{"id":4148,"date":"2011-04-27T20:44:15","date_gmt":"2011-04-28T00:44:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/?p=4148"},"modified":"2011-04-27T20:47:58","modified_gmt":"2011-04-28T00:47:58","slug":"the-royal-wedding-and-the-fate-of-the-firm","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/2011\/04\/27\/the-royal-wedding-and-the-fate-of-the-firm\/","title":{"rendered":"The royal wedding…and the fate of ‘the firm’?"},"content":{"rendered":"

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.<\/p>\n

Enter the topic of royalty. Obviously, it’s changed quite a lot over time. For the better, I dare say.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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?<\/p>\n

That’s among the questions explored in a fascinating article in the Globe and Mail by Doug Saunders entitled\u00a0 “Britain’s crisis of succession: Charles and the story behind the royal wedding”<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The article quotes Victorian political analyst Walter Bagehot on how the crown can balance atop it all, as an asset, not a faction:<\/p>\n

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 \u2013 to be a visible symbol of unity to those still so imperfectly educated as to need a symbol.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But – according to this article – Prince Charles takes a very different view.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cblack spider\u201d 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Some worry that activist streak puts Charles’ suitability to take the throne into question.<\/p>\n

\u201cInsofar as the constitution defines any duties, there is a clear duty to stay away from areas of political controversy,\u201d Lord Lester QC, then a constitutional adviser to the British government, told The Guardian newspaper at the time. \u201cIt 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.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

According to Saunders, William and Kate actually requested a low-key wedding, but they were over-ruled:<\/p>\n

The hope is that this great blast of royal love will be sharply etched in the public\u2019s memory, for a decade or more, as the matter of succession becomes uglier.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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> (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!<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sometimes it’s fun to play historian or anthropologist. One might put a given culture or […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[880,5677,5676,5675,5667],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4148"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4148"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4148\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4152,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4148\/revisions\/4152"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4148"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4148"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4148"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}