Susan Delacourt writes that Harry and Meghan's breaking away from the royal family is part and parcel of the populism that is sweeping the United Kingdom and the United States:
Here’s where we are, then, in Britain’s several, concurrently running independence sagas over these past few years: referendums (Brexit, Scottish independence) last forever; centuries-old royal obligations, not so much.
The logic linking these contradictory decisions revolves around populism, which is proving to be a stronger force than rules, duties or obligations — in Britain, yes, but also in the United States, where Donald Trump’s impeachment drama is a daily tug-of-war between populism and the law.
As anyone who has watched all three Netflix seasons so far of The Crown can tell you, the story of the royals over the 20th century was the tension between popular will and age-old tradition. The Queen, who has presided over this rich history, knows better than most how tradition has crumbled and adapted in the face of what the public wants or expects.
Harry and Meghan’s decision to live part of their lives in Canada, as part-time royalty, follows that evolution in the monarchy. Refusing them independence would have cost the monarchy dearly in popular currency.
The next people to break away, Delacourt predicts, will be the Scots. Boris Johnson has told them that there will be no second referendum on Scottish independence. But Johnson -- and Britain -- could well be victims of the forces they have unleashed:
We’ll see about that. I grew up with a Glasgow-born dad, and learned early that it’s not a great idea to tell a Scot what they cannot do. There’s a whole wing in Scotland’s national museum devoted to what the Scots invented when thwarted by the odds against them. (Basically, Western civilization.) While it’s been a few years since I covered the last Scots referendum in 2014, I predict that Johnson telling them they can’t have another vote may galvanize the desire to have one.
Populism breaks things up. And it's hard to predict what will happen to the pieces that it leaves behind.
Image: Travel Daily Media
6 comments:
Delacourt's reasoning seems a bit over the top to me. Populism breaking the Royal family? I think not. They have been doing that all by themselves for a long time. Britain's Royals are as dysfunctional as a TV soap. They are past their best before date. If anything, it has been popular demand keeping the Royals in place.
The Scots have had problems with England for several hundred years; nothing new in that.
I take your point, Toby. The royals have been slowly melting down for a long time. But the chaos and upset in the air has, I think, acted as a catalyst.
I personally couldn't give a tinker's cuss about Harry and Meghan. Nor does anyone else I know. But the Entertainment Tonight crowd whose life revolves around cooing about celebrities and posting nothingburgers on FB, are of course excited about them coming to live in Canada. The same kind of crew in England who read the Sun, Mirror and Daily Mail are annoyed at the pair's traitorous betrayal of Empire and the Queen. None of it matters one whit in the scheme of things.
Far more important is the Scottish issue of independence from English idiots like Boris running their lives. The English have always treated the Scots like second class citizens. My first road trip to Scotland in 1974 came as a shock when we reached the border. The wide motorway turned in to a Nova Scotia grade Trans Canada - just like that. It turned out that Westminster ran Scotland from the Scottish Office, which was nothing more than a single government ministry split up into depts like a municipality. Scotland was of zero importance to the English then. I've been back three times since then, and things had improved, and not before time. Of course the North Sea oil and gas royalties which the UK gratefully took might have made them spend a few more quid on Scotland out of emphathetic altruism. But I doubt it. More likely tourists like me had commented on the disparity and they were embarrassed. The US runs Puerto Rico with the same offhandedness.
Whether Boris and his merry band of far right wing dopes that the English dutifully voted in to rule over the UK like it or not, the Scots are going to have their way and get out from under the BS. Will it provoke an actual civil war? Who knows. Boris and the dastardly Rees-Mogg haven't got a single sensible clue between them, so they might provoke one by being obtusely upper crust public school twits. I hope not.
BM
The Scottish question is far more important than the question of wht happens to the royals, BM. And Boris doesn't seem to understand the crisis he has unleshed.
Boris wanted Brexit and the P.M. postion. Now he has them. Unfortunately he didn't think beyond that. Scotland wants to remain. My money says, they leave G.B. they'll still recognize the Queen, etc., but they will become an independent country, much like Canada and Australia. Boris will be P.M. over a much smaller country and if he doesn't watch out, wales could leave also. Be careful what you wish for.
As to the younger Windsor's never thought he'd stay with the family firm. He wants his own life and values the lives of his wife and child. He looks much more like the Spencers. Enough and leaves.
What's happening among the Windsors mirrors what's happening in the United Kingdom as a whole, e.a.f.
Post a Comment