This past week William and Kate,
the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, arrived in the United States for a quick
visit to see the sights and give them an opportunity to do something that is
generally frowned upon in Britain: Act like “real” people, albeit with a
modicum of decorum. In their home country, they can’t be seen to be having too
much “fun” on the taxpayer pence. As in a previous visit in 2011, the took in
the colonists’ culture (this time an NBA game), show their concern for the
downtrodden (visit a Harlem child development center), and fulfill their
function as Head of State will visit President Obama to discuss a suitably
innocuous charitable hobby (the illegal wildlife trade).
Being a student of history, I’ve
always been fascinated by kings, emperors and such; although the British
monarchy hasn’t held real authority since the 19th century—King
George III was the “face” of “tyranny” for the American colonists, but he was a
man easily led because of his tendency to act before he thought. Since then the
British monarchy has become merely an artifact of the “ancien régime.” The ancestors of both the current House of Windsor
and its predecessor, Hanover, were originally German principalities, but have
in time become “Anglicized.” I find it interesting that not only is there a
continuing prejudice against marrying a Roman Catholic, but against marriage to
anyone who does not have blue eyes (and white, of course). Hence the just half
in jest suggestion by some that British royalty is “inbred.”
Because of this, many people
(mainly in Britain itself) who question the relevance of an institution largely
of symbolic “importance” being propped-up by the taxpayer dime. During this
U.S. visit, protesters outside the Barclay Center where the Bronx Nets and the
Cleveland Cavaliers were playing agitated against the recent chokehold death of
Eric Garner, wearing “I Can’t Breathe” shirts. Apparently the protesters were
attempting to make some “political” point; one poster pronounced that black
lives were more “precious” than that of “inbred” royals. To be frank, I thought
the whole thing was a wasted effort and in bad taste, hardly advancing their
cause.
Nevertheless, it can be expected
that CNN and network morning shows will be all abuzz at the latest news of
their every step, because some “romantic” types have nothing better to do but
sit in front of their television sets and dream about things that might have
been if they been born in world of Harlequin paperback novels. To the rest,
it’s “nice” of people who are somehow more elevated than you are to deign to
visit us and mingle with the provincial, but at the end of the day, life goes
on as it has before. Since the queen herself is unlikely to diminish herself
among us with her divine presence, we’ll have to wait for the Pope’s next visit
before something like this becomes an “event.”
Much of the disquiet concerning
the royal family is about money. Is the expenditures used to prop-up the royal
family excessive? Although personal expenses are largely paid from private
sources, such as landed estates owned by the royal family, for occupation and
upkeep of “publicly” owned royal residences and for its public functions, the
queen, her family and her entourage receive a fixed sum from the Sovereign
Grant, which in 2011 replaced the Civil List; instead of an itemized list of
expenses to be funded, the Grant which
came into effect from 1 April 2012 consolidated the funding to oblige them to
keep them to a budget. This past fiscal year it is £36.1 million, which is
about $57 million, which sounds like lot I suppose, but it is a tiny percentage
of the UK government budget. Although that allows the royals to live quite
well, some of that money goes to pay for jobs like “Liveried Helper” and “Linen
Keeper.”
To justify this expenditure
according to the House of Commons grant annual review, “The Sovereign’s role
comprises two distinct elements: The role of Head of State, which is a formal
constitutional concept, common to all nations, and involves the official duties
which The Queen, by constitutional convention, must fulfil. The role of Head of
Nation, a much more symbolic role in the life of the Nation, involving duties
which are not directed by the constitution but which The Queen carries out
where appropriate or necessary. Since the United Kingdom has no codified
constitution, the role of Monarchy is defined by convention – a non-legal but
nevertheless binding rule.”
More specifically,
• The State Opening of Parliament; • The appointment of the Prime
Minister; • The approval of Parliamentary legislation; • The approval of
official appointments; • The approval of
secondary legislation through the Privy Council; • Representational duties as
Head of State – paying and receiving State Visits to and from other Heads of
States; • Receiving the credentials of foreign Ambassadors; • Regular
confidential Audiences with the Prime Minister.
The Queen is also: • The Fount of Honour, and all honours are awarded
in Her name (although, with notable exceptions, most are awarded on the advice
of the Government); • Head of the Armed Forces; • Head of the Judiciary; • Head
of the Civil Service; • Supreme Governor of the Church of England. In all these
roles The Queen provides a sense of continuity, a focus for loyalty and an
assurance of political independence and neutrality for these institutions.
HEAD OF NATION The Queen’s role as Head of Nation is as significant as
Her role as Head of State, and can be divided into four key elements –
identity, continuity, achievement and service. Unity and National Identity The
Queen has a significant function as a symbol of national identity, unity and
pride. For example, it is as Head of Nation and not as Head of State that The
Queen:
• Makes the annual Christmas Broadcast; • Sends messages of
congratulation on national achievements; • Sends messages of condolence at
times of national tragedy. Continuity and Stability The Monarchy provides an
important sense of continuity and stability at a time of rapid social, cultural
and technological change. The regular rhythm of the Monarchy provides
reassurance to many people. This is helped by: • Annual traditions like the
State Opening of Parliament, Trooping the Colour, Garter Day, Maundy Service,
Holyrood Week, Royal Ascot Week; • Anniversaries marked over the course of The
Queen’s reign – Silver Jubilee, Golden Jubilee, Diamond Jubilee, Coronation and
family anniversaries to which people can relate - Diamond Wedding Anniversary
etc; • The Queen’s impressive personal continuity – has known twelve Prime
Ministers and met eleven of the last twelve US Presidents. In this way The
Queen and the Monarchy are a stable fixture in many people’s lives.
Wow. I could do some of that
stuff lying down. Seumas Milne of the UK Guardian,
an admittedly somewhat biased observer, opined that “As a rule, progressive
Britain prefers to ignore the monarchy. First, it's embarrassing: 364 years
after we first abolished it and long after most of the rest of the world
dispensed with such feudal relics, we're still lumbered with one. Second, there
are always more important things to confront – from rampant corporate power and
escalating inequality to incessant war and the climate crisis.
“And last, the media and
political class form such a sycophantic ideological phalanx around the
institution that dissent is treated as, at best, weird and miserabilist…Far
from uniting the country, the monarchy's role is seen as illegitimate and
offensive by millions of its citizens, and entrenches hereditary privilege at
the heart of public life. While British governments preach democracy around the
world, they preside over an undemocratic system at home with an unelected head
of state and an appointed second chamber at the core of it.”
Like most Americans, I just find
the British monarchial system just an inoffensive clinging to some past glory
time, like King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table stuff. The
“celebrity” image didn’t really begin until that media creation Princess Diana;
when she and Mother Theresa died within a few weeks of each other and under
starkly different circumstances, some of us did note the hypocrisy and
offensiveness of the relative reaction to their passing on. I find it curious
that although many Brits find the royals increasingly “offensive” to their
sense of equality and justice, someone as hollow as “Di” who was intoxicated on
her own celebrity was the “exception” to the rule.
No comments:
Post a Comment