A Right Royal Wedding
What is the secret of the enduring popularity of the British monarchy? What curious alchemy is at work? I can understand why my father, the venerable Read, God rest his soul, was such a fervent monarchist. He was, as he frequently told us, one of Churchill’s few. He fought for King and country, though I doubt the King was that impressed when he wrote off three Hurricanes without even seeing the enemy. It’s enough to make a st-st-statesman st-st-stutter. But sixty years on, and a sequence of public relations disasters, the institution still has the power to generate a sense of awe and respect. It’s not so much what the Royals do - and the chief characters in this enduring soap opera certainly do a lot – it’s what they represent. The Windsors play an essential symbolic role for our nation. They create a collective sense of identity and continuity that we would never get from an ephemeral political leader. They embody consistency and a reaffirmation of traditional values of duty, loyalty, charity, family and community. The Queen is Commander in Chief of the armed forces and head of the Church of England and she brings a softer more human sense to both of those organisations. I once met Prince Charles and was impressed by the way he could work a room and how he raised self deprecation to the status of an art form.
Some say the mere existence of the Royal Family is an affront to democracy. Not a bit of it; they are its upholders. They curb the power of politicians by subsuming the cult of personality from leadership, providing an alternative focus of respect and idealisation that prevents our elected leaders becoming too big for their political boots. So the Royal Family prevent the creation of tyrants, just by being there. The Queen’s in her palace and all’s well with the world.
Next year, The Queen would have been on the throne for 60 years. She acceded in a different time; she has overseen the most amazing changes, not just in terms of historical events or our way of life, but more crucially in our attitudes to all the important things, family, marriage, religion, sexuality. She has stayed firm and uncompromising through it all. She is the same now as she was in 1952. She is the moral anchor for a nation, nay half a world, that has been buffeted by the winds of change. Not only that, but The Queen is latest in a long line that goes back to William the Conqueror; she embodies continuity, representing a historical notion of nationhood that goes back to the very beginning. I don’t know ho children understand history now, but when I was a boy, it all hinged around the Kings and Queens. Like the Observer’s Book of Birds or Ian Allen’s Great Western Railway locomotives (with its 30 Kings, 6000 to 6030), I knew the images of each King and the dates they ruled; I still do. Some knowledge never fades. Our national anthem is not about the power of the state, the revolution, or even the beauty of the country, it is about the monarch – as if The Queen (or King) is the essential symbol of nation and empire. ‘God Save The Queen’. Quite!
Saturday’s Guardian, an organ that hs never admired inherited privilege and power, was so critical of the whole Royal Wedding extravaganza, though they did approve of the royal minibus fleet; the need for cuts and all that! They reminded me of prison vans. In a sense, I suppose, they were.
But there is surely nothing like a Royal Wedding to reaffirm that sense of unity and commitment. In the Church of England, it seems, the beards always have the best words. It was the bald and bearded Bishop of London who emphasised the commitment of marriage (as opposed to just living together) as a potent symbol of unity and responsibility for family, society and the nation, while it was left up to that aging Welsh hippie, Rowan Williams to remind Kate of her responsibility to have a baby, preferably male.
The Germans may sneer at the English for their eccentric attachment to the Windsors, but had it not been for the last century’s two great German wars, they might have still been Saxe-Coburg-Gothas and William might have been assigned a German princess. It was the symbolic significance of the Royal Family, who refused to leave London even though the palace was bombed, as much as Churchill’s indomitable rhetoric that got us through the second war. The Germans began to recognise the flaws in their Fuhrer quite early on. Theirs was not a glorious endeavour; they couldn’t prevail. Our parent’s war had right on its side. So despite the familial dysfunction and the flurry of royal divorces, the Royal Family is nearly as popular now as it was in the 1950s. 80% of the population support it. Maybe it will be different when the Queen dies; there could be a backlash to King Charles and Queen Camilla. Could Kate Middleton will be the one to restore it; she has that quiet sense of dignity, that stability and composure, that regal quality that could capture the nation’s affection and identification.
Friday’s Royal Wedding is a symbol of hope, hope for William and Kate of course, but also for the rest of us, though the cynics will remind us we’ve been here before. 30 years ago, Prince Charles married Lady Diana Spencer. A fairy tale wedding, they called it, but it was more like one of Grimm’s. Charles and Camilla were still exchanging tokens of their affection up until the eve of the wedding. But apparently Prince Philip had insisted Charles choose a virgin and an aristocrat. There were not that many around. So Diana, the nineteen year old insecure daughter of a dysfunctional family, was selected for sacrifice. They hardly knew each other. It was less of a romance and more an arrangement to secure the dynasty. The runes were not good and it ended in tragedy. Kate and William are so different. Theirs’ is a love match, they met at university 10 years ago, they are the same age, they were friends before they became lovers, they have lived together. They are like us, they laugh and joke at the same things and they renew our belief in love and family at a time when cynicism is considered clever.
The are a repository of hope. We can only wish them well.