an incredible monarchy

Chris Brooke assumes the lectern and addresses les citoyens…

…if Harry were to threaten to succeed to the throne, and if he were to be deeply unpopular among the elites in this country, then he wouldn't succeed. It's as simple as that. Edward VIII was pushed into abdication, after all, and it's not too difficult to imagine circumstances in which the Cabinet, Parliament, media, top civil servants, even senior courtiers (what a word!), or permutations and combinations among them, would move decisively against the prospect of King Harry, but precisely in order to save the institution of monarchy, in which they are generally so heavily invested, rather than to undermine it.

The point, however, is to undermine it.

And that requires continually refocussing arguments away from the personal failings of these inadequate and objectionable human beings (fun though it is to dwell on these) onto the complex institution of the British Monarchy and the forces that sustain it, in order to create a world in which nobody can utter a word in its defence without the experience of deep embarrassment.

…as part of a multi-thread developing argument for a bourgeois republic. In normal circumstances, I’d agree – but I think you probably need to be a bit more radical about it.

My current position is the same as the Australian republicans who voted for the monarchy when it became clear that the proposals on the table in their referendum involved an appointed head of state, who in practice would inevitably turn out to be some superannuated political hack or unindicted campaign contributor

Chris wants the speaker of the House of Commons to assume the role, a neat solution which removes the problem of abuse of patronage. But it’s not what we’re likely to get under this government. The thought of a Blairoid approach to appointing a head of state makes my flesh crawl, though no doubt it would give the prime minister the opportunity of crashing out at some very luxurious digs when he fancies a holiday.

…on which subject, why can’t that wretched family just go on fucking holiday like everyone else? Can’t they stand the sight of each other’s fat faces over breakfast? Does the thought of a week or two without peddling influence fill them with horror?

But I digress. The general point here is that given the choice between a risible and weak form of corruption and a vigorous and credible one, it’s probably best to go with the risible and weak.

Yet the most interesting thing about Chris’ point is the question, broadly speaking, of who owns the monarchy – which combination of interests benefit from its continued existence and so have a stake in its credibility with the public.

I made the point earlier for laughs, but I still think it’s true. The Royals are a subsidiary of the UK’s general media business, mainly operating in the fields of heritage and light entertainment with occasional forays into politics. The Royals formal duties don’t mean much. Public attendance at them is so thin that it’s now impossible for the TV cameras to screen out the nutters in the meagre crowds. These activities justify the coverage because they confirm that the Royals exist. Having done so, you can get away from all the community centre opening bollocks and start having some fun with them

This in turn refers back to the issue of popularity. Prince Harry may not to be popular with the punters in their role as citizens, but he's certainly popular with them in their role as telly watchers and tabloid buyers. His older brother isn’t quite the same buffoon, but there’ll be a girlfriend sooner or later, and she’ll talk. And there’s the ongoing saga of their dad, the green-ink prince, their pheasant strangling grandmother and her hilariously obnoxious husband.

So as far as the establishment which actually runs the royals is concerned, they don’t need a credible monarchy. They need an incredible monarchy, a have-you-heard-what-these –fuckwits-have-done-now monarchy. Disrespect may eventually undermine them, but for now it keeps them going. It’s their reason to exist.

I think William has some inkling of this. I can imagine him making a break for it one day, perhaps taking refuge in some decrepit Russian space station while down below the hacks bang on doors, the columnists churn out their 800 words and a close acquaintance of a distant relative offers her best wishes while showing her tits to the public.

In conclusion I don’t think it’s now possible to separate the individual royals and their personal inadequacies from consideration of the monarchy as a whole. They may get spat out after they’ve been chewed up, but until then the question of what we do about the monarchy is indivisible from other questions, like what we do about Rupert Murdoch.

Comments

[Matthew]

Hmm, I always say that the power of Blair, that you hate so much, for good reason, are actually derived from the weakness of the monarchy, and our lack of a decent constitution. All the power of the Monarch (to declare war for example) is devolved to the Prime Minister, while she walks her Corgis. The tabloid hounding of the inbreds is really secondary and marginal, in my mind.

BTW there's an article by Julian Baggini about consumers being sick of consuming, and the post-materialist society, like your post from the other day. You might be on to something... Let's hope!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1393293,00.html

[James]

Having lived outside for the UK for a while I have had plenty of experience trying to explain the advantage of the system to bemused outsiders. As I tell it, it works because it makes the PM number 2 in the pecking order. (Well, he's actually lower than that according to ceremonial rules - but that's often a tad bit too complicated for most outsiders to understand readily and experience has taught me that it tends to detracts from my important point!) Anyway, politically powerful, they are always nothing more than the Prime Minister of His/Her Majesty's Government. It is not even their government! It is the ultimate poke in the eye for politicians. Meanwhile, sitting at the top is someone who has no political power and is not there through any political patronage. They owe no one anything. It is a perfect balance. Funnily enough, it has become a lot easier for people to see the logic of this system since Blair took over. Major was just weak. As for Thatcher, even with all her faults you never felt like she was trying to be a president in waiting.

[jamie]

Well, it's been pointed out that Blair's style is monarchical rather than presidential - above the fray,. and all that - and the apparat around him seem to be trying to establish themselves as a kind of new overclass, rather than absorbing themselves into the aristocracy as people on the make have traditonally sought to do.

What's at issue I think is the monarchy's actual rather than formal role, and this does seem to be increasingly a part of showbiz. Maybe that's it. Monarchy is showbiz fopr dysfunctional people.