As leading royal historian David Starkey noted as soon as
baby George was born, the royal family is adapting. He believes, even hopes,
that when Charles is King, the House of Windsor will be a smaller, tighter
unit. Starkey celebrates the new royals, for their staunch support of tradition
as well as a refreshing commitment to change. The updated succession laws mean
that there is no longer any need for a large extended family, and the glamour
of Kate, William and baby George has only added to the revival of public
interest in the royals.
I believe, as do many, that this interest was sparked by
Diana, Princess of Wales. The people’s princess, she epitomised timeless style,
charisma and compassion. Dancing with John Travolta, picking her way through
potential active landmines, and speaking to the press with that characteristic
honesty that so irritated Buckingham Palace, Diana was the first ‘real’ royal.
She was beautiful, fragile, stubborn and human. Her marriage broke down like
countless others, and she spoke frankly of her battle with depression. Her
infamous comments about her “crowded” marriage of three people – referring to
Charles’ love for Camilla Parker-Bowles – helped form the public opinion that
is so positive towards Diana and her sons, and often frosty towards Charles,
with whom the public appear to have adopted a ‘forgive but don’t forget’
policy.
When Catherine Middleton, known affectionately to us all as
Kate, stepped onto the scene, opinion was initially unsure, perhaps a little
wary of this newcomer, but as she stepped out of hospital with her baby son
cradled in her arms, she must have felt herself the wave of love and warmth
generated by the crowds of well-wishers. She was quite clearly the public’s new
favourite, exuding the glamour we had all craved since Diana, and her dresses,
often affordable, high street designs, prove this as they still sell out
immediately after she wears them. It is clear to anyone that today’s Great
Britain belongs to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge; like Mo Farah or Clare
Balding, they are seen to epitomise our nation, and represent everything that
is great about Great Britain.
The big question, therefore, is will the monarchy survive?
Has it seen it’s hey-day, or will a public desire for tradition keep it afloat
for many years to come? Peter Hitchens, in the Comment section of The Mail on
Sunday, writes that “the Windsors will be history soon”, and his argument is convincing.
He points out that no political party supports the monarchy, few still hold on
to the idea that the monarchy is divinely chosen, and many countries in Europe
are now governed as republics: a monarchy appears to be a dying breed. The
Queen is, as Hitchens puts it, “the nation’s favourite grandma”, but writes
that this popularity is personal to her, and will not pass on to Charles. I
find that here, I have to agree with him. Kate, William and the new baby, with
their personal family portraits taken by grandfather Michael Middleton, are
popular enough now, but for how long? Will the Great British public tire of the
monarchy soon, and will the whole institution, as Hitchens believes, come to an
end?
Like Hitchens, I am a keen monarchist, but possibly, although
the arrival of George Alexander Louis of Cambridge is the start of a new
chapter for the royal family, it is one in which they feature less and less. In
2012 we all celebrated with the royals the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, but as for
the next 60 years, we will have to wait and see. Will the monarchy survive the
next decade, the next century? We cannot be sure right now, but what can be
seen is that opinion appears to be mixed: we love our royals, but can we see,
in them, a bright and shining Great British future?
No comments:
Post a Comment