The Royal Family: Last Orders
The decision of Meghan and Harry to step back from Royal duties in the Spring is of course big news in a Royals obsessed media.
There is evidence that racism and media intrusion played a role but these are very privileged and wealthy people.
The left, being supporters of democracy and elections, have never been great enthusiasts for unelected rulers, particularly, as many have done historically, when they have claimed a ‘divine right’ to rule.
Yet in Britain republicanism, the idea that there should be an elected Head of State, has been a minority trend if one is to compare it for example to French Republicanism which had a revolution in 1789 to remove the King permanently.
It’s true of course that on 30th January 1649 King Charles 1st lost his head in Whitehall, and a Commonwealth was in place until 1660. At that date the monarchy was restored although the events of 1649 have a place in radical history and thought to this day.
Republicanism in Britain in addition has not always associated been with the left. One need only look at President Trump to understand why in the present moment this might be.
Rather the majority trend on the left has been to have a distaste for the patronage, privilege and forelock tugging that goes with Royalty, but to be clear that politically there are other priorities.
It is this anti-monarchism, identified by Antony Taylor, an academic who has provided perhaps the best modern template for the study of opposition to Royalty, that has been the dominant trend in British republicanism. The monarchy is not liked but it is specific instances of excess and extravagance that are the focus of protest.
It’s this general context that applies to Meghan Markle and Prince Harry.
There are complications. Harry is of course a child of the late Princess Diana whose life and particularly death, did much to highlight 20 years ago how out of touch with the modern world the Royal Family had become.
Blair tried to fashion Diana as the ‘People’s Princess’ though it is difficult to see any lasting impact of a campaign that made a considerable mark at the time.
Prince Harry noted that Donald Trump would not get an invite to their wedding as a he is a threat to human rights. So far so good but it left us with a wider issue and one that was central at nineteenth century protests at Royal occasions.
These protests centred on what William Cobbett had called ‘Old Corruption’. That is a political culture of deference, patronage and forelock tugging where those who held ultimate power in society- Britain remains a constitutional monarchy not a Parliamentary democracy-do so by virtue of an accident birth rather than on merit or electoral choice.
Royal occasions in the second half of the nineteenth century, when Queen Victoria was on the throne, such as weddings and Jubilees, provoked significant protest.
There were a number of underlying motivations for such protests- not all progressive, there was an element of anti-German xenophobia- but a key one was the cost.
Expenditure on Royal pomp and ceremony was contrasted with the large numbers in society who lived in absolute poverty. The radical Reynolds’s Newspaper became the biggest selling Sunday paper of the time centrally based on virulently attacking the Royal Family and its aristocratic hangers on.
Expenditure on things like the Royal Yacht and the Royal train were particular targets outside of specific ceremonial occasions even at that time.
The departure of Meghan and Harry should be an occasion for last orders on the Royals. They can become private citizens and the taxpayers money can be used for the NHS
Leave a Reply