The concept of a charitable monarchy dates back hundreds of years, but it has become an integral part of the family’s daily work under the Queen’s reign — and an invaluable example for the rest of us. As the writer Will Hutton put it, though inequality of wealth has ballooned back to 19th century levels, there is no sign of 19th century levels of civil engagement and philanthropy by the rich.
But if anyone can get the British rich to part with their cash, it is the royals: the more senior the better. An invitation to one of the palaces, to Clarence House or Highgrove, and a chance to press the flesh both rewards — and inspires — charitable giving. It’s not always very visible but we’d certainly notice if we were to lose it.
Years ago, there were already concerns that the monarchy was getting too big —and that turf wars were inevitable. After a row about whether Camilla should marry Charles, I remember being told by one of his former press officers that it was imperative to do away with royal households. ‘It’s divisive,’ he said. ‘Why have we had this punch-up between St James’s Palace and Buckingham Palace? Because they were working for the individuals and not the institutions.’
If people are keen on simplification and a cut-back monarchy, it’s in part because they don’t understand what monarchy is for. In the days when kings and queens had private armies and fought bloody battles, their subjects were in no doubt about their use. Even in the last century, when the power to chop off people’s heads was long gone, Londoners who lost homes and loved ones in the Blitz knew exactly what monarchy was for. Advised to leave the capital for their safety, the King and Queen resolutely stayed, choosing to face the threat of bombs alongside everyone else. They walked amongst the rubble of flattened communities and stood with the bereaved to offer support and comfort. Their actions embodied the sentiments of the country: they represented the nation to itself. And they put a figurative arm around the vulnerable and the distressed. The love and the loyalty was two-way.
Today I am not so sure it is, particularly amongst the young, who are keen on the idea of a pared-back royal family. The concept of putting duty and service before happiness is anathema to them. Meghan was right, they feel, when she said it was important not just to survive, but to thrive. Yet this is what the Queen has done her entire life: lived in the public eye, meeting and greeting strangers, sacrificing the happiness she might have had elsewhere.
For the young, the royal family are nothing more than celebrities — a view reinforced, of course, by the arrival of Meghan, who was already a celebrity. But there is a very real difference between a royal and a celeb. The Queen has never confused the two. She has always understood that her fame and the public interest and adulation (which was colossal when she was young) has come because of the office she holds, not because of any special talent or achievement.
Charles struggled to find a role for himself when he left the Navy. Eventually he found it in The Prince’s Trust and a lifetime of impressive charitable work. William has followed suit, but I suspect Harry has struggled to find structure or fulfillment since leaving the Army. It may be time for a radical rethink of how those members of the family who are unlikely to succeed live their lives.
Celebrities can be vain, selfish and coin-operated. They can say and do as they please. They can buy mansions, planes and privacy. So can politicians and presidents. The undemocratic nature of the monarchy — which is what sticks in so many people’s craw — is its great advantage. There is no greasy pole to climb, no voters to woo. Our working royals are in the public eye for their entire lives; every expense is scrutinised, every utterance analysed, every mistake turned into a public outrage. It’s a lot to ask. The question is not do we need them — but do we ask more of them than any human being can reasonably give? (Read more.)
More on the Sandringham Summit...it seems much of the tensions were escalated by the courtiers of the various royal households, just like the olden times. From The Spectator:
Three years ago, Sir Christopher Geidt departed as the Queen’s private secretary. For years, he had done much to hold The Firm together, but his influence was resented by Prince Charles. The festering acrimony between Buckingham Palace and Clarence House came to a head in 2017 when Geidt, a Cambridge-educated former Scots Guard, convened a meeting of staff to announce Prince Philip’s retirement without first consulting Charles’s aides. Geidt ended up being forced out after a decade of unwavering service. Many in the family — including the Princess Royal and Edward — now blame straight-talking Lord Geidt’s absence for the bedlam that has since ensued.
Insiders described Geidt in reverential terms, praising him as an ‘extraordinary man manager’ and ‘strategic thinker’, who unlike some of his royal ‘principals’ had the ability to ‘see around corners’ and deftly handle internal palace politics with forceful subtlety. His replacement, Sir Edward Young, while respected and liked, is said to lack Geidt’s strength of personality. So, thanks largely to her eldest son, the Queen lost the only gatekeeper who was able to keep the warring Windsors in check.
Many have questioned why, as William and Harry’s father and only living parent, Charles has not been able to broker peace between his once inseparable sons. The truth is the royal brothers do not really listen to the ‘Papa’ they have long seemed to regard with a degree of affectionate ridicule. Charles has always been desperate for the approval of his two self-confessed ‘mummy’s boys’ and so historically has had to bring in outsiders to read the riot act, such as their former joint private secretary Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton.
Charles’s aides asked William to praise his father’s role in the boys’ upbringing when the brothers appeared in documentaries to mark the 20th anniversary of their mother’s death. He refused. Only Harry paid a brief tribute. But his own relationship with their father suffered a severe blow when, in agreement with the Queen, Charles refused to let the Sussexes set up their own ‘court’ at Windsor after they split their household from the Cambridges’ at Kensington Palace last spring. It is certainly telling that when Charles, famed for his love of ‘black spider’ memos, demanded that Harry commit his ‘North America’ blueprint to paper, the characteristically impatient and sometimes petulant ‘spare to the heir’ went straight to granny.
At first, the Queen agreed to meet her grandson at Sandringham last Monday for talks between the two of them. But the move was blocked by courtiers close to Charles, seemingly in the belief Harry had tried to undermine him. What looked like a peace summit was, in fact, an escalation of the feuding. Tom Bradby, the ITV news anchor who knows both royal brothers well, later revealed that Harry was not only growing frustrated with the lack of urgency, but he was fearful that any written plans might be leaked to the press. That is how bad the situation has become. A form of peace may have been reluctantly brokered at the Sandringham summit, but the feuding continues. (Read more.)
From Berkshire to Buckingham:
As to whether or not Meghan and Harry can maintain their star power once they leave the fold, I think everyone will be surprised by how quickly they lose their royal luster. Even as royals, it was my contention that their star would fade as time moved forward. That would be natural. That might be something they considered, too, when they made this break for financial autonomy. Outside the fold, though, I think their stock will fall faster than you might think. The magic of royalty truly is special. The history and tradition, the opulence of the palaces, and luxury of many stately homes, the deference and respect, the public functions, all have a peculiar and unique quality that is hard to quantify and impossible to replicate. There is a...majesty to monarchy that can't be reproduced.
It is clear to me that Harry and Meghan do not want to give up their HRHs. Harry has been a royal his whole life, and Meghan clearly loves the star-status of being Her Royal Highness and a Princess of the United Kingdom. They have trademarked SussexRoyal, too, which will be a real problem if the Queen makes the right call and makes them renounce their HRHs. I do not know if they see the potential ramifications of losing their HRHs, but my sense is they figure they can go it alone if they have to. I think Harry doesn't understand what it means to not be royal, and Meghan doesn't understand that the star-status stays with the brand. This is not going to play out à la Diana. She was unique.
We have already seen how their future might play out with that video of Harry chatting up the head of Disney in the receiving line. It was horrifyingly cringe-worthy, and that is what they are looking at forever now. If Harry and Meghan cast off the "shackles" of royal-status, and throw themselves back into the world of desperate status-seeking and power climbing, they will be out looking for gigs and trying to make a buck based on former titles. They will find that a lot of powerful people who welcomed them when they were royals, won't be as keen if they lose their HRHs. This isn't to say I think they won't be successful at maintaining high profiles in the media and on the entertainment/celeb circuit, but they will lose the luster and prestige that royalty currently confers on them. There is something sad about a former royal. Again, the the Duke and Duchess of Windsor come to mind. But all of that speculation is the subject of another post. (Read more.)
The Queen's latest statement on Harry and Meghan, from Hello!:
In her statement, the Queen said: "Following many months of conversations and more recent discussions, I am pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my grandson and his family...Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family. I recognise the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life. I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family. It is my whole family’s hope that today’s agreement allows them to start building a happy and peaceful new life."
Buckingham Palace also issued the following statement from the Sussexes: "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are grateful to Her Majesty and the Royal Family for their ongoing support as they embark on the next chapter of their lives. As agreed in this new arrangement, they understand that they are required to step back from Royal duties, including official military appointments. They will no longer receive public funds for Royal duties. With The Queen’s blessing, the Sussexes will continue to maintain their private patronages and associations. While they can no longer formally represent The Queen, the Sussexes have made clear that everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty."
The statement continued: "The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have shared their wish to repay Sovereign Grant expenditure for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which will remain their UK family home. Buckingham Palace does not comment on the details of security arrangements. There are well established independent processes to determine the need for publicly funded security. This new model will take effect in the Spring of 2020." A palace source said: "The Queen has made it clear that Frogmore will continue to be the Sussexes’ home. They will repay the public expenditure on it and will pay for its upkeep. They will be paying a commercial rent on it." (Read more.)More HERE. And HERE. Share
No comments:
Post a Comment