The art of staying relevant
On a personal level I am an agnostic on the issue of the British monarchy. On the face of it in the modern age monarchy as a principle seems a monumental anachronism but – as these things go – I’m prepared to accept that the British version, most probably by nothing more than a combination of astute advice, panicking practicality and happy accident, has managed somehow against the odds to stay relevant enough to stave off both grumblings from the masses and a raft of rational arguments that might have consigned it to history a dozen times during the course of the 20th Century.
King George V and family
And so we have our current version – a studiously inoffensive dynasty which operates as a notional absolute sovereignty whilst actually being nothing of the sort, carries out public duties such as opening fetes and new buildings, acts as a patron for charities and other great organisations, and stands a symbol of unifying Britishness that radiates a sense of continuity and permanency when either hosting overseas heads of state at home and/or travelling abroad to convey friendships between our countries and others.
When you compare our ‘hereditary and ceremonial’ version to the traditional alternative of most modern Western democracies – an elected President – it does seem to have its advantages. For example, with a bit of luck we Brits will never have an equivalent of Donald Trump at the pinnacle of our national edifice.
And anyway, as a PR vehicle representing ‘Britain Incorporated’ to the world, the Royal Family have done – and presumably will do for the foreseeable future – a better than passable job.
All the above registered, the ‘devil’s pact’ between the British people and its monarchy does rely upon some basic ground rules which in summary require that it broadly keeps its head down, doesn’t court controversy, keeps its political views to itself and – at times of national crisis and Christmas – offers words of comfort, reassurance and unity. It’s why instances of individual royal personage’s cock-ups, infidelities and ‘feet in mouth’ (when exposed to public scrutiny) are embarrassments to be avoided if at all possible and HRH Prince Charles, of whom I am not a fan, is probably the biggest single current threat to the very institution to which he is the heir apparent.
In addition, for the last sixty years, the British monarchy had retained only a so-so relationship with the world’s media as it has pursued its almost insurmountable quest to remain relevant, as it must.
Let’s face it, waking up every day trying to represent a fictional everlasting continuity with the past whilst also seeking to dip one’s toes into not only the snowstorm of technological advances and fashions in style, social interaction but also the Great Unwashed’s ongoing fascination with the cult of celebrity – the better to be seen in a good light simultaneously by three generations of human beings at any one time – is an undeniably difficult task and one that anyone with an ounce of common sense (e.g. you or I) would probably have given up on in about 1983, or 1986 at the latest.
Whatever you do is by definition a risk and inevitably you’re bound to get some things right and others undoubtedly wrong.
The examples that most readily spring to my mind as I type are two, both of them controversial to this day.
The now legendary 105 minute documentary Royal Family, transmitted to a global audience of 40 million on 21st June 1969 but now by royal decree never seen since save in very small and heavily-controlled excerpts, was to my then teenage mind a most welcome and riveting ‘window’ upon the weird and wonderful world of our sovereign and her family.
In my view, it did them the world of good. You’ve got to remember that it those days that the idea of the Royal Family being real-life human beings was not only distinctly alien but tacitly regarded by we Brits as absurd.
Now wonder it was so controversial among some of those who considered themselves to value the monarchy most. Famously, at the time, the now national treasure that is Sir David Attenborough wrote to the producer/director of the documentary Richard Cawston claiming ‘You’re killing the monarchy, you know, with this film you’re making. The whole institution depends upon mystique and the tribal chief in his hut. If any member of the tribe is seen inside his hut, the whole system of tribal chiefdom is damaged and the tribe eventually disintegrates.’
Many observers held similar views along the ‘If you let the genie out of the lamp, you can never get him back in …’ theme.
Yet interesting – as I see it – despite the furore it created, Royal Family was a breakthrough for the British monarchy and did a great deal to enhance if not reinforce its longevity. Just reflect for a moment upon the state of the world of the internet and social media today. Had the British monarchy not ‘moved forward’ in some form or another, by now it might well have been mere history.
In contrast an example of where it got things slam-dunk wrong was the project that became known as It’s A Royal Knockout – a charity version of It’s A Knockout, the late and now unlamented British slapstick game show, that was broadcast to the nation on on 19th June 1987.
It had been conceived and allegedly produced by Prince Edward as he sought in vain to regain some measure of self-respect and credibility after flunking miserably out of the Royal Marines by going off to work in the entertainment industry. It was an unmitigated disaster from start to finish and single-handedly brought himself – and the Royal Family – a torrent of derision and ridicule.
Fast-forward to today’s ‘young Royals’, who of necessity have to tread carefully along the line between being accessible on the one hand … and also remaining visible only from afar and thereby remaining not of this ordinary, madcap world that the rest of us live in.
It’s a veritable minefield. There is a constant danger of someone like Prince Harry becoming ‘just another celebrity’ like all the others that inhabit the world of social media and reality TV and modern popular culture. As I said earlier, it’s an awkward dilemma to judge and get right.
In the context of which, today I found this typically ‘off the wall’ story by Bianca London on what surname Prince George might use as he goes to school upon the website of the ‘nefarious’ – DAILY MAIL
Might it be inappropriate of me to put forward the suggestion that it should be ‘McBOATFACE’?
