media in these matters, not the royals. Multiple wars, collapsing economy, major natural disasters – none of these are important to The Media. Mindless gossip on trivial subjects – now that’s what we can devote wall-to-wall coverage on!
It would be interesting to poll the UK’s feeling towards the monarchy if William were next in line instead of Charles.
From here in the kingdom of Moronika, I say “Congratulations to William and Kate”.