Americans have always viewed British royalty through an ambivalent lens. As former colonials, those of us with a historical memory have a natural skepticism about the monarchy. Some of us remember the American Revolution, with varying degrees of understanding and reverence. On the other hand, we gawk at celebrities. The royals represent glamor, wealth and scandal, and some of us lap it up.
Queen
Elizabeth II’s coronation took place less than eight months after I was born.
She has always been my queen, in the American sense – a faraway and reliable symbol
of what I take to be British dignity, grace and common sense. In an unimaginative sense, she was an anachronism, a relic of an unenlightened
age. When first reading the political works of the English essayist Walter Bagehot (1826-77), I was
surprised by how snottily dismissive he could be of Queen Victoria and the monarchy
in general. C.H. Sisson (1914-2003), a constitutional monarchist, replied in The Case of Walter Bagehot (Faber and
Faber, 1972):
“So Trooping
the Colour must be regarded as a leg show of guardsmen, the crown as a bauble,
and the Coronation itself as something for the illustrated papers. The Queen
was dignified in Bagehot’s phraseology – which meant she was not much good. She
was for fools to goggle at.”
In England: An Elegy (Chatto & Windus,
2000), Roger Scruton writes about the monarchy in a way that even Americans can
understand:
“The
constitutional monarchy is the light above politics, which shines down on the
human bustle from a calmer and more exalted sphere. Not being elected by
popular vote, the monarch cannot be understood as representing the interests
only of the present generation. He or she is born into the position, and also
passes it on to a legally defined successor. The monarch is in a real sense the
voice of history, and the very accidental way in which the office is acquired
emphasises the grounds of the monarch’s legitimacy, in the history of a place
and a culture. This is not to say that kings and queens cannot be mad,
irrational, self-interested or unwise. It is to say, rather, that they owe
their authority and their influence precisely to the fact that they speak for
something other than the present desires of present voters, something vital to
the continuity and community which the act of voting assumes. Hence, if they
are heard at all, they are heard as limiting the democratic process, in just
the way that it must be limited if it is to issue in reasonable legislation.”
2 comments:
This captures my own views on the monarchy perfectly, especially with regard to royalty as celebrity. While the House of Windsor could have ridden above the noise of other American "royalty" (once the Kennedys, now the Kardashians!) their human nature caused them to fall into the scandals of "commoners." Edward VIII, Diana, Harry, Prince Charles, Prince Andrew, Fergie all found themselves in the tabloids for their various digressions from their lofty positions. And Elizabeth stayed clear, "ruled" with dignity and carried the torch of history for 70 years. Her commitment to serve her people, and not herself, is, itself, an anachronism for leaders in our time.
Insightful post as always even if I disagree with the sentiment. We have to make do with our imagination because the reality of an individual being anointed by God to rule over others because their parents have is somewhat frightful, even if it’s all figurehead at this point. Doesn’t sit right in my mind and I find the dignity of their subjects a bit unsavory. I certainly have no ill-will towards the woman, though. Ha.
Post a Comment