This feature appeared in an edited incarnation in the fifth edition of BULL magazine published in 2012.
The continued
presence of the British monarchy after countless centuries nonplusses many in today’s
climate of constant political, technological and social change. So apart from
the obvious and oft-trumpeted sense of continuity and unification its offers
the Commonwealth, why and indeed how does the monarchy continue to be such a visible
and powerful institution? Setting aside the political arguments surrounding the
modern relevance of the monarchy in this country, it’s interesting to look at
the institution’s efforts to remain so. It would appear that the royals are attempting
to reposition themselves as holders of empathy rather than authority, with dwindling
support for a republican reform in Australia (currently around 35%, according
to Roy Morgan Research) suggesting this strategy to be a successful one.
 |
| Keeping abreast with pop culture! |
The monarchy has
recently made a string of efforts to associate itself with contemporary pop
culture. Folk songstress Ellie Goulding played at the wedding reception of Kate
and Prince Will, bolstering their street cred in a way Sir Elton John couldn’t
have, and the Diamond Jubilee concert, featuring the likes of Jessie J,
will.i.am and Kylie Minogue ensure a captive younger audience, with the
pro-monarchy sentiment of such performers also implicit in their participation.
Such events represent a move by the monarchy to continually keep up with changes
in cultural sensibility. Lumping the British monarchy in with the Catholic
Church as an institution unable to adapt to the 21st century is
lazy. When the Pope lets Ed Sheeran sing about drug use and prostitution to 10,000
pilgrims in St. Peter’s Square, let me know. Less directly, the monarchy
retains a high visibility through texts concerned with the monarchy, its
characters and the British class system. Downton
Abbey, The Queen, The Other Boleyn Girl and Wolf Hall are just a few names which
deal with such themes. Of course, fascination with fictional products doesn’t
necessarily translate to support of the monarchy, but it does ensure that the
institution is culturally ever-present.
While the
monarchy has re-branded itself in order to relate to younger generations, much
of its distinctiveness is still tied to tradition. In terms of symbolism,
there’s little doubt that the monarchy’s continued production of pomp and
ceremony is virtually unrivalled. Important royal events like the wedding of
Kate and Prince Will, and the Diamond Jubilee are aesthetically unique and draw
colossal viewing audiences not only due to their blue-blooded participants, but
their sheer scale. The royal wedding served as a “manifestation of the perfect
fairytale that a lot of people want”, according to UNSW student Sarah Cummings.
And
the Diamond Jubilee was a blaze of over-the-top, pleasant absurdity, described as “an array of formal
fig, military splendour and dazzling headgear” by British journalist Mick
Brown. Such
events cause a rise in the visibility of the royals, as well as their approval
ratings. Roy Morgan research conducted in the wake of the Diamond Jubilee shows
that support for the monarchy has continued to follow a trend that has spanned well
over a decade, rising to reach a 25-year high of around 58% approval. No doubt,
such rises are partially down to nostalgia and spectacle. Whether these gains
will be long-lasting, given the lack of similar spectacle on the horizon, is
another question entirely.
Conservative
media often wax lyrical about how the Queen and her matriarchal subjects serve
as good role models. This argument is somewhat dubious given that we don’t
actually know the family’s members all that well and some of what we do know,
such as Prince Harry’s dalliance with a certain uniform, isn’t all that commendable
from a politically correct point of view. However, as regular (and by regular I
mean pretty much bi-weekly) articles in the Daily Mail attest to, the Queen and
her reputed fashion protégé the Duchess of Cambridge are exemplars of
thriftiness. They re-wear and re-work outfits they have been seen in many times
before, with the Queen often resurrecting outfits which are decades old. In
this respect alone, Liz is a far better role model than say, Lady Gaga or Victoria
Beckham. Not to be outdone, the royal men have been doing their bit too. For
the past 55 years, the Duke of Edinburgh’s eponymous leadership program and
awards scheme has been a valuable experience for many young people, allowing
them to gain crucial life skills. The conservation efforts of Prince Charles’
Rainforest Project have also recently been recognised when a rare breed of
frog, hyloscirtus princecharlesi, was named after him.
Despite
their obvious privilege, the royals are somewhat constrained in ways you and I
are not. Solo duties, often interspersed (as with Harry and William) with
military training and operations, usually commence around the same age that an
undergraduate student leaves university, with preparation from a young age. Such duties are explained by the
monarchy’s official website as constituting “important work in the areas of public
and charitable service”. This line of work seemingly continues
until death, with 91 year-old Prince Philip continuing to fulfil a reduced
quota of commitments – primarily ceremonial engagements and charity commitments
- following a series of recent health scares. With the probable exception of
Madonna, I can’t imagine anyone wanting to spend their twilight years on what
has been described as a never-ending campaign trail, attempting to retain the
approval of long-time supporters and win new fans. A considerable segment of
the 2,000 official engagements undertaken by the royal family each year are partially
concentrated on promoting the monarchy itself. However, another significant
role undertaken by the family members is that of patron and benefactor. The
attention and awareness drawn to public causes and charities by the family is
of inestimable value. Of course, the work the royals do isn’t necessarily as
hands on as those volunteers at your local soup kitchen, but it’s admirable all
the same.
Although
it’s become the cliché of choice for every UK correspondent in the Australian
media, the youngest generation of royals have breathed new life into the
monarchy. Kate Middleton – the first commoner to marry a prince in close proximity
to the throne in more than 350 years – has been largely
responsible for this revitalisation. Her relationship with William has helped
craft an image of the royals as, in the words of journalist Lanai Vasek, “more accepting
recently of societal norms”. The Duke and now-Duchess’ cohabitation prior to
marriage (a first for senior royals) represented what first year University of Sydney
student Holly Parrington sees as the “slightly modern and laid-back approach”
taken by family’s younger members. The couple are evidently popular, with a
survey conducted by The Guardian and ICM finding William to be the British
public’s preferred future monarch, receiving 48% of the vote to Charles’ 39%. Even
non-royal Pippa Middleton has contributed to the rose of the new monarchical
guard, becoming a tabloid fixture associated with scandal and a posterior that
has received almost 250,000 ‘likes’ on Facebook. Our current monarch is
renowned for her desire to remain somewhat distant from the press, but her
grandchildren and their social circle have taken a rather different approach,
regularly appearing in the (gasp!) social and gossip pages of tabloids all over
the globe. Photos of Harry stumbling bleary-eyed from a nightclub, or jumping
unprovoked and fully clothed into said nightclub’s pool, see the royal family
normalised and humanised like never before, although such incidents often
provoke disproportionate media scandal. Such unprecedented access to the royals
ultimately repositions them as a figure of celebrity rather than royalty, and as
is the case with all celebrities, it’s possible to extract pleasure from the
fodder of gossip and glamour they provide without becoming directly invested in
what they’re promoting, namely the institution of monarchism. Whether this
repositioning strips the family of respect and makes them, as Parrington
describes, “a
slightly more ginger and freckly version of the Kardashians”, is a matter of
opinion.
Although
the monarchy’s return to prominence is closely linked to the ‘coming of age’ of
the Queen’s grandchildren, the older members of the family have also taken on renewed
public affection in recent years. Prince Charles, for years characterised as
the catalyst for the demise of the People’s Princess and the bitter son waiting
for his mother to shuffle off this mortal coil, has received something of an
image revitalisation, now being seen as a jovial family man. The media has
played a key role in this transformation, emphasising Charles’ close
relationships with his sons and playing up his tribute to “mummy” at the
Diamond Jubilee concert. In addition to this, the heir apparent has also proved
that he is in possession of a sense of humour, recently fulfilling a lifelong
dream of sorts by reading the weather for the BBC. Joking throughout the
broadcast about the disappointingly wet forecast, Charles received press
acclaim for the spot, proving that his mother doesn’t always reign on his
parade.
There’s
little doubt that fondness for the monarchy and its members also tends to stem
from inherited affections. These personal (often nostalgic) attachments are
less explicable than the aforementioned factors, but often more potent,
trouncing logic, facts and figures. My strongest memories of my
great-grandmother involve her delicately leafing through the glossy pages of
Majesty magazine, keen to keep abreast with the goings on of the collective
that remained a constant throughout her life. Her elation upon receiving
recognition from the Queen of her century of life and community contribution
sealed my personal appreciation for the institution, even if I know that common
logic suggests my views are misguided.
It
would seem that the new monarchy takes itself less serious than its earlier
incarnations, and seems prepared – even eager - to move with cultural changes. Complacency
on the part of the royals, then, probably won’t be the reason for any eventual
demise of the monarchy. As much as many of us would enjoy seeing Charles
helplessly bailing hay in some far-flung corner of his huge land holdings in Britain’s
south-east as a private citizen, it’s possible to gain equal pleasure from the
culture that is produced in the image of, and drawn upon to ensure the continued
relevance of, the British monarchy, as well as the family itself.
