Something in the Heir
The agonising intrusion of Royal labour pains echo around a London bedchamber as a crowd gathers; eventually, an heir is born and the continuation of the dynasty is seemingly guaranteed. It’s not May 2015, though; it’s June 1688. The mother is not a future Queen, but the Queen; the baby is not fourth in line to the throne, but the heir apparent; the chamber is not in St Mary’s Hospital, but at St James’ Palace; and the crowd awaiting the birth is not a collection of vaguely unhinged middle-aged Windsor groupies wrapped in the union flag, but a hand-picked clique of prominent courtiers, clergymen and ministers on hand to uphold a tradition.
It was a hot summer, and the Queen requested the baby she’d just delivered be taken to a more airy room before any of the invited dignitaries had even laid eyes upon it. Thus was born a rumour the heir had been stillborn and a substitute put in his place when he was finally publicly unveiled. The reason for rumour and suspicion was that this child, the son of King James II, was a Catholic heir for a Protestant country that had endured more than a century of Reformation, persecution, republicanism, religious fanaticism and murdered martyrs before eventually exploding into civil war. The obstinate younger brother of the late Merry Monarch had done himself few favours by refusing to hide his Catholic leanings, even though his two daughters from his first marriage, Mary and Anne, were resolutely Protestant, with the former marrying the Prince of Orange as if to confirm it. As things stood, Mary was next in line to the throne and even her father’s suicidal intransigence couldn’t alter that fact. However, a second marriage to a Catholic Princess could well alter that fact, and it did.
The birth of James Francis Edward Stuart in the summer of 1688 wasn’t a sugar-coated soap-opera event provoking a collective ‘aaah’ from the nation’s grannies and fawning media coverage; it caused a constitutional crisis that led to the abdication of the King, a deep division between a father and his daughters that was never healed, the last invasion of Britain by a foreign power (albeit an invited one), the last battle in which two rival claimants for the English throne fought for the crown – one that also laid the foundation for the Troubles in Northern Ireland – and the official end of Absolute Monarchy and Kings anointed by God in the British Isles as the concept of the constitutional monarch was inaugurated. Even more than the execution of Charles I, 1688 was the moment at which power passed from sovereign to Parliament, and the head of state was reduced to little more than a symbolic figurehead.
The oblivious babe born to rule in June 1688 was taken from his homeland and across the Channel by his fleeing mother when he was barely six-months-old for his own safety. Bar one aborted attempt at establishing Jacobite rule in 1715, when the boy who became known to history as ‘the Old Pretender’ struggled to provoke a Scottish rebellion, the self-styled King James III was to spend the rest of his life in continental exile, a sad casualty of a changing age. Had his reign been allowed to progress as was intended, he would have enjoyed a longer reign than any other monarch in British history, longer than George III, longer than Victoria, and even longer than our very own Brenda. That he was denied his place in history says a great deal about the transference of power within the British social hierarchy that took place at the end of the seventeenth century, a change that continues to dictate the purpose of monarchy to this very day.
Some of the media commentators on the birth of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s daughter last week mistakenly credited the newborn as being the latest addition to an ancient line stretching back to William the Conqueror, when if anything, she is a descendant of the House of Hanover. When Prince George of Hanover succeeded Queen Anne in 1714, his connection to her in terms of shared blood was slim; fifty-six far closer potential successors were excluded on the grounds of their Catholicism. Yes, if one had a spare aircraft hangar and were free to spread out a family tree of Stuarts and Hanoverians that also encompassed those of the Tudor and Plantagenet persuasions, a connection would be evident, but so distant as to make any direct line claims spurious to say the least.
But it could be that tracing the new Princess Charlotte’s lineage all the way back to 1066 is an ongoing operation to maintain the illusion of uninterrupted continuity, to emphasise the traditional ties between the British people and their sovereign. Ever since the Diana saga, there has been a careful and coordinated project to remind the public that the Royal Family amount to more than a mere expensive (not to say anachronistic) luxury. Prince Charles has inherited his father’s talent for putting his foot in it, and he in turn has passed this on to his second son; but the PR department of Buckingham Palace largely manages to balance any occasional faux-pas, and has made a shrewd signing with Kate Middleton, someone who appears to have taken the spotlight away from the clumsier members of the firm; and now she has fulfilled her constitutional duties by delivering a couple of heirs, justifying her transfer fee.
The fatal blow to the lingering (if increasingly archaic) prestige of Royal power was the First World War, laying waste to many Royal Houses of Europe as the German, Russian and Austro-Hungarian dynasties were dismembered. The British benefitted from the disappearance of their extended family in that ours being one of the few monarchies to survive the carnage has helped shape our cultural identity in the century since that conflict; the curious juxtaposition of a modern democracy retaining a Royal head of state has served to cement our somewhat eccentric international reputation. The Americans and French, both of whom dispensed with Royalty via revolution, can’t get enough of ours; the tourism industry is heavily dependent on Royal residences attracting overseas visitors; and the Commonwealth as a body maintains its sentimental ties with the old colonial masters by keeping the Queen as its overlord.
Were all that to suddenly vanish, there’s no doubt it would seem weird. I have looked at the Queen’s face virtually every day of my life, if only on a stamp, a coin and a note; I’m not sure I’d want to be confronted by President Cameron every time I post a letter or withdraw some lucre from the cash machine. Quentin Crisp once remarked that if he were Queen he’d waltz around in ermine all day and would never remove the crown, and there is an undoubtedly attractive element of that simple visual majesty that makes every photo of the Queen attending an official function in a ‘normal’ dress and hat disappointing. If we are to have a monarch, then at least make them look like one. The only Royal personage I’ve ever been within touching distance of was the late Princess Margaret, who opened a nearby school when I was ten; I saw her black vehicle pass by as I stood on the pavement alongside my classmates and was granted a glimpse of the Queen’s feisty sister at the window, radiating the aura of a Hollywood screen Goddess. The eternal appeal of the Tudors, as recently emphasised by the success of ‘Wolf Hall’, is probably based in part on the fact that Henry VIII is every inch what we expect a sovereign to resemble. Ditto Elizabeth I, where the clothes never fail to maketh the monarch.
In a nutshell, image is everything where Royalty is concerned, even if there’s little substance or significance beneath that image. The removal of Absolutism over 300 years ago was virtual castration for the monarchs that had to adapt to it in the first half-century after the Glorious Revolution, but subsequent sovereigns have accepted it as their role. To be born into that role is an unquestionable privilege; but just as poor old ‘James III’ can hardly be held responsible for provoking the most seismic shift in just who holds true power that this country has ever experienced, Prince William can hardly be blamed for being born to rule. And an accident of birth is different from a meglomaniac ‘commoner’ reaching for the kind of power a future monarch is constitutionally denied. As long as there is enough popular demand for this deliberately distracting soap opera on the wallpaper of the nation, it will continue. And as long as its members head charities, open hospitals and recognise their limitations, I’ve no real problem with it.
Petunia Winegum
-
May 5, 2015 at 9:37 am -
I’m not ashamed to admit that up until about 10 or so years ago I was a republican by instinct. As regulars might recall I was an active Conservative between 1982 and 1999, and was considered a bit suspect within the local party for holding those views. I can’t remember, and don’t know how it happened but since then I’ve swung towards the monarchy. I believe that the queen has been a “steadying influence” and has done a pretty good job over the years. At one time I thought Charles was an absolute buffoon. Once again, with the passing of the years, I find him a more appealing character.
I think the monarchy went through a very bad patch, which started somewhere around the time of Anne’s marriage, and ended not that long after Diana’s death. To me it felt as though the whole thing was being treated like a soap opera. The MSM is largely to blame for the way they report on and cover the various royal marriages, births and subsequent divorces.
All in all, I’d rather stick with what we’ve got, than the alternative of President X, Y or Z.
-
May 5, 2015 at 9:39 am -
I enjoyed your article and sentiment, thank you.
-
May 5, 2015 at 9:44 am -
If you take 1066 as your starting date, then things get very ropey indeed by the time Richard III had his fatal encounter with a halberd at the Battle of Bosworth. He was the last who could legitimately claim descent from the Plantagenet line, as I understand it. The Tudors at least had some sort of specious claim, but by the time of the Stuarts (staring with James I), well, dear me. By the time of the Glorious Revolution (1668, as I recall), it’s anything goes – as long as they will fill the role and not interfere too much with Parliament.
I have often semi joked that the last legitimate English king died on that October day in 1066. Mind, you, the Godwinson familty weren’t above a bit of murder and the like to get there.
However, if you want an argument for the status quo, I will gove you one in 5 words: Cherie Blair. And her ilk. A woman who always struck me as even more ambitious of High Office, status and wealth than her slimy husband. In short, exactly the sort of person who would strive for a Presidency is exactly the sort of person I don’t want to be President. President Vaz? President Prescott? President Sting? Or even…President Brand??
At least the monarchy keeps a notional link historical continuity, to the proud if often bloody history of an island race, and to a strange and indefineable ideal. Of something.-
May 5, 2015 at 4:47 pm -
A republic – the worst form of government conceived by man. One that changes direction every time the president changes. The one most prone to graft, insider dealing and troughing by the minions.
-
May 5, 2015 at 5:22 pm -
For the People. By the People. God Save the People…
-
-
-
May 5, 2015 at 9:48 am -
If it isn’t broken then don’t try to fix it. The Monarchy most certainly isn’t perfect but to me the alternatives are far less palatable.
-
May 5, 2015 at 12:12 pm -
Agreed. Rather as Churchill said of democracy, it’s the worst option apart from all the others. After all, we’ve spent the best part of a millenium smoothing off the rough edges, and whilst still something of a work in progress, it’s looking quite promising for the future, despite the naysayers.
-
May 5, 2015 at 5:34 pm -
A Millenium of Representative Democracy seems to have left it seeming like the enemy for many folks…. “The Establishment”.
-
May 5, 2015 at 6:30 pm -
Ask those who lived in the days of Cromwell (well – ask metaphorically). They liked it so little, they asked Charles II to return from exile….
-
-
-
-
May 5, 2015 at 9:57 am -
Excellent essay. I think it’s significant that – in the ghastly, misconceived Arab Spring – the regimes surviving the upheaval have been the monarchies of Morocco and Jordan. People expect Kings and Queens to be wealthy and to live in palaces and wear crowns (I thought Quentin WAS the Queen). I think we’d be in a better state were the Royal Family slightly more involved in social structure. Charles, much mocked in the past for talking to plants and condemning awful buildings, is now seen to be far more accurate in his black spider scribbles than the politicians of the time. And now we are faced with an array of drips fighting for our vote (do not vote, even for Farage), we can see that democracy simply does not work. A benign monarchy is a better structure. As a side note, I admired Maggie enormously whilst disagreeing with many of her policies. Her heart was in the right place. She was, incidentally, charming and attractive in person.
-
May 5, 2015 at 10:04 am -
I suppose if Scotland gets Independence after the SNP sweep home, then Prince Harry could become the modern Pretender and take Balmoral on behalf of the Celtic Reds, or perhaps he’ll settle for Australia as I gather he’s about to join the RAAF to keep him off the mean streets of LA.
-
May 5, 2015 at 11:19 am -
I never understood the fuss about Prince Charles talking to his plants. It wasn’t as if he expected an answer, let alone a conversation. Plenty of people speak to cats and dogs, horses, cage birds, cows (OK, Charles again), their computers call ships ‘she’ and name locomotives, answer questions on University Challenge and also talk to the Big Sky Fairy. All (except maybe the last) not expecting an answer. In the last if they do receive an answer it is usually proof that they are insane!
-
May 5, 2015 at 11:31 am -
There was popular science in the 70’s that said plants responded to certain sounds. There were various other notions too. I have (or had – not sure if I kept it) a book about “the secret life of plants”. It was the thin end of a wedge about plants having feelings and it said they felt pain, but so far we haven’t got a movement about not eating veggies – unless you count the Atkins Diet Movement. On the other hand, maybe there was a Movement but they all died of either starvation or scurvy. There is some cultish science where they claim people could live on air alone…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia
-
-
May 5, 2015 at 11:37 am -
If we changed over to having a President, the costs would rise greatly. The Quenn runs a very tight ship. I don’t think a President Kinnock or a President Cherie would be so careful; at least they would demand a large security militia.
And the Royal Family brings in tourist money.
-
May 5, 2015 at 12:06 pm -
On the subject of Jacobites, the building where my bank has it’s lair was once home to the Jacobean Cream Cracker, Christopher Layer (known as ‘Fruit Layer Cake’ to his friends…and the lizard people ). He was the Mad terrorist and fantasist of his day and was rewarded for his insane plots with a view of his own intestines dangling into a brazier….EU Human Rights legislation not yet having been conceived of. These days he’d probably get an Arts Council grant.
Unfortunately there is very little known about him , or at least very little i can find on the web. Maybe Gildas might consider him worthy of a Gildas On Sunday post sometime…the parallels to out time are many.
-
May 5, 2015 at 12:25 pm -
As others have said, whatever faults the Royals may have, anything – anything at all – is preferable to the likely alternative: some dodgy ex-flatmate of Tony Blair’s, parachuted in by the self-appointed great and good.
Long live Brenda!
-
May 5, 2015 at 1:10 pm -
Petunia,
As our kilted cousins might say: “Och, haud yer wheesht!”
I presume that you also belong to the camp which avers that Shakespeare’s plays were all written by someone else.
-
May 5, 2015 at 3:03 pm -
I think that the media should keep their heir on…
-
May 5, 2015 at 3:58 pm -
“Prince Charles has inherited his father’s talent for putting his foot in it” The difference is that his father is funny with it.
-
May 5, 2015 at 4:01 pm -
All madness isn’t negative. After all, Supermarine (the Supermarine of the lovely Spitfire, and the unlovely Walrus) was founded by a Tory MP who believed Britain was at risk of being overrun by an international lesbian conspiracy, of which the Suffragettes were just the tip of the proverbial whatever. Oh, hang on a minute …
-
May 5, 2015 at 5:15 pm -
That’s not quite how I remember it from “First of the Few”; in fact there almost seemed an implication to be that the woman who enabled Supermarination might have been from the island of Lesbos herself, but that might be to misinterpret David Niven’s seduction technique of the time.
-
May 5, 2015 at 5:49 pm -
“So who was Lady Houston? Daughter of a box-maker, she was born in Kennington, south London, in 1857. As a 16-year-old chorus girl she attracted the wealthy – and married – brewer Frederick Gretton of the Bass family and they eloped to Paris. They never married but she was known as ”Mrs Gretton’’. “She was a beautiful young coquette, with… impudent speech and a tiny waist who became expert in Parisian fashions and manners,” says the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Gretton showered her with gifts and bequeathed her £6,000 a year for life when he died in 1882, aged just 42.
Described as a ”fresh-air fiend and nudist”, she claimed “prophetic powers” of a quasi-religious nature. This did not deter Theodore Francis Brinckman, the eldest son of a baronet, from marrying her the following year. She divorced him in 1895.
Her second marriage was in 1901 to George Frederick William Byron, 9th Baron Byron of Rochdale. Already a bankrupt, “Red Nose George” appeared to have had little impact on her life, except as the provider of social status.
She supported the suffragettes and later opened a rest home for nurses who had served on the Western Front. The government named her one of the first of five newly created dames in 1917, the same year Byron died, aged 63.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/battle-of-britain/8002754/Saviour-of-the-Spitfire.html-
May 5, 2015 at 6:45 pm -
Dear Moor,
The S6 – S6A – S6B business was in the late 1920s – early 1930s. Noel Pemberton Billing founded the company in 1913. By the time Supermarine was winning Schneider Trophies, it had been taken over by Vickers. Lady Houston’s intervention was all about the Schneider Trophy, and her support was incidental to the original founding of the company.
-
-
-
-
May 5, 2015 at 4:04 pm -
Oh dear, what a depressing article. Still, there is some consolation in your having “no problem” with the monarchy so long as certain conditions are kept – and I am sure they will be.
-
May 5, 2015 at 6:11 pm -
If we still had a monarchy in the pre-1911 sense of the word , I’d be a Royalist . Mind you even 1911 is a bit late and personally I think the rot started with George ‘Pisses Blue’ .
{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }