The Unofficial British Royal Family Pages

Wednesday 24 March 2004

The Monarch: Symbol versus Celebrity

Well, well. Here we are, in the third or fourth year of the new millennium, depending on how you measure it, and Britain still has a monarchy. Is this a blessing for her or a dreadful accident of history? Is the monarch a symbol of continuity and tradition in the Great Scheme of things, or merely the ultimate celebrity?

The answer to that question is all in the perspective, of course. Monarchists are proud of the fact that the British royal tradition has continued for over 1,000 years. Indeed, for nearly 300 years (since George I in 1714), the same Hanoverian dynasty has continued in direct line, on the female side, down through the present-day Windsors. Quite an achievement.

Yet republicans consider it a curse that Britain still has her formal monarchy, when so many other nations have permanently lost theirs. In 1914, for example, most European countries were kingdoms. Now, less than 100 years later, the number of monarchies is a mere handful: Britain, Monaco, Norway, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands. And none of those is an absolute monarchy at all.

So monarchy as a form of government is in decline, the world over. Yet limited monarchy (a ceremonial component of a constitutional government)  is thriving. Why should this be? My humble opinion is that it has to do with the cult of celebrity in our age. Monarchs in many countries amount to superstars.

We tend to emulate other people. We aspire to be better when we see others being better. And so we make symbols out of people: symbols of what we want to be. Since these people are sometimes quite ordinary, we often make them larger than life. We celebrate people nowadays, not institutions.

This is perhaps why the world�s current symbols of celebration (celebrities) are movie stars, models and musicians. They appear to have it all: looks, good bodies, money, cool clothes, talent. We don�t see the character flaws, the vices, the sacrifices they made to get where they are, the reality behind the hype. We see only faces, not the histories behind them. And
celebrities are pretty interchangeable. They�re the flavors of the moment. They symbolize what we all want: beauty, fame, wealth. But only fleetingly. These flashes in the pan do not have any political power at all, nor any ability to last the course.

Just so, Diana, Princess of Wales, venerated and worshipped and mobbed, was by definition a celebrity. She had no political power, but she had looks, money, fame. She was a celebrity. And so, for a very brief while, she was a greater symbol of Britain than the monarch. Still, had she lived, her celebrity would undoubtedly have faded. Celebrity always seems to.

Are heads of state, and monarchs, celebrities? I think they are much more. Jacques Chirac may be a symbol of France, but you wouldn�t mob him to get his autograph. And it would be silly to hang around the back fence of the White House to get a glimpse of George W. Bush, powerful man though he is. Such as these have impacted much more than the pop culture of their times.

CEOs aren�t celebrities. They�re leaders, they�re powerful, they�re wealthy, their word is law to vast numbers of people, their companies are like their fiefdoms. But there is little of glamour or magic about most of them. We may envy their bank accounts, but we don�t worship these men and women.

Likewise, religious leaders. The Pope may be beloved of Catholics, a symbol of religious continuity, and a wise and compassionate leader, but to the rest of the world he is all too obviously a man, with a man�s frailties. Certainly John Paul II does not hold sway over the modern world as the medieval Popes did over all of Europe. His pronouncements cannot bring down governments, or send armies off to fight and die. The same applies to Protestant and Orthodox Christian leaders, the Dalai Lama, the Muslim ayatollahs, Jewish rabbinical councils, and all other modern-day religious patriarchs. They have great cultural and moral power in many instances, but they don�t rule all their faithful, nor set national trends, in the ancient,
absolute sense. The Taliban had no sway over the Muslims of Saudi Arabia; nor does a Baptist televangelist in America have any political power over English Protestants.

And nor, of course, does the British monarchy rule Britain absolutely. Its main function today is a ceremonial one. Political power in Britain is concentrated in the Prime Minister and the Parliament, who can declare war, send troops off to battle, and pass legislation. It�s done in the name of the monarch, of course, but that�s purely for the sake of historic tradition.

So, then, is the British monarch, who has no real political power, a celebrity? Certainly she is a celebrated symbol of her nation. Today her function is that of a figurehead of state, like the religious chiefs. She has great moral and cultural influence, and she is the official head of the state religion.

And yet, and yet... Elizabeth II is no celebrity, really. She is not a fashion plate. She isn�t young and hip. She doesn�t indulge in the vices of the rich and famous. She doesn�t make award-winning films or cutting-edge music videos. She doesn�t �make� anything at all. Not even laws.

But as a national symbol, she upholds the ancient tradition of monarchy. Keeps the flame lit, the home fires burning. Her looks may come and go, her wealth may be pared down a bit, her fame in comparison to her predecessors and successors may suffer, but her hereditary office endures. Even the magic of the monarchy has faded a bit, in recent years. But it still goes on, as
it has for a thousand years. And that is her role: to maintain it. To keep it just as it is, and always has been. Not to cheapen it or denigrate it or sell it. Not only has she maintained it, but she has kept it bright and shining, untarnished by time.

And you just can�t say that about celebrity. Perhaps it�s a disposable label, stuck on a package that will be tossed away. One can celebrate the moment, one can live in it, but it takes a lot of moments to make a symbol of living history. A monarch, and. a monarchy, that last.

- Mel Whitney