9th January 2022
You do not need to read the (as yet) unpublished book Spare, or even watch the interviews with Prince Harry, the duke of Sussex, to know there is something significant happening with the British monarchy.
But whatever the content of the book, and whatever is said (and not said) by and against the author, it will be important not see this just as an exercise in immediate cause-and-effect.
There has been a problem for sometime with how the monarchy and its circle – which we can dub for convenience “the Palace” – has conducted itself in terms of politics and media.
The “never explain, never complain” mantra, combined with the use of quiet and soft media-political influence, and the use of the extended family in public roles as “the firm”, was born out of the post-war predicament of the monarchy.
Looking back it may seem obvious that, of course, the British monarchy was going to survive and indeed thrive after the second world war.
But.
For Elizabeth II, whose uncle had had his throne taken from him by politicians and whose father had his empire turned into a commonwealth, it may not have looked so certain.
Indeed, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, over which her grandfather had reigned, had been radically configured in her father’s lifetime.
And her husband and many others close to her knew directly how other countries had ended their monarchies.
The crown, as Elizabeth came to the throne, was precarious.
This sense of precariousness is the one thing which the Netflix series The Crown gets right, even if it gets many historical facts wrong.
As such, the “never explain, never complain” mantra, combined with the use of quiet and soft media-political influence, and the use of the extended family in public roles as “the firm”, was a holding operation.
And it worked.
But it was unusual – other monarchies, sometimes derided as “cycling monarchies” – show other European models of monarchy can survive.
And even if it worked, it does not mean that “the firm” model was permanent.
Other problems in the wider royal family and the Palace organisation also show that the model may be imploding.
The publication of Spare may be a cause of certain events, but it may also be the accelerator of certain trends, and the effect of others.
And what worked for the monarchy in the decades after 1945 may not be what will work in the decades after 2022-23.
*
In the comments below, comments with particular allegations against anybody are unlikely to be published: this is a post about constitutional issues.
**
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
I am the exact same age as the then crown princess of Norway. I’ve always felt so very grateful that wasn’t my path
Yes. There was a sense that things shifted a little after Diana died and the nation (well, many UK residents at least) mourned openly, but there’s not been (as a far as I can recall) any major re-think of the role of the monarchy.
And have you said before that we need to be very careful about asking for it to abolished? I’m sure someone did, and this is because (again if I recall correctly) those tasks/roles would be handed to someone else. Would we want those people to have them?
Your last question is a very pertient one I agree. All I could say is that at least the public (now citizens rather than subjects) could vote them out, whereas currently we’re lumbered with the incumbents for good or ill.
One word: Trump
You raise valid questions, but would an elected president really have staff whose job title is ‘silverstick in waiting’ or equivalent? And what does a ‘lady in waiting’ do exactly?
On the latter point, the Lady Hussey issue raised an interesting question, is a ‘lady in waiting’ an employee?
As regards the monarchy, I don’t actually mind it as such, but I certainly prefer the continental, ‘bicycling’ monarchies to the flummery of the court of the King of England*.
(* choice of words is deliberate; I live in Scotland!)
agree on this main point.
Harry understands ‘modern’ media in a way that the establishment-household just doesn’t. You can’t ‘never explain’ in the Twitter world. I feel a large part of his villification is because he’s breaking the taboo of the media relationships – a magician breaking the magic circle code. Covering for household member X by offering a juicier story on Y just doesn’t work as well anymore. To go a bit media… the tone of voice document is all wrong.
The royal household managers also need to decide whether they care more about the home or the export markets – views seem to be more pro-Harry outside the UK. To the extent the monarchy in its current form is an export, it could be a mistake to shore up the home market and ignore how badly it’s going down everywhere else.
I am not sure that the British monarchy ought to be seen as an export industry. It might generate some additional income from incoming tourism (although France does ok and it hasn’t got a monarchy). It might generate some book sales for British authors. But that isn’t really the basis for a modern constitution. And it really doesn’t threaten the role of the monarchy here one iota.
There might be some countries that currently have Charles as their head of state that accelerate their move to having their own head of state if the British monarchy loses some reputation. But probably only those that would have taken this step anyway.
And would monarchy in the UK really be threatened by the firm going through a phase of infighting, or having to slim down, or treat members of the family properly? I can’t really see it.
My recollection is that for the last few decades, and certainly since the death of Harry’s mum, people have been asking if the monarchy could survive the accession of Charles. It seems to have done.
This was an interesting point of view – thank you for sharing … it equally hints at a slightly broader question question … that of purpose (equally of alternatives …. does an elected politician / a president provide greater utility ?)
I can’t help thinking, though, that all this infighting is just … well … reviving a tradition with a very long royal pedigree? Imagine the peerless Eleanor of Aquitaine and her somewhat cantankerous husband, Henry II’s family table chat, not helped in the least by their having favoured sons and spares to spare!
(I hope these allegations are publishable due to the passage of time!)
Don’t forget her Diana-like fifteen year marriage to the pious king of France that produced two daughters before her annulment / divorce followed by some ten children born to her into her forties by the young Henry (II), though he imprisoned her….
The whole saga of Spare is rooted in the age-old quest for a clear line of very traditional succession. You can see it in the last balcony scene from the Jubilee last year. The Queen succeeded after her uncle abdicated childless.
Her first son Charles had to marry not his main love, but virgin Diana, who gave him a heir and a Spare. Her tragedy is well known and King Charles is now settled with their Stepmother but his sons carry the burden of her early death and the way the UK press treated her.
His first son now has sons. His second son, who might have become king if William had died childless, is down the list and without a clear family role. The institution of Royalty supports this, including the new Queen, and the Press is part of that support.
It can be no other than unfair.
So Harry, the second son, is forging a new life, with his American wife, in a new way in a new country and we see the results of his pushback on a global scale, with sufficient force to establish his and Megan’s independent position.
Let us hope for all concerned that they will all come to rest on this and continue with their different futures.
But I think that this latest episode may be a dislocation. QE2 was exceptional and long-lasting, spanning a major historical epoch after WW2. The new King is already compromised in many ways in the public mind and the Press says little about him other than in relation to his sons at present. The global PR firepower of Spare and its attendant interviews has a Prince over the Water feel about it, but if the Prince can keep his nerve and his talented wife then he can have a meaningful life in the world outside the UK without repeating his role resentment in the future.
This separate focus may reduce the global scope of the King and PofW and enable the countries of the Commonwealth to sever ties with the monarchy over time, seeing diminished value in it. Note that the UK Government’s imprisonment of the King in the UK during COP 27 sent a signal of how much it valued his input. Why should anyone else bother?
Listening tonight to the Tom Bradby Interview of Harry, one gains the impression that his major gripe is the unfairness of the certain elements of the British Press, who are themselves not held to account, yet hold him to account often on untrue information feed by certain sources or individuals within the Palace, and where the sole purpose is their sale of newspapers for monetary gain. The more the controversy, the more the sales!
Yes, Harry does have a sibling rivalry with his brother William, and they too have fought on occasions, but is that so unusual in a normal family? After all they too are human despite the pedestal that the family are put on. Too much should not be read into these squabbles.
Harry is also nursing, and will probably always nurse, the loss of his mother at an early age. Having similarly lost my mother at the age of 13, the loss has a lasting impact that one never totally ever gets over and one questions the rationale for the death and what could have been different. He is rightly paranoid about the paparatzi, who he sees as the primary cause of his mother’s death, and now fears for his own family.
You are most likely correct; Harry receives greater sympathy outside the UK, where the stuffiness of the Royal family is difficult to comprehend. One compares them with other European royalty, who are apparently able to lead much more normal lives. Is this another manifestation of British exceptionalism?
I don’t think abolishing the monarchy would be a good idea, because having an elected head of state instead would open the position to preening contenders and grifters similar to, say, Johnson, Truss, or Trump. This breed of contender is now to be expected.
This isn’t to say the royal family doesn’t milk the system for their own benefit, but they’re nowhere as low nor as grasping (for money and/or power) as the aforementioned, because they have huge privilege and wealth already, by birth.*
And they support a lot of ‘good causes’.
However, the institution of the monarchy also underpins the cesspit that is the honours system and the House of Lords. Whereby a failed politician such as Goldsmith can be gifted power by the PM. This arrangement needs to stop.
To survive, the monarchy needs to scale down operations, to just king or queen, plus an heir or two. The rest need to disappear. All palaces to be open to the public, when not in use for state visits. Any private royal high-lifestyle to be entirely self-funded, – which they can well afford.
The rich will always be with us, but the current disparity between us and them isn’t going to end happily if the rich (Cf. ‘Carrie Antoinette’, and she’s merely the wife of a very successful after dinner speaker) continue down this path.
* Yes, this would apply to Trump, too, – I don’t really know how to address this except perhaps that he is a particularly rare monster who could happen in any context.
I’m intrigued by your argument that we shouldn’t have an elected head of state because that would lead to a preener like Johnson. I have sympathy with the argument that we don’t get the issues coverage like we ought to, rather the coverage of personalities so we do get the Johnsons. However, we previously had Johnson with unchecked power as prime minister and control of the House of Commons. Separating out the legislature from the executive should lead to a better power balance – particularly with a fairly elected (pr) House of Commons. And of course with an elected executive there is no room for the monarchy except as decoration.
And yes I know the chances of this happening are next to zero
As regards elected heads of state there are other examples than the likes of the American or French presidents, which hold executive powers. E.g. the examples of the president of Ireland or Germany are models which are worth considering.
There’s something very much in line with British (or perhaps English) cultural tradition that so many people feel the need to take sides in an argument between royal figures they have never met, about issues that have little direct relevance to their lives, but about which they seem to be irrationally passionate.
At one time, the traditional approach to disagreements within the upper reaches of the royal family was for the aggrieved party to travel to a neighbouring country, perhaps France or the Netherlands, raise an army and invade. On balance, I think I’m OK with him writing a book.
It is somewhat alarming, the number of institutions and conventions that seem to be dissolving like sugar in the rain.
Our establishment was designed in the days of tiny data when information was scarce and expensive, so rationed as a carefully distilled trickle. It just isn’t fit for purpose when people are deluged in a torrent of the stuff, raw, untreated and unfiltered.
Modern technology is overtly designed to disrupt everything, and it seems to be working, whatever that means.
We need a revolution. The continued existence of the monarchy is the least of our problems. The coronation still has much of the medieval divine right of kings rather than a constitutionally constrained monarchy. Divine right and hereditary succession are no longer appropriate in the 21st century. That we do the pageantry so well and have great traditions of flummery is not an excuse to retain it anymore than the palaces bring in tourist income.
Kings and Queens are best displayed on a chess board.
If not to be seen on a chess board then they should be kept in a box with the lid firmly closed.
My belief is that these sentiments can be traced back to Irishman Michael Collins although I have been unable to find an accurate citation.
Yes, Queen Elizabeth II succeeded to the throne at a time of precarity for the monarchy, but as far as elected politics and the Executive branch of government was concerned, she had the benefit of a stable structure and, on the whole, sensible Prime Ministers; likewise the CofE was not really called into question as an established Church with a central role in the state and the theatrics of succession. None of that support structure surrounds Charles.
The problem we have is that not only is the monarchy in a precarious state, but so are the other Estates. The governing party can’t manage stable succession, the CofE has never had less moral authority in the UK as a whole, the Union has never been so fragile, and Britain’s global standing arguably never lower. I don’t think the precarity of the monarchy can be seen apart from the problem of the collapsing scaffolding on which it has for generations relied.
In other words, if you want a properly dark muttering, we’re closer to Germany as it was c. early 1919 than is really comfortable. Clench. Clench.
So how about this as a future fair system. We divide up the UK into seven equal land mass parts. Will and Harry and 5 offspring get 1/7 each. They all are kings and queens of their realms and their seventh is subdivided for successive offspring that they have. Eventually some future offspring might get just a field. Lots of scope here for many TV series and books.
The current noise seems to centre on the rather vulgar business of making money – rather than quietly taking it from the populace. Echos of biology classes and the difference between symbiosis and saprophytic organisms. A bit of both, what would the poor old DM and currant bun do without the royals.
And my dears, the cost. A duke costs as much to keep up as two dreadnoughts let alone an actress as well. The poor darlings could hardly get a job in Tesco or Amazon. Reduced to selling one’s souls to the meeja, the only way is Berkshire.
I suppose any useful result will be a further trimming back of the royal setup. A bit more bicycle and a lot less Bentley. Just so long as we can avoid building a palace for President Blair and Charles remembers which way to hold a knife and fork.
Elizabeth II had a vital role in that holding operation after WW2. And held hard for a long long time. In retrospect, I think her long reign will be seen to have been too long. It held hard to out-dated traditions. Having attended a session at the Home Office on how honours are applied for, we commented on the out-dated use of British Empire on so many of them and were told that would never change in the Queen’s lifetime and might not change in Charles’s. If the Monarchy wants to catch up it’s going to be a huge jump from the 1950s to 2023. One could argue, the jump is from the 1930s to 2023. I don’t see Charles doing that but it’s too soon to tell; William might. It would be fascinating to watch. For me, the Monarchy atop and reinforcing a social hierarchy is simply unacceptable today.
So many good points in your comments, Helena. And yes, things have to change.
London and South East, Northern Powerhouse, Ox-Cam arc, Midlands manufacturing. Wales and the borders, Scotland and their borders. Say goodbye to levelling up and hello to War of the Roses II.