Where I would take issue with Cameron’s comment, however, is his use (and he is not alone in this, as witnessed in yesterday’s media Jubilee coverage) of the word “revere”, and to a lesser degree the phrase “look up to”. My Oxford Dictionary defines “revere” as “Regard as sacred or exalted, hold in deep and unusually affectionate or religious respect” . Well, that might have been alright in the days when kings and queens ruled by “divine right” but even in the most monarchical of western societies the belief of royal divinity and reverence withered about three centuries ago with the advent of the Enlightenment and the French revolution. My copy of the great King James’ Bible is prefaced with the words: “Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England when first he sent Your Majesty’s Royal Person to rule and reign over us...........”. There’s no arguing with that, King James was to be revered! But no matter how much convinced royalists would like it otherwise we are no longer in the early years of the seventeenth century. Few, I think, today could sustain an argument that Elizabeth, or any other of the royal family, was sent from God and should be regarded as sacred.
The world has changed.
Within Cameron’s use of the word “revere” and its implication that we should set the Queen on a plateau far above common humanity there is, however, a kernel of “truth” in relation to what has actually happened in our society – and especially to the royal family - over the past decades.
The people who populated western societies at the time of King James in the seventeenth century were overwhelmingly Christian. Their kings and queens assumed a glorious position far superior to the rest of humanity within the nation’s conscience. In France Louis XIV was known as the “sun king” so great was his glory. Elizabeth I was referred to as “Gloriana”- allegedly sailors chanted this when she visited Tilbury following the defeat of the Spanish Armada. And against this backdrop it was not unreasonable that these magnificent figureheads assumed some kind of religious aspect – as the preface to the Bible said, they were “exalted”, “most dread” or bestowed “great and manifold blessings” and the like. The king's word was law and his orders unquestioned. For example, some estimates suggest that as many as 72000 people were executed on the direct orders of Henry VIII and there is reliable documentary evidence to confirm that between Elizabeth I accession to the throne and the accession of Charles II at least 300 were executed on the direct orders and wishes of the king or queen. Henry VIII's execution of two of his six wives and his proclaiming of himself as supreme head of the Church, when added to the executions ordered by the first Queen Elizabeth (including that of her distant cousin, Mary) suggest that the monarchies of old did very much hold the power of life or death over their subjects. For the ordinary man the king and his whims were very much an extension of God on earth – “divine” and “sacred” - a thing to be "most dreaded".
Even in 1908, Baden-Powell in his book "Scouting for Boys" was still able to comment on the social organisation of bees. "They are a model community" he wrote "they respect their queen and kill the unemployed" There is no doubt that if he wrote the same thing today he would be castigated - the world has changed - we no longer talk of honouring the powerful whilst at the same time killing those less fortunate. Slowly but surely, the common man has risen – he no longer believes in the divine right of kings; kings and queens no longer rule with absolute power – countries are now ruled by elected government and not the whim of a divine king. And, not least, religion has less of a hold on the hearts and minds of the populace – there is less of a link between king or queen and the notion of divinity or reverence. This latter point is important in, perhaps, explaining the sort of response that we have today to the monarchy and to Cameron’s plea for us to “revere” the Queen.
Within Cameron’s use of the word “revere” and its implication that we should set the Queen on a plateau far above common humanity there is, however, a kernel of “truth” in relation to what has actually happened in our society – and especially to the royal family - over the past decades. |
| The front page of the King James Bible |
Even in 1908, Baden-Powell in his book "Scouting for Boys" was still able to comment on the social organisation of bees. "They are a model community" he wrote "they respect their queen and kill the unemployed" There is no doubt that if he wrote the same thing today he would be castigated - the world has changed - we no longer talk of honouring the powerful whilst at the same time killing those less fortunate. Slowly but surely, the common man has risen – he no longer believes in the divine right of kings; kings and queens no longer rule with absolute power – countries are now ruled by elected government and not the whim of a divine king. And, not least, religion has less of a hold on the hearts and minds of the populace – there is less of a link between king or queen and the notion of divinity or reverence. This latter point is important in, perhaps, explaining the sort of response that we have today to the monarchy and to Cameron’s plea for us to “revere” the Queen.
 |
| G.K. Chesterton |
 |
| Putting the sacred book away at Amritsar. The young men had something to believe in. |
Against this back drop, Chesterton’s
comments brings a ring of truth. If people stop believing in God do they find a
substitute? I do not have any overly strong religious commitment but my
instinctive feeling is that Chesterton had a point. I read the other day a
comment that reverence or nostalgia for a monarchy is very similar to a
reverence for the church. Both provide a sanctuary of ritual, adoration and
worship; both have implicit undercurrents of service and subservience (to
either God or king); both provide a cosy feeling that someone greater than you
has your interests at heart and will ensure that you are protected from life’s
ills; and, of course, both monarchy and church provide heroic symbols and offer
something gloriously permanent in what are our increasingly transient lives. This is not to criticise or mock a religious faith - belief in a God or Gods, a belief in something greater than ourselves to provide a bedrock for our lives is, I would argue, an intrinsic part of the human condition which seems to me to cross all cultures and generations. One of the most inspiring, moving and thought provoking moments of my life was a few years ago when I visited the Golden Temple at Amritsar - the spiritual home of Sikhs. Late at night Pat and I were privileged to watch the Sikh scriptures - the Granth - being put away for the night. Hundreds of young men struggled and begged for a place in the carrying of the scripture's ark or in the procession or simply to polish the gold of the ark. Pat and I commented at the time, these young men had a faith, something to believe in, to build their world around and to provide a moral framework. They were not extremists and certainly not terrorists but simply young men ackowledgeing their faith in something bigger than them. As we stood and watched we contrasted this with young men and women in the west who increasingly, it seemed to us, turn to celebrities, drugs, football, pop music, violence or the consumer society as their Gods. For many - certainly since the days of Princess Diana - there has become an obsession with the celebrity culture
of the monarchy. In the magazines and newspapers and on TV today the Queen
and the rest of the royals are made into celebrities and people with almost
magical or divine qualities by those who would praise them. They are heroic
symbols to revere, not for their status as the nominal human manifestations of the nation, but rather for their celebrity qualities - the clothes they wear, the "wisdom" they utter, their tastes in music, their relationships, their good looks, their holiday choices and the like.
As
I sit watching TV now (Monday, June 4th) I’ve just learned from
Elton John that the Queen is “incredibly brilliant” (I wonder on what basis this analysis is made? What does it actually mean?). Certainly it suggests that she has qualities of intellect or personality far in excess of those enjoyed by the rest of the human race. Recently, whilst
flicking through my wife’s “ Daily Telegraph” I discovered from Boris Johnson, mayor
of London, that the "Second Elizabethan" age is characterised by many wonderful things,
achievements for which the Queen, by association, is responsible:"If we
measure monarchical success by the growth in longevity or per capita GDP of her
subjects," he wrote, "then
she is the most successful monarch in history." Of course, he neglected to mention
that if, on the other hand, we measure monarchical success by the allowing of the
government for which she is responsible to fight an arguably illegal war, for
overseeing two of the greatest depressions and periods of unemployment in recent
history (the Thatcher years and our present time), for rising crime rates, child poverty, binge
drinking, deteriorating social mobility, a widening economic and social gap
between the south east and the remainder of her realm, the decline in
industrial manufacturing, bird flu, carbon emissions, rising terrorist
activity, increasing consumer debt or declining attendance at church or many
other criteria then the second Elizabethan age looks a bit shakier! Boris Johnson and other royalist cannot have it both ways - if the monarchy is to be associated with positive aspects of the nation then they have too to take responsible for the less desirable events.
In recent days magazines, newspapers and other media commentators have given us such gems as: the Daily Mail telling us over the weekend that ".. the queen does not perspire.....She doesn't even glow ......and so her clothes never crease”. “And she was "a beautiful young woman, wise beyond her years” we were told in yesterday’s Jubilee coverage, ”she seemed to glide rather than walk” . Prince Charles reaffirmed this when he told us on TV that his mother has "amazing poise" and "natural grace". She is also said to “cure herself and her corgis homeopathically”. The Daily Mail assured us that "....She bathed the [corgi's] wound in a special ointment and the injured paw was healed within days". Amazing! - this woman could save the NHS millions with her curative powers. Is she related to Jesus, after all, he had the same ability to make the lame walk and to cure lepers. Perhaps she could be beatified – “Elizabeth, Patron Saint of Vets and the RSPCA – one touch of her “special ointment” and all ailments cured”. Maybe she has the powers of some medieval alchemist and having hit on this "special ointment" might turn her magical skills into turning base metals into gold. That could be useful - it would solve the present financial crisis for George Osborne. But it doesn’t end with these wonderful curative powers. The Queen’s hat, we were told on TV yesterday (as the wind gusted along the Thames),“never blows off”; nor we learned “is she ever late”. I have also discovered that even “the most truculent of prime ministers fall under her spell”. And, of course, she was a “wonderful child..... Her clothes were always neatly folded!”. And finally, unlike the rest of us the queen will never cause the NHS a problem through obesity or drink related problems - she shows outstanding restraint at all times because "She'll only have one or two sandwiches and maybe a sliver of cake" and will only ever allow herself one small alcoholic drink.
With all these extreme qualities the Queen really is a cut above the rest of us mere mortals who sweat, grow fat, have to use the NHS, misbehaved as children, have to have our pets put down, walk rather than glide or are only averagely wise. Elizabeth was indubitably born to be a monarch! There must be something in this divine right of Kings!
 |
| A floral sacrifice to the Goddess Diana |
But, staggeringly, it doesn’t even end there. Other royals, too, are attributed with gifts that set them apart from common humanity. Diana’s star and goddess like radiance, of course, shone on us all and outshone all others in the royal and celebrity galaxy. Sadly, of course, just as in the Greek myth of Daedalus and Icarus, it all came to an abrupt and nasty end. Just as Daedalus and Icarus who flew too near the glory of the sun, until wings melted and poor Icarus crashed to earth so, too, with Diana. She, too, flew too high as she gloried in the mindless worshipping adoration of the media and right wing and tabloid press. She crashed to earth causing tremors that shook the royals and wider society to the core - and we, poor mortals never enjoyed the fullness of her sun like radiance. Millions across the country and indeed the world wept! But why? - she was simply a young woman (and, I would suggest, a rather silly, immature woman) who had a car crash whilst away from her family and out in a foreign city with her lover. It does indeed sound like the stuff of the Greek gods and goddesses. Zeus would send thunderbolts to keep mortals and his wayward family of gods in order - Diana's thunderbolt was a fast moving car in a Parisian subway! Did she offend Zeus and other gods by being glorified and worshipped too much? According to Greek myths that was certainly what happened In ancient Greece - when a mortal or god assumed glory and adulation above their station then Zeus acted, a thunderbolt was sent, and everyone put back in their rightful place!
 |
| A thunderbolt from the gods in a Parisian subway? |
 |
| Canova's "Three Graces". But is there a bottom to compete with Pippa's |
But, moving on.The Duke of Edinburgh is known for his profound wit – which if any lesser mortal made similar pronouncements they would be shunned by society and perhaps even prosecuted by the law. The Prince of Wales has insight far above mere experts and professionals – he can make pronouncements on anything about which he has little qualification or experience and the media will hang on to his every word. Two of the present royal family (The Duke of Edinburgh and Prince Charles) are the recipients of the Order of Merit - given for exceptionally "meritorious service" in the armed forces or for "the advancement" of art, literature and science. It is the pinnacle of the British honours system. This means that they rub shoulders with the greatest, the brightest and best: Isaiah Berlin, Bertrand Russell, Florence Nightingale, Edward Elgar, Rudyard Kipling, Geoge Bernard Shaw, Henry Moore, Tom Stoppard, Nelson Mandella, Benjamin Britten, Thomas Hardy, T S Elliot, Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, Tim Berners-Lee...... . The Order is limited to a membership of twenty four at any one time. Even the brilliant Professor Stephen Hawking can't even make it into this group - he only gets as far as the Companion of Honour - the junior section. So to have two out of the twenty four from the same family is a clear indication of the superhuman powers enjoyed by the royals - we truly must exalt and revere! And so it goes on – attributing qualities to the royals which makes them into celebrities, and give ordinary people something to “look up to”, or to “revere” as these god like figures glide amongst us.
In the days of King James or Louis XIV the King very much held the power of life or death over his subjects. He was a man to be obeyed and feared. His wish was his servant's (or his subject’s) command. No-one would question his rights or wishes. He was “God on Earth” - to be "most dreaded". But no more. And once the vestiges of divinity and godliness were swept away what was left was what Muggeridge rightly called a “royal soap opera” based on a facile celebrity culture. And remember this was 1955. What Muggeridge would have made of the death of Diana and the outpouring of grief that followed or the celebrity status of Prince Harry or Kate Middleton and the rest is difficult to imagine.
 |
| Malcolm Muggeridge |
Today, the adulation of the monarchy, as we have been reminded in the Jubilee celebration, is about the facile and the celebrity not the substance. If Cameron is correct that the Queen brings a sense of national unity and stability in an ever changing world then it should not be sullied with what we have increasingly got – "a royal soap opera" of crass comment and jingoistic sycophancy . It is unlikely we will change our monarchical political structure anytime soon and in that context the sycophantic utterances from the media and indeed from the population need reining in. The Queen, like any other citizen of this, or any other country, requires and should be given respect, not curtsies or subservience. She should not (nor should her family) be attributed qualities that set her or them apart from the rest of us mortals so that we must follow David Cameron’s advice and “revere and look up to her”. She is not a god or goddess – she is simply a woman, who by an accident of birth, happens to have found herself in a job as a physical representation of the nation. And other royals like Kate Middleton just happen to be people who have a vague connection with this woman. Neither she nor they are special or god like in any sense of the words and none are worthy of the sort of adulation we have seen in the past few days.
The sad thing is that as in all things the Queen and the royals, like all of us, have to exist in their time – the early years of the twenty first century. A time when the facile and the celebrity are indeed king (or queen!). A time when millions will watch – and think it worthy of approval and has some intrinsic goodness and worth – programmes on TV like “The X Factor” or “The Apprentice”. They will read newspapers like the "Sun", the "Daily Mail" or latterly the “News of the World” and believe what they read is “truth” and "in the public interest". They will buy magazines such as "Hello" and hope that a little of Kate Middleton's stardust sprinkles on them if they by a similar dress to hers from "Primark". They will discuss the latest events in “Coronation Street” or “Eastenders” as if these are real people in real situations and worthy of comment and opinion. They will read magazines in which the wife of Wayne Rooney gives fashion advice and believe that Mrs Rooney - a childhood sweet heart who happened to marry a professional footballer -has some insight that the ordinary woman does not have. They will cling onto the words of celebrity gods and goddesses like Nigella Lawson or the truly awful Gok Wan or Mylene Klass and think that these are super beings with knowledge and understanding that they rest of us cannot and will never have. In this context royalty is just one more soap opera, one more false god for people to mindlessly subscribe to – no more or less important than the latest pop sensation, football star or cult fashion. Despite my personal antipathy towards the royals I would agree that they are put in this celebrity soap opera by the media and the mindless public who are simply looking for something to look up to and follow; something to believe in – something to “revere”.
 |
| Cromwell |
Perhaps, however, it is worth remembering the words of Oliver Cromwell to his general, Thomas Fairfax, in relation to the worship and adulation of crowds. When entering a city to tumultuous cheering crowds Cromwell warned his general that "the same people would turn out to see us hanged". Or, more recently, the Russian imperial family, although waning in popularity by 1914 as war clouds gathered over Europe, were still met with "the usual tumult of applause and adulation" according to Alexandrovna Vyrubova who was the best friend and confidant of the Tsarina. She wrote in her diaries of the time: "It was the same through all......governments, crowds, cheers, acclamations, prayers, and great choruses singing the national hymn, every evidence of love and loyalty...... all the bells of Moscow pealed welcome to the Sovereigns. Every day it was the same, demonstrations of love and fealty it seemed that no time or circumstance could ever alter.........In the religious exaltation of the hour this appeared a symbol that the blessing of God, after three centuries continued to rest on the House of Romanov". That all looks pretty familiar to me having experienced the last few days of the Jubilee! But of course it all ended badly Within four years the Tsar and his family had been executed, courtiers like Vyrubova had been forced to flee Russia and at the time few in Russia seemed terribly bothered - such is the fatuity of adulation, worship and sycophancy.
 |
| Alexandrovna Vyrubova |
 |
| The Romanov imperial family |
No comments:
Post a Comment