The Unofficial British Royal Family Pages

Monday 13 September 2004

The Monarchy Giveth, Taketh and, Sometimes, Disposeth

Royal gift giving used to be a simple matter. Back then, if you were a loyal subject come to pay your respects, a little gold and frankincense – maybe even some myrrh for that extra boost – would go a long way in putting you in the good graces of the king. For his part, all the king had to do was give away a few hectares of arable land to his lowlier vassals and perhaps throw in a coronet to sweeten the deal for his more well-heeled subjects.  

But those were the good old days. These early years of the 21^st century have capped off a long decline of the more “simple pleasures” of the royal gift giving tradition – on both sides of the throne. The culmination of this deterioration came – at least in Britain – in late 2002 when, it was alleged, members of Prince Charles’ staff were discovered to be selling official royal gifts for profit. While the resulting inquiry report minimized most of the claims, the stigma of the accusation still remained, and new guidelines regarding official gifts were nonetheless put in place for all royal households in Britain. 

So where did things go wrong?  

To begin with, while royal gift giving has certainly always been a part of most monarchies, the rules (if there were any) were often vague, informal, and subject to change at any time. The reigning etiquette of royal gift giving was dependent on a number of circumstances, including the political and financial circumstances of the country, the background and preferences – and even the ethics – of the monarch, and the mood and generosity of both the monarch and the subjects. Irregularity aside, there was usually a pretty darn good reason for the exchange of favors at court – demonstrating or gaining loyalty and support. 

When William the Conqueror became King of England on Christmas Day in 1066, he wasted no time in confiscating lands and estates from the existing English nobles and replacing them with his faithful Norman and French allies, who would continue to owe William their allegiance and their swords in return. Under this system, William’s favorites were safely in charge of half of England’s land by the end of his reign. It’s little wonder that he managed to keep the crown securely on his head for 21 tumultuous years. 

On the Iberian Peninsula more than 400 years later, matters were not much different. With an intense desire to wrest Granada from the Moors, but few funds in the treasury to sufficiently finance the endeavor, the “Catholic Kings,” Isabella and Ferdinand, had little choice but to offer the ruling classes the promise of their fair share of both the conquered lands and the booty in exchange for their financial and military support. As in the case of William the Conqueror, the strategy worked, and both parties benefited as a result.  

But not all cases were so straightforward. Monarchs often had a nasty way of giving away generous grants of land, money, and titles in an act of seeming beneficence, just to take them back when it suited their will. Henry VIII proved to be the king of this very strategy, demonstrating that he could bring someone like Cardinal Wolsey to the height of wealth and power, just to take it all for himself when the cleric displeased him. Henry then proved himself equally crafty when he gained critical support for the dissolution of the monasteries by giving large tracts of the land he took from the church to important members of the nobility. Of course, not even the man who helped make the dissolution possible was safe from the temperamental monarch. When Thomas Cromwell (who himself profited in any number of ways thanks to the dissolution), also ran afoul of Henry, he, too, was charged with treason and executed. I suppose it’s very easy to give away what you plan to take back by force in due time. 

Fortunately, Henry didn’t ruin it for everyone. The monarchy continued to give away everything from titles to generous grants of land to pensions to everyone from war heroes to court jesters to former mistresses in return for their allegiance, their service and their “favors” (not necessarily in that order). The high point in Britain seems to have been the Restoration – a time of extremely generous royal patronage. Charles II was giving land and titles away left and right, both to reward those faithful to him during the interregnum and to purchase new supporters. He was also a tremendous supporter of science and the arts. In return for his generosity, Charles seems to have had a lot of fun (especially with the ladies). He also kept his throne. 

Throughout history, for the monarchs’ loyal (aristocratic) subjects, royal gift giving often extended beyond continued loyalty and financial support to regular cow-towing and token generosity. Appearing regularly at court was expected. Regularly entertaining the monarch and his or her entourage to suitably high standards was expected. Kissing up was a good idea. And gifts of cloth of gold, precious stones, or cold hard cash at high holidays was greatly appreciated. If you were a common subject, repaying the monarch’s favors might consist of blind loyalty if you were of little real use, or tolerating extended periods of royal non-payment for goods and services if you provided some sort of lowly service.   

Things went on pretty much in this way for some time. The aristocracy got richer, the newly rich were ennobled, and the more humble subjects got the occasional commemorative memorabilia and royal grants of land for use by “the public.” But somewhere along the way, things changed. All at once it became neither socially acceptable nor financially feasible for the monarchy to give away large gifts to select individuals, while the growing number of upwardly mobile loyal subjects found gift giving to be an innovative way of expressing physical gratitude (and possibly even ingratiating themselves, if the gift was generous enough) to the increasingly distant monarchy.  

Today, royal gift giving consists more of what the subjects give the monarchy (and what the members of the monarchy do with those gifts) than on what the monarch gives his or her subjects. Sure, most monarchs still confer titles and honors to their subjects and occasionally make public land grants; but how many monarchs buy their subjects – in general – wedding and birthday gifts, and – in particular – everything from jewelry to food to pets?  

So, given the improbability that any monarch is going to give his or her subjects individual gifts – not to mention make non-politically correct big ones to select individuals (at least publicly) – what do people expect to get in return for these royal gifts? Well, considering history, if either the person or the gift is humble, they can probably expect nothing but the sheer joy of giving. If the person and the gift are more generous, however, they might be the happy recipient of the honor of the royal presence, an invitation to the palace, or even official royal patronage. In the case of the latter, these individuals are more often than not wealthy foreign businessmen or officials with something to gain, as opposed to loyal subjects simply showing their respect or gratitude. For the former, however, there is innate folly in the act of giving a wealthy individual you don’t know who already has everything he or she could possibly wish for something you think “they might like,” no matter how outrageously expensive or adorably humble. It’s like buying off the wedding registry for a couple you hardly know. Chances are, it’s going to be either: a) returned/exchanged; b) “regifted”; or c) thrown in the trash.  

And herein lies the heart of the trouble with modern royal gift giving. The royals have enough stuff. They don’t need more. As generous as it may seem to give a gift, our ancestors probably had at least the basis of a better system – one where pledging your loyalty and support to one another was, literally, as good as gold.

Until next week, 

- Tori Van Orden Martínez