Asked about Harry & Meghan's Oprah interview, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said, 'When it comes to matters to do with the royal family the right thing for prime ministers to say is nothing'.
Is he right?
No. The Prime Minister has a duty to uphold the law. European Monarchies are not Absolutist. They are accountable. They can't violate the law with regard to racial or other discrimination. Nor can they raise children in a manner which is now considered cruel or unfair.
Primogeniture may seem unfair- but now that sexist provision of male preference has been done away with in the UK- it is not necessarily so. Indeed, primogeniture was advantageous to younger sons. They could gain glory in the military or serve as Governors of important provinces. It was never the case that they had to hide their light under a bushel for fear of overshadowing their elder brother. This was because it was unthinkable that a younger brother be preferred to the lawful heir. Indeed, in France and England, there was a tradition of the younger brother being ultra-royalist. Indeed, disasters occurred where a younger brother inherited the Crown from his elder sibling. James II & Charles X were too rigid in their upholding of the rights of the Crown and thus both were toppled.
It was foolish of the 'Firm' to try to restrict either a Princess- like Diana- or a Prince- like Harry- from outshining others. No business family, or acting dynasty, would act in such a foolish way. In any case, there was no need for it. The fact is the heir to the Throne is a future Head of State and thus must be circumspect and dull. Consider what happened when President Bush the elder said he didn't like broccoli. He was forced to apologize. My memory is that he confessed that he had been stuffing it up his nose instead of putting it in his mouth. The brocolli growers Association had educated him on how to eat the vegetable properly. He was very grateful to them because he could now enjoy this tasty and nutritious snack at all times of the day and night.
A Prime Minister of the UK has a duty to instruct 'the Firm' not to do stupid shit. Don't worry if the Princess outshines the Prince or the younger brother and his spouse outshine the heir and his consort. After all, the Nation benefits even if some egos are bruised a little.
Boris Johnson may well be keeping silent on this issue because of his own track record of racialist gaffes. His sister was one of the journalists who wrote in an objectional manner about Merkle's African American heritage. That may have been all very well when Trump was in the White House. But Biden now rules the roost and post Brexit Britain needs his friendship.
Thus, sooner or later, the Prime Minister must address what has now become an international scandal- viz. the repugnant, anachronistic, and dysfunctional nature of 'the Firm'.
To be clear, it is an undoubted constitutional duty for the Head of Government to speak out on matters concerning the royal family if the public interest requires it. The venue for the performance of that duty may not be a press conference but, at the end of the day, no curtain can be drawn wholly over such matters save as the law requires. This is because an account must be given to Parliament regarding what was said, why it was said, and what further steps must be taken to safeguard the commonweal.
All this is well settled in Law. Stanley Baldwin's speech to Parliament on the occasion of the King's abdication immediately comes to mind because of the circumstance that an American divorcee was involved in both cases. But Mrs. Simpson's second divorce had not come through when the gossip began. Further she had a checkered past. The position of the Established Church, back then, was far more rigid in such matters. By contrast, Meghan's position was strong. She was a successful actress. That she was 'a person of color' in the age of Obama was scarcely a handicap. Once this nation embarked on the perilous seas of Brexit, considerations of American goodwill, Commonwealth solidarity as well as Britain's international reputation as a place where the whole world could do business with the assurance of fair play and courteous treatment, all militated for a very high standard of care and protection being lavished on the new American member of the Royal Family. If Harry caused annoyance by insisting his wife get special treatment we may certainly wish for him to be instructed in tact. But Harry was right. Meghan should have been treated very differently from Kate- or even Diana. This is a matter of natural law or basic fairness. After all, as a foreigner, she would be unused to our ways. A British spouse would, quite naturally, already feel safe and at home in Britain. Special attention must be lavished on foreigners till they find their feet. If that foreigner is American, there is all the more reason to lay on the Olde Worlde Charm. Boris Johnson should have performed a traditional Circassian belly dance for her. Rishi Sunak should have taken up his ancestral snake charmer's flute. It is true that Priti Patel was kept far away from Meghan- lest she accidentally deport her or bite her face off. But more- much more- was required. What is certain is that certain other members of the Royal Family, with Priti type proclivities, should have been locked up in the stables. Actors should have been hired to impersonate them. Buckingham Palace should have received a Bridgeton makeover. In this way, the Windsors could, by gradual steps, have been turned into worthy inheritors of the ivory scepter of Wakanda. It may be that the denser or more inbred of the Royals were getting at precisely this possibility when they asked about the likely skin color of little Archie. If baby fails the brown paper bag test, they greedily thought to themselves, perhaps Britain be able to get its hands on precious vibranium. At the very least, the young fellow might take his great-uncle Andrew off to some distant African mineshaft and quietly push him down it.
What should Theresa May or Boris have done? They should have said 'Meghan is different from Kate. Meghan is American. Grovel to her or we will take an axe to the privy purse.' The truth is, we will forgive an Aristo for being a racist cunt. We won't forgive people born to great wealth and luxury a type of miserliness, that too to kith and kin, which is simply sordid and massively self-defeating.
Of course, if Trump was back in the White House and Le Pen looked like she'd take the Elysee and Brexit was going great guns then the right thing to do would be to pat the more Racist Royals on the back and buy them swastika tattoos and bovver boots and rabid rottweiler dogs to tutor them in the finer points of Right Wing ontotheology- unless, of coure, they are already paid up members of the Institute of Socioproctology.
What should BoJo do now? His instinct is to stay out of it and, because of his gaffe prone nature, his colleagues may consider this the safest course. But, ask yourself, what happens if nothing happens? At the margin, the Royals may still be shown some consideration by elderly people at home. But Canada and Australia may not want Royals to turn up to make them look bad. The Charities the Royals already have appear incestuous and under-funded. The big donors will stay away from those inbred nitwits. Thus the Royals will get shabbier and more stupid and as irrelevant as the Anglican Church had become back when I was a kid. The Church sold off properties, invested in things like creches and study clubs and getting behind things like A.A or Mindfulness and so forth. It also found a way to fire up the evangelical base with the 'Alpha Course' while distracting the 'bells and smells' crowd by means of a complicated theological rapprochement with Rome.
Sadly, the Royals are incapable of any such, essentially market driven, re-invention. Prince Charles once gave an interview- on the comeback trail after Princess Di's death- in which he quite ludicrously hinted that Britain's future would be to supply 'booted Hessians' to Gulf monarchies. Andrew, it seems, befriended Epstein, in furtherance of some such design. This is clearly mad if not entirely evil. If Charles really did 'cut off' Harry financially then there may be a case for skipping over him and passing the crown to William, because his action imperiled post-Brexit Britain's diplomatic and economic position. More importantly, if Charles really was miserly, he should be punished for imperiling his own position. Impenetrable stupidity may be an asset for an Aristocrat. But this must be allied with a lively instinct for self preservation.
It may be that Kate & William are dignified and forward thinking. Or they may be cretins. We simply don't know. What great harm would we suffer if we never get to find out? This is where the Prime Minister comes in. He, or she, should shout at the Royals from time to time. After all, even in the most brutal of Public Schools or Army barracks, there is an irascible House Master or choleric Colonel who ensures that something more utile is perpetuated than an endless daisy chain of hazing and bullying and ragging and fagging and so forth.
No comments:
Post a Comment