You are here:   Civilisation >  Screen > A Marriage of Convenience
 

The BBC wheeled out various "constitutional experts" to fill the gaps in the celebrations. Simon Schama was to the fore, and showed that he has finally turned from a serious historian into a courtier in the Malvolio mould, who dealt with the politicisation of the monarchy by ignoring it. I never trust an intellectual who appeals to anti-intellectualism, the better to get down with the kids, and found everything about Schama's performance phoney. 

"Well, y'know there's a lot of really solemn talk from on high about learning to be British again and what a national community is that sounds boringly like a professorial seminar," the professor gushed. Having dismissed the professorial seminars, which provide him with his living, he gave one. "That's what it actually means," he continued, gesticulating to the crowds outside Westminster Abbey. "It's the instinctive outpouring of millions of people. Royal weddings used to be about power. That's why they weren't actually here but were locked away in Windsor Castle. It was basically mergers and acquisitions. Not now. Now it's really all about the next generation making something very old very fresh for the future."

Maybe you think I am being too hard on the royal family and Schama. And in truth, the refusal to take what looked like the politicisation of the ruling house seriously would have been a forgivable omission, if it had been an isolated incident.

Unfortunately, it is not. When people say the British respect the monarchy, what they mean is the British respect the Queen. Apart from one moment in the 1980s when she made her disapproval of Margaret Thatcher public, she has stayed out of politics. Charles III — and how hard it will be to spit out that title — has made it as clear as he can that he will use the throne as a bully pulpit. When Vanity Fair talked to him last year, he said he would rule "in a different way" from his predecessors, "because the situation has changed". He said his parents should not have sent him to schools where they taught pupils to take the initiative if they did not want him to speak out. "So it's their bad luck, but that's the way I intend to continue."

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
jb
June 3rd, 2011
2:06 PM
The fact that some ambassadors were there is irrevelant-it was not a state occasion. If it was then where were Sarkozy,Obama,Merkel etc.They would have all been invited ( and would have attended) if it was a state occasion. You seem to be taking the lack of invitations to Blair and Brown very personally.In your Observer column you said that former Labour prime ministers were banned from attending when you know perfectly well that not being invited to something is not the same as being banned. I would also refer you to the excellent columns you have written about Brown in the past.The idea that anyone not closely related to this hate-filled grotesque would invite him to what is supposed to be a happy occasion is absurd!

Andrew King
June 2nd, 2011
7:06 AM
I’m guessing that, if Prince Charles had any input on the guest list, he was overruled. As an outspoken cheerleader for the counter-enlightenment, I’m sure the ‘Defender of Faiths’ would have found plenty of common interests to discuss with the brains behind the Tony Blair Faith Foundation and he could have cheerfully chatted to Cherie about coffee enemas, crystal healing or whatever quack fads they’re respectively into at the moment. The sticking point was probably the notoriously media-unfriendly Mr Brown. You can imagine the usual wedding invitation negotiations: ‘If we invite your friend Tony, we’ll just have to invite Gordon and you know he doesn’t get on with anybody. After a couple of drinks he’ll start going on about post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory and before you know it he’ll call Philip a bigot or something. No, I’m going to have to put my foot down…’

ollie wright
June 1st, 2011
8:06 PM
Nick, excellent article. I find it deeply offensive that anyone thinks they have the right to become my head of state by inheritance. Wen that perosn is nonsense spouting, fascistic loon, its even more galling. Please, please keep on writing about him.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.