Posted on 03/02/2005 10:19:33 AM PST by quidnunc
In the latest episode of the British Royal Family Soap Opera, the Crown Prince has finally got his girl. In short, Prince Charles is to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles, the love of his life, and his mother, the Queen (who is also head of the Church) has given her blessing to the union.
It is a truism that it isn’t easy being a Royal Family these days. It used to be so much easier. When the existence of social hierarchy was taken for granted, someone had to be at the top of it, rather like Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover. But nowadays, not only is Jack as good as his master, he also insists upon repeated public recognition of the fact. How, then, can a Royal Family be justified? What is it for? Upon what sentiments may it depend for its support among the population?
Certainly, it can no longer count on the discretion of the press. Difficult as it may be now for the average Briton to recall it, there was a time not so very long ago when the press would report nothing about the Royal Family except in blandly respectful or gushingly obsequious prose. The life of the Royal Family was portrayed as a fairy tale with the witches removed, a kind of eternal happy ending. Completely and self-consciously unrealistic, this reportage was so dull that only bored housewives could read it. But now we live in an age when everyone has a right to full knowledge, down to the most intimate details, about anyone in whom he takes an interest. The Information Age is also the age of tittle-tattle; and tittle-tattle is the enemy of mystique.
If the Royal Family is no longer protected by mystique, but rather is a group of hereditary celebrities competing with other celebrities for space on the front page, what can protect it from the kind of carping criticism that must ultimately destroy it? Can it claim to incarnate the nation, and thus act as a focus for patriotism? But British patriotism is dead — although a nasty form of nationalism remains a minority interest — while Welsh and Scottish patriotism consists mainly of self-pitying hatred of the English. There is no quicker way of emptying a room in Britain than to play the national anthem, which causes the acutest embarrassment. How can a God in whom no one believes be invoked to spare the life of a woman to whom all now believe themselves equal or even superior?
Is, then, the Royal Family supposed to act as moral exemplar? The historical precedent in this regard is not altogether encouraging; and the idea is in any case antithetical to the hereditary principle. The monarch is monarch because she is the last monarch’s closest descendant, not because she never omitted to say her prayers or clean her teeth, or put away her toys at night. It is possible for a perfect swine to have a better claim to the throne than a veritable saint.
It is true that several of the past few monarchs have behaved well to the point of dullness or impersonality. It would be difficult to find a duller or better-behaved man than George V, for example, the most interesting aspect of whose life was probably his manner of leaving it. Rumors persist that his doctor gave him an overdose of morphine so that he would die in time for his death to be announced in the august pages of The Times, rather than in those of the more demotic Evening Standard.
The present queen has behaved so well, for so many years, that she represents the greatest modern exemplar of devotion to duty known to me. She has been diplomatic and charming to people she must have abhorred from the bottom of her heart; she has endured thousands of the dullest events of which it is possible to conceive, all without so much as a yawn; she has had to eat disgusting food as if with relish; and not for half a century has she once said in public what she really thought. These feats of iron self-control have been performed because of her conception of her duty towards the nation as constitutional monarch. By comparison with her, mere ambassadors have carefree, bohemian lives.
It is not so much that she has no actual, real, personal personality, as it were: It is that that her public personality is entirely coterminous with her public duty, to which she has subjugated everything else. Modern people cannot understand this: They cannot conceive of a duty so imperative that the expression of one’s own personality — beautiful and unique, as almost by definition it must be — is unimportant beside it. From this fundamental incomprehension comes the now widespread criticism that the Queen is a cold, unemotional person. But she believes that it is not her job to be emotional: Her emotions are for strictly private occasions. Her job is to perform her duties to the best of her abilities, and never mind what she is feeling.
Needless to say, this is not a view of life with which much of the population below the age of 60 now sympathizes. The Queen spent many of her formative years during the war, when there was much talk of duty. Prince Charles spent many of his formative years during the 1960s, when there was much talk of self. The Royal Family, however abnormal its world may be, has not proved immune to generational change. Prince Charles is a child of the Sixties: He believes that his personal drama counts, and he therefore feels the need both to express and to explain himself: not as deeply as his first wife, Diana, did, but much more deeply than his mother.
The Prince’s position is a very difficult one; it is not impossible that he will be 75 when — or perhaps I should now say if — he inherits the throne (I mean if there is a throne to inherit). Three-quarters of a century is a very long time to wait to do the only job for which one has been destined since birth. But this is not the only explanation of his personal difficulties. As a child of the Sixties, he has difficulty in entirely suppressing his personality in public in the name of public duty. He, like all the rest of us, is too important for that. He needs causes — some of them well-chosen, like that of the disastrous state of architecture in Britain, and some ill-chosen, like that of alternative medicine — to express himself; but he also needs from time to time to bare his soul. For modern man, baring his soul is the only proof that he actually has one. The Queen, his mother, is deeper than that.
The Prince’s own son, Harry, is further proof that the Royal Family is not immune to generational change or wider cultural influences. Pictures of Prince Harry, with his vulgar snarling expression, and reports of his less than amusing exploits, prove that he is fundamentally no different from so many of his British compatriots: drunken, arrogant, violent, and charmless.
When and where will the British Royal Family Soap Opera end? Sooner than I once thought possible, or than the Queen deserves. Unless there is cultural reversal, her descendants will one day move among the Umbertos, Farouks, and Zogs of the world.
Dr. Dalrymple is the author of Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass and of Our Culture, What’s Left of It: The Mandarins and the Masses, due from Ivan R. Dee in May.
Kirk Michael.
Well, Murdoch is anti-monarch because by definition (in his mind) it's the opposite of Democracy. He doesn't realize what an extraordinary benefit they are to England. It's the only issue Rupe is all wet on...IMO.
Cut what out?
You mean lay off the Brits?
If so, why?
The scorn — and yes, pure hatred — which I saw generated in Britain against Bush, expecially during the run-up and just after the election has soured me on Brits permanently.
I am thoroughly convinced that were it not for Tony Blair the UK would be sitting on the sidelines sniping at us too.
Maybe not so badly as the French, but sniping nonetheless.
Sorry. You're gonna have to produce evidence. You accused Prince Charles of something I know is absolutely not true.
I told you what I read.
I don't know it to be true any more than you know it to not be true.
You believe it not to be true, and you hope it isn't true, but you don't know it isn't true.
Here's the article I was thinking of, though I originally read it in a British source, the name of which does not spring to mind:
McGlobal World Order Gets McJihad Snub from Prince Villager A SERIOUS rift has opened up between Prince Charles and the government because he is seen to be AGAINST a war on Iraq and AGAINST America.
Whitehall also believes the prince is sympathetic to the view of his Arab friends that war on Saddam Hussein is a bid by the US to grab a stake in the Middle East's oil.
Yet despite being colonel-in-chief to 17 regiments, Charles has shown little public support for the soldiers, airmen and sailors who are about to risk their lives in a Gulf conflict.
There are also worries that he makes no secret of his anti-American views in conversations with members of Arab royal families and their leading officials.
A Whitehall source said: "Downing Street tries not to involve the prince in anything — because they have concerns over how he will react.
"He has this lunatic view he is the voice of the people."
Formal And a diplomatic insider said: "It would be very unhelpful if the prince were to indicate anything other than unswerving support for the government."
The prince's stance was illustrated last week when — in his role as colonel-in-chief of the Paras — he said a stiff, formal farewell to his men as they prepared to leave for the Gulf.
His visit to the Parachute Regiment barracks in Colchester does not merit a single line on his official website. It was not announced by his own office.
Yet his opening of an Islamic education centre in Leicester two weeks ago is reported on the website with 19 paragraphs, two pictures and a full transcript of his speech.
Charles is rightly feted for his pioneering work creating understanding and tolerance between Islam and other faiths.
He also holds many honorary military positions, including chief to the Welsh Guards, the Paras and the Gurkhas. He is Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy, Air Marshal in the RAF and Lieutenant General in the Army.
Critics say the prince likes to cut a dash in the Paras' coveted red beret — strutting around with a chestful of medals on his tunic. But they ask how the men of the Parachute Regiment would feel if they knew their colonel's true feelings on the war.
The prince's views have led to a worrying split with the American leadership. Two months ago, Charles had to abandon an official visit to the US because the White House made it clear he wasn't wanted.
The snub — directly from President Bush — came after security sources advised that Charles's presence in America would be "very unhelpful".
Washington diplomats were concerned the prince would show his disapproval during meetings with President Bush.
Charles — who reads the Koran every day and often adopts Islamic dress at home — spends long hours discussing the Middle East's problems with Saudi royal family members.
One of his closest friends is the former Saudi ambassador Ghazi Algosaibi who wrote a poem in praise of the first woman suicide bomber.
Algosaibi said that the "doors of heaven are opened for her". He once described the Israelis as worse than Nazis and he was a regular guest at Highgrove — Prince Charles's country home — before he was recalled by his government last year.
Charles is also close to King Abdullah of Jordan. His glamorous wife Queen Rania is a close friend of the prince's partner, Camilla Parker Bowles and is a regular guest at St James's Palace.
In private the prince talks about "Americanimperi-alism" collapsing the whole of the Middle East.
"Of course Saddam is an evil man, but American imperialism will not solve the problem," he said in one discussion.
He sympathises with his Saudi royal friends when they talk about their fears of America's true intentions in Iraq.
One close friend said: "They believe the US intends to collapse the whole Gulf economy and take control of oil.
"Once that happens the tensions in Israel and Palestine will explode."
Fraught Charles's meeting three days ago with French President Jacques Chirac was fraught with diplomatic concerns.
Before the meeting the Foreign Office asked the Prince of Wales's staff if he would promise not to discuss Iraq.
They said yes, but Charles would feel free to give an opinion if Chirac raised Iraq first.
Downing Street is understood to have washed its hands of winning Charles's support.
"At such a sensitive time his views are wrong, wrong, wrong," said a Whitehall source.
"Unfortunately he is making them a little too widely known."
(Clive Goodman in Radio Pinoy WRMN [Bloomfield, NJ], February 9, 2003)
http://www.radiopinoyusa.com/matanglawin/ml-02-09b-2003.html
I think Clive Goodman is the royals reporter for Murdoch.
I see him quoted on the BBC home page.
Here are some more links whjich you may find interesting.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/119
http://www.freedomdomain.com/Templemount/10_13a.html (A repost of an article from The Telegraph)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,573403,00.html
Being a diplomat and a gentleman, Charles would never leave himself open to press speculation or embarrassment to the Queen. Your article is nonsense and you should know better.
Actions speak louder than words and if you look at the other links I posted you will see that Charles apparently has a serious Lawrence of Arabia thing going on.
Single sourcing and anonymous sourcing are common in the British press because they commonly pay for stories.
I'm puzzled why you feel the need to defend this nonsense.
They aren't hot links they're URLs.
I especially recomend the one to Daniel Pipes' site.
Here it is as a hot link: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/119
I urge you to read it and go to the other links there.
Obviously you aren't open to the possibility that Charles has more afinity towards Mid-Eastern culture in general and Islam in particular then he does with Western Civilization, but I happen to believe that there is convincing evidence that may be the case.
We simply disagree on this, and it shouldn't turn into an emotional issue.
I have no brief against Charles — except insofar as he may hold anti-American views — but neither do I hold any brief for him.
His mother, grandparents and sister have acted admirably.
He, on the other hand, seems to be more closely following in the footsteps of his great-uncle the Duke of Windsor.
By the way, if I was really out to trash Charles I would post Sue Carroll's Mirror column, which I will send to you via private reply.
Go to the page on Pipes' site which I have linkes and read the materials there with an open mind.
A reminder for everyone: Theodore Dalrymple is British himself.
When and where will the British Royal Family Soap Opera end? Sooner than I once thought possible, or than the Queen deserves. Unless there is cultural reversal, her descendants will one day move among the Umbertos, Farouks, and Zogs of the world.
From this description I can hardly charazterize Mr Dalrymple as socialist or at least hostile to the monarchy as an institution. In fact, he defends the institution and the Queen's dedication toduty. I would say he is in fact attacking the dominant values that has influenced Britain since 1945 and in other words, he is more conservative in temprament than you and I or almost anyone else in the whole United Kingdom.
The Prince’s own son, Harry, is further proof that the Royal Family is not immune to generational change or wider cultural influences. Pictures of Prince Harry, with his vulgar snarling expression, and reports of his less than amusing exploits, prove that he is fundamentally no different from so many of his British compatriots: drunken, arrogant, violent, and charmless.
Britain, please us another Sir Cecil Rhodes, Benjamin Disraeli, Hudson Taylor, or Rudyard Kipling! The current OASIS, david Beckham metrosexual generation is yet another manifestion of Britain's cultural and moral decline.
I haven't lived in Britain for more than twenty years, but I am sure MadIvan will know if there are any up and coming hopefuls.
This is one of the problems with the modern West: pendulums of culture swing wilder in Britain, Europe than the US. The older generation of high culture with icons like Elgar, George Bernard Shaw, or Rudyard Kipling gave way to today's OASIS or even Queen (the band).
Where is the traditional genetlmanly manners we see in the public schools and Oxbridge? We in the rest of the world want the manners back as national psyche of contemporary Britain.
Dalrymple laments what Britain has become and in fact has moved to southern France to escape the boorish attitude which has haken root in British society.
Mr Dalrymple has the beliefs and courage to point out what is wrong in contemporary Britiain in terms of culture and social trends. Many of his concerns are not unfamiliar to American social conservatives and evangelical Christians (Concerned Women on America, Free Congress Foundation, Focus on Family) and equally to East Asians - I have read tragically far too many accounts of lost spiritual conditions at the home of many 19th Christian missions to China, in Chinese-language Christian periodicals.
However in post-Christian extremely secular modern-day Britain only a minority of people are even aware culturally and socially something is wrong. "Everything is fine! There will always be a Britain around!" seems to me a sign of delusion. As a Bible-believing Christian, I can guess how Britain, a province of the Roman Empire, fits into God's prophetic plans (yet another Christian belief firmly held by many among the great-great-grandparents generation of today's British people, but sneered as "American neo-con CIA plot" by them).
Ping to you Quix! I have written briefly commenting on British Christian scene.
I thought the author would include Charles's self pitying remarks (paraphrased, since I can't recall his exact words), of a few years ago that he was sick and tired of having to explain himself to the public. The implication: He's royalty, above explaining his behavior to those who foot his bills, and they're the 'vulgar masses', lower than the dirt on his boots. Camilla's crazy to have stuck with Charles all these years. He has nothing to recommend him. Nothing. Well, they say water seeks its own level, or do I mean lowest level?
Dear MadIvan, I do believe that Harry is being ruined by his lack of identity/purpose in life, plus the silken cushion he sits on. Even being sent to some poor country for a month or two to feed the hungry, build huts, or tend crops isn't enough. He knows it's a 'set-up', there are bodyguards, etc., to make sure he isn't harmed or kidnapped. His 'bad' behavior is akin to that of well off American kids who do drugs, drink, party, etc. while their parents are busy working night and day to provide them with every conceivable material thing. Worse, Harry doesn't have a father or mother to nurture and mentor him steadily. When you think about it, he's a latter day Princess Margaret, and no wonder.
I am just grateful that Harry is not the heir to the throne. William is, and so far, he appears to be well behaved.
There are lots of problem kids out there - both in Britain and America - it's just in this instance, the problems of this boy are played out to a much wider audience.
Regards, Ivan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.