Dr Anna Whitelock is an early modern history don at London University. I don't know about her early modern history – but she's certainly not much good at modern history.
She's just said that, by 2030, the monarchy could be on its last legs; that the popularity of the monarchy is linked to the Queen, not the institution itself.
Zero out of ten, Dr Whitelock. You have just got what we used to call a Douglas – a Douglas Hurd/third – for your understanding of the relationship between the monarchy and the British people...
There's nothing wrong with wanting to abolish the monarchy, just don't expect anyone to agree with you
Harry Mount
4 April 2016
The Telegraph
Dr Anna Whitelock is an early modern history don at London University. I don't know about her early modern history – but she's certainly not much good at modern history.
She's just said that, by 2030, the monarchy could be on its last legs; that the popularity of the monarchy is linked to the Queen, not the institution itself.
Zero out of ten, Dr Whitelock. You have just got what we used to call a Douglas – a Douglas Hurd/third – for your understanding of the relationship between the monarchy and the British people.
There are perfectly good arguments for being a republican – and, if you were starting a new country now, who would set up a hereditary ruling system? It hasn't worked too well with the Assad clan in Syria, has it?
But the monarchy has worked for 1,000 years in this country. We have grown not just used to it, but are deeply attached to it. The handover from an extremely popular Queen to a slightly less popular son – and, in turn, a very popular grandson – is not going to affect that attachment.
The monarchy has staggeringly high levels of approval: 80 per cent during the Diamond Jubilee Year of 2012. Even at the institution's least popular level in recent years - in 2005, at Prince Charles's wedding - approval ratings dipped to 65 per cent.
65 per cent! That's an approval rating David Cameron – or Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher – could only dream of.
Perhaps the popularity ratings may dip a little when Charles comes to the throne, but I sense not. The very fact that he will be king will increase his popularity.
Here's another moment where Dr Whitelock gets it wrong. She says, "There is pretty great support for the Queen and the monarchy, but the problem is that is about the Queen and not about the monarchy."
Wrong again, Dr Whitelock. Yes, we admire her for her personal characteristics – her modesty, her duty, her never putting a foot wrong. But we also love her because she's a monarch. She wouldn't be quite so popular if she were a modest, dutiful housewife living in a terraced house in Windsor.
We are brought up with the monarchy as an extra member of the family. The newspapers and the telly cover their every move – every birth, every death; every triumph, every tragedy; what they wear, what they eat. We know much more about them than lots of our aunts, uncles and cousins.
Royalists outside St Mary's Hospital in London for the birth of Prince George in July 2013
You could call it a form of benevolent brainwashing–- but, all the same, it means we are almost surgically attached to the monarchy.
You now have to be 70 or older to remember any head of state other than the Queen; and Prince Charles's every move has also been widely publicised ever since he was born in 1948. For good or ill, they get into our souls and minds.
Dr Whitelock makes another mistake in thinking that, with an older monarchist generation dying out, a younger, more republican generation will come through.
You could have said the same about the pensioners who supported her when she came to the throne in 1952, and the teenagers who replaced them. Those teenagers - today's pensioners - also became avid monarchists.
The rock 'n' roll crowd, the hippies, the punks, the Goths, the Emos.... All rebels grow up - and most of them end up loving the institution they were surrounded by as children; not just in the form of the Queen, but in the fairytale stories of princes and princesses they grew up with.
There has always been a minority of republicans. And I sense Dr Whitelock might be among them, when she says, “All of those questions about ‘What the hell do we want this kind of unelected family [for]?' have been held in check because of the Queen.”
There's nothing wrong in being a republican, of course. But you are wrong if you think everyone else is going to start agreeing with you.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to abolish the monarchy, just don't expect anyone to agree with you
She's just said that, by 2030, the monarchy could be on its last legs; that the popularity of the monarchy is linked to the Queen, not the institution itself.
Zero out of ten, Dr Whitelock. You have just got what we used to call a Douglas – a Douglas Hurd/third – for your understanding of the relationship between the monarchy and the British people...
There's nothing wrong with wanting to abolish the monarchy, just don't expect anyone to agree with you
Harry Mount
4 April 2016
The Telegraph
Dr Anna Whitelock is an early modern history don at London University. I don't know about her early modern history – but she's certainly not much good at modern history.
She's just said that, by 2030, the monarchy could be on its last legs; that the popularity of the monarchy is linked to the Queen, not the institution itself.
Zero out of ten, Dr Whitelock. You have just got what we used to call a Douglas – a Douglas Hurd/third – for your understanding of the relationship between the monarchy and the British people.
There are perfectly good arguments for being a republican – and, if you were starting a new country now, who would set up a hereditary ruling system? It hasn't worked too well with the Assad clan in Syria, has it?
But the monarchy has worked for 1,000 years in this country. We have grown not just used to it, but are deeply attached to it. The handover from an extremely popular Queen to a slightly less popular son – and, in turn, a very popular grandson – is not going to affect that attachment.
The monarchy has staggeringly high levels of approval: 80 per cent during the Diamond Jubilee Year of 2012. Even at the institution's least popular level in recent years - in 2005, at Prince Charles's wedding - approval ratings dipped to 65 per cent.
65 per cent! That's an approval rating David Cameron – or Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher – could only dream of.
Perhaps the popularity ratings may dip a little when Charles comes to the throne, but I sense not. The very fact that he will be king will increase his popularity.
Here's another moment where Dr Whitelock gets it wrong. She says, "There is pretty great support for the Queen and the monarchy, but the problem is that is about the Queen and not about the monarchy."
Wrong again, Dr Whitelock. Yes, we admire her for her personal characteristics – her modesty, her duty, her never putting a foot wrong. But we also love her because she's a monarch. She wouldn't be quite so popular if she were a modest, dutiful housewife living in a terraced house in Windsor.
We are brought up with the monarchy as an extra member of the family. The newspapers and the telly cover their every move – every birth, every death; every triumph, every tragedy; what they wear, what they eat. We know much more about them than lots of our aunts, uncles and cousins.
Royalists outside St Mary's Hospital in London for the birth of Prince George in July 2013
You could call it a form of benevolent brainwashing–- but, all the same, it means we are almost surgically attached to the monarchy.
You now have to be 70 or older to remember any head of state other than the Queen; and Prince Charles's every move has also been widely publicised ever since he was born in 1948. For good or ill, they get into our souls and minds.
Dr Whitelock makes another mistake in thinking that, with an older monarchist generation dying out, a younger, more republican generation will come through.
You could have said the same about the pensioners who supported her when she came to the throne in 1952, and the teenagers who replaced them. Those teenagers - today's pensioners - also became avid monarchists.
The rock 'n' roll crowd, the hippies, the punks, the Goths, the Emos.... All rebels grow up - and most of them end up loving the institution they were surrounded by as children; not just in the form of the Queen, but in the fairytale stories of princes and princesses they grew up with.
There has always been a minority of republicans. And I sense Dr Whitelock might be among them, when she says, “All of those questions about ‘What the hell do we want this kind of unelected family [for]?' have been held in check because of the Queen.”
There's nothing wrong in being a republican, of course. But you are wrong if you think everyone else is going to start agreeing with you.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to abolish the monarchy, just don't expect anyone to agree with you
Last edited: