The Queen at 80
Revolution postponed
Apr 20th 2006
From The Economist print edition
Why the monarchy is stronger today than ten years ago
FOR most of its history, Britain's monarchy has attracted a healthy amount of criticism and satire. Kings have repeatedly been lampooned as lazy, ineffectual, greedy, vain or stupid. When King George IV, who was thought to possess most of these vices, died in 1830, the Times reckoned that “there never was an individual less regretted by his fellow creatures than this deceased king.” Yet Queen Elizabeth II, who celebrates her birthday on April 21st, attracts almost no hostility from mainstream politicians or the press, despite being born into a job that is subsidised, extravagant and seems largely pointless. To mark the event, the BBC even broadcast a laudatory documentary showing a hardworking queen busily representing the nation to itself, which is what monarchists argue the institution is for.
And what do you do, Ma'am?
Compare the fortunes of the monarchy with those of another established institution with an ambient role, the Church of England, and it becomes clear that the royal family is doing rather well. It has recovered from a Princess Diana-fuelled dip in the late-1990s: polls show that more people now think the monarchy will be around in ten years time. Yet attendance at Church of England services has continued to decline. Why is the queen prospering while the Church (outside its cathedrals and evangelical movement) languishes?
One reason is that the monarchy thrives on indifference, while the Church is hurt by it. That might sound odd, given that evidence of interest in the royal family is everywhere: over a million people turned out in London for the queen's golden jubilee; dreary books about royals easily outsell ones about elected politicians; and the young royal princes fill the newspapers. But this fascination does not run very deep. According to one poll, only 10% of people aged between 16 and 24 think the monarchy is important to their lives. But because the royal family is the monopoly provider of a something trivial, it hardly seems worth opposing. The Church, by contrast, offers a vital service to its 1.7m members—spiritual succour—and operates in a competitive confessional market where dissatisfied Christians can shop around. Indifference is thus a threat.
A second reason is that the queen's avoidance of controversy (she never expresses political views) and of the press has reinforced the institution she embodies. She never gives interviews, modelling her media strategy on that of her mother, who gave an interview in 1923 but apparently did not enjoy the experience and kept quiet for the rest of her life. (This was probably wise: Cecil Beaton's diaries describe her as “a marshmallow made on a welding machine”.) One executive of a tabloid newspaper argues that this has enhanced the queen's mystique, comparing her with other celebrities who risk irritating their audience through over-exposure. The Church, on the other hand, cannot avoid damaging controversies even when it wants to, as the divisive row over ordaining gay priests reveals.
Third, the monarchy has benefited from a decline in party allegiance and a dilution of ideology in British politics that has not similarly helped the Church. Vigorous anti-monarchism was associated with the hard left, and has atrophied with it. Britain has only one sizeable anti-monarchy club these days—Republic, which has a thousand members—yet when the Prince of Wales had marital problems in the 1870s, 84 were founded.
Vernon Bogdanor, of Oxford University, argues that the decline of party allegiance has also increased the appeal of a non-partisan head of state. The same is not true for the Church. While the Conservative Party had 2.5m members (as it did at its peak), the notion that the Church was the Tory party at prayer did not imply empty pews. Now the Conservatives have only around 250,000 members, it does. Game, set and match to the Windsors.
economist.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
And The Sun -
Her Majesty should stay
By HARRY MACADAM
THE Queen is doing a great job and should stay on, say 85 per cent of Brits in a survey.
A poll to coincide with her 80th birthday shows the overwhelming support for the monarch.
And almost two-thirds of the country — 64 per cent — reckon that the Queen should NEVER hand in her crown and sceptre.
Just one in five believes she should retire now — while 7 per cent reckon she should go in five years time and 3 per cent when she reaches 90.
Meanwhile 72 per cent of the nation are convinced that Britain should continue to be a monarchy, according to the Ipsos MORI poll.
Just over half of the country think the Prince of Wales will make a good king — 52 per cent.
But 28 per cent believe he will make a poor monarch.
And only 38 per cent believe Camilla should sit alongside him as Queen.
More than four fifths (82 per cent) believe that the monarchy in Britain will survive for at least a decade.
But that figure drops to just 41 per cent looking 50 years ahead.
And less than a quarter of the nation (24 per cent) believes that Britain will still be ruled by a King or Queen in a century’s time.
Rain failed to deter crowds who turned up outside Windsor Castle yesterday — St George’s Day — to wish the Queen well.
Her Majesty, with family and invited guests, attended a special service of thanksgiving to mark her birthday at St George’s Chapel.
The Dean of Windsor, the Rt Rev David Conner, paid tribute to her “sense of calmness, serenity and stillness”.
He added: “Your Majesty, not so much through word as by unselfconscious good example, you encourage us; you give us heart.”
The Queen surprised onlookers when she was seen to open her purse and drop a banknote into the collection plate — as she normally does not carry money.
**Princess Michael of Kent, 61, was all smiles at the event as she walked arm in arm with her husband Prince Michael, 63, — following allegations she is having a fling.
The Princess — nicknamed Princess Pushy — is said to have spent four nights in the same Venice hotel suite as 40-year-old Russian millionaire Mikhail Kravchenko.
The pair have denied an affair.
thesun.co.uk
Revolution postponed
Apr 20th 2006
From The Economist print edition
Why the monarchy is stronger today than ten years ago
FOR most of its history, Britain's monarchy has attracted a healthy amount of criticism and satire. Kings have repeatedly been lampooned as lazy, ineffectual, greedy, vain or stupid. When King George IV, who was thought to possess most of these vices, died in 1830, the Times reckoned that “there never was an individual less regretted by his fellow creatures than this deceased king.” Yet Queen Elizabeth II, who celebrates her birthday on April 21st, attracts almost no hostility from mainstream politicians or the press, despite being born into a job that is subsidised, extravagant and seems largely pointless. To mark the event, the BBC even broadcast a laudatory documentary showing a hardworking queen busily representing the nation to itself, which is what monarchists argue the institution is for.
And what do you do, Ma'am?
Compare the fortunes of the monarchy with those of another established institution with an ambient role, the Church of England, and it becomes clear that the royal family is doing rather well. It has recovered from a Princess Diana-fuelled dip in the late-1990s: polls show that more people now think the monarchy will be around in ten years time. Yet attendance at Church of England services has continued to decline. Why is the queen prospering while the Church (outside its cathedrals and evangelical movement) languishes?
One reason is that the monarchy thrives on indifference, while the Church is hurt by it. That might sound odd, given that evidence of interest in the royal family is everywhere: over a million people turned out in London for the queen's golden jubilee; dreary books about royals easily outsell ones about elected politicians; and the young royal princes fill the newspapers. But this fascination does not run very deep. According to one poll, only 10% of people aged between 16 and 24 think the monarchy is important to their lives. But because the royal family is the monopoly provider of a something trivial, it hardly seems worth opposing. The Church, by contrast, offers a vital service to its 1.7m members—spiritual succour—and operates in a competitive confessional market where dissatisfied Christians can shop around. Indifference is thus a threat.
A second reason is that the queen's avoidance of controversy (she never expresses political views) and of the press has reinforced the institution she embodies. She never gives interviews, modelling her media strategy on that of her mother, who gave an interview in 1923 but apparently did not enjoy the experience and kept quiet for the rest of her life. (This was probably wise: Cecil Beaton's diaries describe her as “a marshmallow made on a welding machine”.) One executive of a tabloid newspaper argues that this has enhanced the queen's mystique, comparing her with other celebrities who risk irritating their audience through over-exposure. The Church, on the other hand, cannot avoid damaging controversies even when it wants to, as the divisive row over ordaining gay priests reveals.
Third, the monarchy has benefited from a decline in party allegiance and a dilution of ideology in British politics that has not similarly helped the Church. Vigorous anti-monarchism was associated with the hard left, and has atrophied with it. Britain has only one sizeable anti-monarchy club these days—Republic, which has a thousand members—yet when the Prince of Wales had marital problems in the 1870s, 84 were founded.
Vernon Bogdanor, of Oxford University, argues that the decline of party allegiance has also increased the appeal of a non-partisan head of state. The same is not true for the Church. While the Conservative Party had 2.5m members (as it did at its peak), the notion that the Church was the Tory party at prayer did not imply empty pews. Now the Conservatives have only around 250,000 members, it does. Game, set and match to the Windsors.
economist.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
And The Sun -
Her Majesty should stay
By HARRY MACADAM
THE Queen is doing a great job and should stay on, say 85 per cent of Brits in a survey.
A poll to coincide with her 80th birthday shows the overwhelming support for the monarch.
And almost two-thirds of the country — 64 per cent — reckon that the Queen should NEVER hand in her crown and sceptre.
Just one in five believes she should retire now — while 7 per cent reckon she should go in five years time and 3 per cent when she reaches 90.
Meanwhile 72 per cent of the nation are convinced that Britain should continue to be a monarchy, according to the Ipsos MORI poll.
Just over half of the country think the Prince of Wales will make a good king — 52 per cent.
But 28 per cent believe he will make a poor monarch.
And only 38 per cent believe Camilla should sit alongside him as Queen.
More than four fifths (82 per cent) believe that the monarchy in Britain will survive for at least a decade.
But that figure drops to just 41 per cent looking 50 years ahead.
And less than a quarter of the nation (24 per cent) believes that Britain will still be ruled by a King or Queen in a century’s time.
Rain failed to deter crowds who turned up outside Windsor Castle yesterday — St George’s Day — to wish the Queen well.
Her Majesty, with family and invited guests, attended a special service of thanksgiving to mark her birthday at St George’s Chapel.
The Dean of Windsor, the Rt Rev David Conner, paid tribute to her “sense of calmness, serenity and stillness”.
He added: “Your Majesty, not so much through word as by unselfconscious good example, you encourage us; you give us heart.”
The Queen surprised onlookers when she was seen to open her purse and drop a banknote into the collection plate — as she normally does not carry money.
**Princess Michael of Kent, 61, was all smiles at the event as she walked arm in arm with her husband Prince Michael, 63, — following allegations she is having a fling.
The Princess — nicknamed Princess Pushy — is said to have spent four nights in the same Venice hotel suite as 40-year-old Russian millionaire Mikhail Kravchenko.
The pair have denied an affair.
thesun.co.uk