![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
poliphiloPrince Harry comes out of a night club. The paparazzi mob him. He lunges at one and cuts the man's lip. Pictures are published showing a red-faced prince being restrained by his bodyguards. Oh dear!
He is driven away with his head buried in his hands.
The British monarchy has had its good times and its bad times. This is one of the worst. Ever since the death of Princess Di the family has been under close and hostile scrutiny.
This very bad patch follows a very good patch. From about 1890 to 1970 the royals were a national asset. Though practically powerless they embodied the national myth. Their strength as symbols depended upon the rest of us knowing very little about them as people. And this depended upon the media keeping us ill-informed or- in other words- failing to do its job.
When I was a kid the Queen was a woman in fancy dress with a porcelain complexion who appeared on biscuit tins. She was only marginally more real than the tooth fairy. The adults around me talked of her as if she and Jesus were closely related.
And now the media intrudes and the Royals are hunted like foxes. The Queen is a sour faced old lady with an inexplicable taste in hats. She has managed to preserve a little of her aloofness, but the rest of her family have been pitilessly exposed as dim, sulky, arrogant and out of touch. Charles is widely despised and hated for the way he treated his wife. Even those who don’t hate him think he’s a bit of a clown.
They’ve been told they must change- preferably by going down the Scandinavian route and exchanging the coaches and limousines for bicycles and bus passes. But they don’t and they won’t. There’s no very strong public appetite for getting rid of them, so the show seems set to limp on and on.
More yobbishness outside night-clubs, more tabloid exposes, more butlers’ tales.
More low-grade entertainment.
Who does it serve and what’s the point?
He is driven away with his head buried in his hands.
The British monarchy has had its good times and its bad times. This is one of the worst. Ever since the death of Princess Di the family has been under close and hostile scrutiny.
This very bad patch follows a very good patch. From about 1890 to 1970 the royals were a national asset. Though practically powerless they embodied the national myth. Their strength as symbols depended upon the rest of us knowing very little about them as people. And this depended upon the media keeping us ill-informed or- in other words- failing to do its job.
When I was a kid the Queen was a woman in fancy dress with a porcelain complexion who appeared on biscuit tins. She was only marginally more real than the tooth fairy. The adults around me talked of her as if she and Jesus were closely related.
And now the media intrudes and the Royals are hunted like foxes. The Queen is a sour faced old lady with an inexplicable taste in hats. She has managed to preserve a little of her aloofness, but the rest of her family have been pitilessly exposed as dim, sulky, arrogant and out of touch. Charles is widely despised and hated for the way he treated his wife. Even those who don’t hate him think he’s a bit of a clown.
They’ve been told they must change- preferably by going down the Scandinavian route and exchanging the coaches and limousines for bicycles and bus passes. But they don’t and they won’t. There’s no very strong public appetite for getting rid of them, so the show seems set to limp on and on.
More yobbishness outside night-clubs, more tabloid exposes, more butlers’ tales.
More low-grade entertainment.
Who does it serve and what’s the point?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-24 02:01 pm (UTC)The latest gossip about Harry (apart from the nighclub fracas) is that he was "helped" to pass his exams. A teacher is suing Eton for unfair dismissal and it came out in the wash that she had written most of Harry's course-work for him.
Monarchy only works when it keeps at a distance. There has to be magic- even though it's only conjuring tricks. Once we find out about the cheating at exams and the falling over drunk in the street the game's up.
Monarchy is incompatible with the modern media.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-24 03:43 pm (UTC)It's been asserted by this book's author that all teachers "revise" pupils' coursework. Blame league tables, coursework assessment instead of exams, and the fact that apparently you need an A-level even to get into Army school these days (though history of art will do). I think Harry is not so much a cheat, as the victim of a blackmailing bitch who's in cahoots with Max Clifford.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-24 04:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-24 09:43 pm (UTC)Beautifully said.
When a child, I went with my mother to see the movie of Elizabeth's recent coronation, and I thought she was so beautiful, and that the coronation was like being at church. It certainly made our noisy conventions and boring inauguration ceremonies seem shabby by comparison.
I wonder if the monarchy will last much longer? As you say, no one seems to be pushing hard to end it. But I understand that J.K. Rowling now has more money than the Queen.
My [uniformed and ignorant] guess is that the monarchy probably won't last another 100 years. But, then, neither may the Presidency.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-24 10:03 pm (UTC)I don't think they'll last a hundred years, but you never can tell. All it needs is a charismatic monarch to step into the breach and the institution will be safeguarded for several more generations. The monarchy was at a very low ebb (probably lower than it is today) at the beginning of the 19th century. George IV was hated and despised, William IV was a nonentity- and then along came Queen Victoria!
no subject
Date: 2004-10-24 10:33 pm (UTC)No, wait. Look what happened to Machiavelli.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-24 10:42 pm (UTC)Was it very horrid?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-24 11:28 pm (UTC)