On a windy day in Scotland, our ageing Queen gave a speech to open the new Scottish Borders Railway. Arriving in a carriage of the antique ‘Union of South Africa’ steam train, the symbolism of her visit, on the day that she was set to become the longest reigning British monarch in history, was not lost on the teams of journalists that awaited her. Sent to make a news headline of the Queen’s every footstep, there was a feeling that the worldwide press had once again fallen under the ‘spell’ of the British monarchy.
The very scheduling of the Queen’s opening ceremony on this of all days was, no doubt, a well-designed attempt to portray the monarch as primarily our public servant. Her dedication to the public project of the Borders Railway on a day of supposed private success in her long reign was carefully staged to integrate ideas of the contemporary monarchy with contemporary civic society. As David Cameron put it to parliament that day, efforts were made to portray the Queen as ‘a golden thread running through three post-war generations’ – a tireless servant of the public good. In the 63 years and seven months that have witnessed the turbulence of the break-up of Britain’s empire, the decline of her industry, and the realisation that she is no longer a world power, it has been convenient to see the monarch as unchanging. The Queen has been set up as a false reminder of all that is supposedly ‘great’ in Great Britain.
The issue is that, whatever I and other students might think, this idealisation of the wise, dedicated monarch remains incredibly popular. Instead of writing the same old, tired student debates about the abolition of the monarchy, we need to ask ourselves why the Queen remains so popular, and what this means for us. We need to look beyond the clichés of the monarch and her new Elizabethans and begin to understand the gaps in contemporary British cultural experience that she is needed to fill.
One of the most common attractions of the Queen to the public is that she represents a supposed constant in British identity. The monarchy is commonly thought to be a historically stable institution from which we can take our bearings in an unsteady world. The problem with this fantasy is that, like everything else in British society over the last hundred years, the monarchy has in fact been forced to adjust to the changing needs of its public.
Historian, David Cannadine, in his 1983 essay on ‘The British Monarchy and the ‘Invention of Tradition’, c. 1820-1977’, broke intellectual ground by suggesting that, instead of analysing the monarchy in terms of timeless sociological structures, we should conceive of the rituals of the British royalty as responding to their cultural contexts. Time old traditions like the royal Christmas radio broadcast were invented to satisfy the changing needs of the monarch’s public. In terms of a ‘thick description’ of the changing layers of cultural meaning the monarchy inhabits, we understand how much changing ideas of the Queen reflect the changing aspirations of her public. Indeed, the idea of the monarchy as a link to Britain’s illustrious past is as much a reflection of the seeming lack of ‘glory’ we experience in the present. In an age of austerity, a ‘Great’ British monarchy with a ‘Great’ British pedigree is comforting to an otherwise disenfranchised public.
The royal family is, however, more than just a throwback to the past. People see the likes of Will and Kate as a pathway to a stable future. Superimposed on what could well be a normal young family is an image of the country’s regeneration. Just like Charles and Diana before them, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge attract the media’s attention because they provide a comforting, normative view of conservative family life. The stable image of this growing young royal family, unmoved by the threats of unemployment, housing and education that normal families face, provides an outlet for escapism in the national media. Baby pictures of Prince George and Princess Charlotte in glossy magazines are a welcome diversion for parents who know their children will never get that level of privilege. The young royals’ celebrity is based on the nation’s need to fantasise, to imagine that they too could provide that kind of unobtainable life for their children.
Perhaps most of all, the monarchy’s increasing popularity reflects Britain’s continued struggle to forge a new identity out of the turmoil of the twentieth century. At the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s wedding, a stable image of Great Britain as a land steeped in history was served up to the world, and the world gobbled it up.
This image, however, is increasingly out of touch with the realities of modern life. As ongoing debates over our membership of the EU and Scotland’s membership of the Union continue to tear the nation apart, the illusion of stability under our long serving Queen has been shown to be just that – an illusion. As the Queen’s reign eats its way into the record books, we need to ask ourselves why we seem to need the monarchy, and what that says about us.
