In our founding Revolution, thousands of American fighters died horribly right in New York harbor, left to rot in prison ships by our British, then-colonial masters. (You can visit their memorial in Fort Greene Park). The ten-thousand man British Army, that occupied New York City for eight years, committed multiple gang rapes of American women and girls, whom they considered "spoils of war" for their attacks. I often wonder how Thomas Paine or Samuel Adams, were they to return today, would react to the 21st century American media's never ending celebration of the British Royals.
10
Off with their heads!
4
"It is a valediction, forbidding mourning, to British preeminence and self-regard."
A lovely quote slipped in gracefully by Mr. Harvey.
7
A wonderful, insightful article about a writer who gets it so very right. The Crown, Nixon/Frost... perfection.. Thank you Peter Morgan and thank you Giles Harvey... thank you @nyt
6
I'm in tune with all the accolades cited here and elsewhere, but I'd like to add a more modest reason I have been enjoying the first season of The Crown: It comes as a relief to watch a Netflix series that focuses on human interactions rather than on violence, killings, and drug-related mayhem. Netflix would do well to provide more series featuring human dramas created by a skilled writer and a production team that honor Britain's great theatre traditions.
21
The gratuitous anti-monarchism displayed by the journalist is offensive and out of place. Many people feel that monarchy, with its emphasis on family and traditions worth preserving, coupled with a much-needed ability to put politicians in their place, remains supremely relevant. The Queen remains a far more effective, inspiring, and admirable Head of State than nearly any other on the world stage. I’m sure a majority of Americans would prefer her to Trump, and would even Britons want Boris Johnson as some sort of ghastly President? When covering a Netflix series many people watch, it would behoove the writer to consider that part of its appeal lies in the impeccable character of its protagonist
9
Well one could make an interesting series just analysing nearly every sentence here
t^ I m glad we haven’t kicked them out^ says Morgan the scriptwriter r. The reason for that is they already are ^out^ and have been since the English Revolution 0f 1688 when Parliament threw out the new King and invited in a Dutch nobleman on condition he rubber stamped completely every law Parliament passed He was given limited powers but otherwise was a figure head The last of these powers(to choose the military head) was removed from Queen Victoria just after her Coronation in 1837
Any monarch who disobeyed Parliament would be out today within a week or even morning The most popular King in recent history King Edward VIII three weeks in 1936 for Parliament to throw him out because he wanted to marry a twice divorced American woman Mrs Simpson
In 1870 at the height of Victorias apparent influence the greatest British Constitutional writer Walter Bagehot was asked by an American visitor ^When was Britain going to become a Republic like America?^ Bagehot answered ^Its been a Republic since our revolution in 1688^ End of story
The interesting thing about ^ the Royals ^ is how they cope living with all the flunkiness yet full knowledge that they are nothing. It’s an interestingly weird conundrum Prince William and his family spend more time with his wifes family, prosperous in business than other Royals recognising these absurdities.
(But they make Americans feel superior)
4
The only way in which being queen of England is not easy is managing to perpetuate the deception that she is important
5
The monarchy: restored in 1660 …..
The monarchy has been relevant since the monarchy was restored in 1688.
What is irrelevant - except for succession - is the family of the monarch and all their entitled, silly shenanigans.
5
@Makeda Sorry Makeda! you have got it wrong! Exactly the opposite was true I wont go into the details (see Wiki article on King William and Queen Mary)
After years of King James II causing trouble trying to reassert the ^Divine Right(Power) of Kings^etc and restoring the Catholic religion Parliament finally threw him out and he left England to live and die in Catholic France
Parliament then INVITED a Dutch/English nobleman William (married to the previous kings daughter Mary to reign together However they had to sign and agree to a Bill of Rights that established freedom of speech,made them as Monarchs sign every Law passed by Parliament and be paid (almost as employees )by Parliament they also could not allow their heirs to be Protestant
This Bill of Rights is the foundation of British and American freedom of speech
It is the removal of power from the Monarch and its replacement by Parliament elected by first a few then all the people that is the basis for all democracy's in the world today
I realise Americans love to think that they created modern democracy but unfortunately thats not true
Since 1688 Parliament rules absolutely and England /Britain has been a Republic although not in name
The monarchy are important in symbolising Britains long and enormously important history in the world yet have absolutely no power Since 1688they cant be thrown out..they already have been!!
As I said in my comment it must be quite weird for them knowing they are ^ nobodys!^
3
@truthlord Im very sorry that I made one absurd mistake saying that William and Mary had to promise ^to not allow their heirs to be brought up as PROTESTANT^ That is of course the exact opposite..they and all monarchs were not to allow their heirs to be brought up as CATHOLICS! sorry for my silly mistake.
Incidentally I think that law about religion was changed recentlyin my comment
I've very happily watched and re-watched both seasons, and I find few faults with the production values, the presumably historically accurate events depicted, etc. But I had a problem with Vanessa Kirby who plays Princess Margaret.
Googling tells me Kirby is 5'7" and the princess was shorter than the monarch, and may have been no more than 5'2" in real life. So I'm happy to see the 5'2" Bonham-Carter in Season Three as Margaret because verisimilitude matters. It was for this reason Matt Smith as Philip was smashing.
3
Seasons 1 and 2 of The Crown were wonderful and I expect likewise for season 3. Olivia Coleman will be her usual phenomenal self, I'm sure. The Monarchy in England separates the public's desire for celebrity watching from the actual governance of the nation; I think that is a good thing. Voters are more likely to focus on competence and policies, instead of personality. I admit that I'm a true fan of the Queen and feel she has carried out her duties gracefully and soberly.
8
I enjoyed Season 1 of "The Crown" although I've yet to find time for Season 2. In this age of cheap reality shows, it's a feast for the eyes and to see elaborate sets and costumes.
It's TV at its best to see the scene where Queen Mary of Teck bows to her granddaughter, QE II, after the death of her son King George IV; truly a tingles-producing moment
I adore that old warhorse Queen Elizabeth II. She is, by far, my favorite celebrity. She didn't ask to be queen, and yet, she took on an inherently ridiculous role and has performed it, as far as I can tell, dutifully and flawlessly, including in the immediate aftermath of the death of Princess Diana.
I live my life as and among the poor and obscure. Still, I wouldn't trade my life to be QE II, no matter the extraordinary level of luxury and privilege she inhabits.
The Disney employee who is hired to don the Mickey Mouse costume knows that their shift will end, they can take off the costume, and tag -off to the next person whose shift it is.
That luxury isn't available to the Queen. She's Queen Elizabeth II 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
The phrase "the end of an era" has become a trite cliche, but it truly will be an appropriate saying when Q E II dies.
125
@Jung and Easily Freudened
It's called abdication. If she really wanted out, she could retire to play with her dogs and breed horses. Obviously, she is doing this for a reason.
8
@Riley A sense of duty to her country versus herself. Something that is becoming increasingly rare in general and is completely gone in the current US White House and GOP.
29
@Riley I'm fairly certain she stays is because abdication would strip the monarchy of (what remains of) its sway. Times are very different from those when Edward VIII abdicated. If the Queen were to give up her job before she gives up the ghost she would be reduced to the level of a mere retiree, a mortal. And that would be the end of an institution that relies on an aura of magic to survive (the Queen herself is rumored to believe that she was divinely appointed).
6
The first two seasons were great TV, and I shall ride this show out to its conclusion. As a aside I was born the year Elizabeth took the crown. As an avid reader of history, I can only hope that someone watches this show and turns Robert Caro's books on LBJ into an equally fascinating drama.
120
@Douglas Ritter
LBJ, great subject for a mini series, especially if someone could persuade Ava Duvernay to take the helm.
6
@kb
LOL . Duvernay needs some history lessons before she tackles an LBJ mini-series.
4
"The Crown," has been a rare, unexpected treat in that it humanizes the British royal family, stripping away the veil that covers their gilded cage and exposing the personalities that lie within. I suspect even the royals are watching but, like most of us, must look away at times when the emotions are too raw. I'm especially looking forward to Olivia Colman's performance as the queen.
I second another poster in thinking LBJ would be a good subject for a similar series. He is perhaps the most conflicted president since Abraham Lincoln and his legacy looms over the USA's recent history far more than any president since FDR.
106
@M Davis
LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act knowing it would end his career in the Senate. He went home and died of a stroke. He remembered the poor people he knew in hill country Texas, and he gave them the vote. For that, he deserves to be honored.
24
Recently saw “The Great Society” at Lincoln Center in NYC with Brian Cox (HBO’s “Succession”) as LBJ. A fascinating show. Possibly the basis for such a tv series.
4
I woke early this morning and thoroughly enjoyed immersing myself in Mr. Harvey's close look at an excellent programme about a real monarchy rather than delving into front page reports on the sordid mess of a wannabe emperor.
An excellent piece of feature writing that lifts the curtain on the show through the brain of its creator.
131
Having watched the first two seasons, I was amazed, first of all, by Claire Foy's amazing performance as the young Queen Elizabeth and, also, how well the script portrayed with great accuracy the various events that involved England and the royal family.
I look forward to seasons 3 and 4 with great anticipation.
One other possible explanation for the endurance of the royals: despite their flaws and ostentations, the overwhelming excesses, the constant gossip in the British media; despite all that, I do believe that the mere presence of the Crown provides an enduring sense of continuity in a nation without a written constitution. I can't imagine Great Britain without the royal family, as personified by Queen Victoria of another time, and Queen Elizabeth for these fraught times.
170
I'll miss Claire Foy. Well done your Majesty!
5
I imagine Mr. Zelensky would rather go back to comedy routines after the Trump meat grinder.
Royalty. Glorified parasites anointed by divine intervention. But makes a pleasant hour of diverting fantasy entertainment.
4
@Macbloom
The most stable democracies in the world are generally considered to be Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Japan. High standards of living, low crime rates, outstanding education and healthcare, little government corruption. See where I am heading here? Monarchies, all of them. Seems to be a system that apparently works in some places.
6
Calling Canada, New Zealand, and Australia monarchies is a stretch. All of them are best described as parliamentary democracies. The “monarchs” are powerless remnants of a past history.
3
@Macbloom
No doubt there are enlightened monarchies that have evolved into worthy constitutional democracies. The problem is about glorifying a royalty class that sees themselves appointed by god and not submissive to the constitutional state.
2
Gandhi had the last word with the Royals. Upon his arrival at Buckingham Palace for an audience with King Edward, Gandhi clad in his simple half naked homespun was told that he did not have sufficient clothing for a Royal Audience. His response was that there would be no need to be concerned, the King would be wearing enough clothes for the both of them.
29
I'm not a monarchist but the thought has crossed my mind that it's useful to have someone in the government that's thinking on multi-generational terms.
19
The great value about the monarchy is that it provides a useful national symbol and obviates the necessity of treating politicians as worthy of veneration.
Better a constitutional monarch than a dictator.
24
@Augusta Umanski
“Better a constitutional monarch than a dictator” ??
Well, a legal, rights based constitutional “anything” is better than a dictator. Trouble is a monarch based system could sooner or later try to slither its way back into power. Remember they see themselves divinely anointed by a higher power than the state.
2
"It is nice to look at (much nicer, certainly, than the real Britain), but what puts Morgan’s saga in a class of its own is not the luster of its surfaces but the daring with which it lifts the curtain on the whole royal enterprise."
Huh? Nicer than the "real Britain?" Is that like "real America?" Have you been to the beautiful British Isles?
Morgan does not in any way "lift a curtain on the whole royal enterprise." How can one "life a curtain" on something that they themselves have fictionalized?
What Morgan is doing is current historical fiction. FICTION. Just like that which Shakespeare did and any apple-polisher does.
5
@bgraham , UK has ben on a downward slide for a long time. If the royal family gives back everything they own to the British treasury than perhaps their per capita income will not be as far behind ($26,000) than their Irish cousins. But, I doubt if their hangers on would ever permit it.
3
Loved the Crown —and the Queen. I always felt, though, that while Piers Morgan expresses his reservations about the Monarchy, there is so much in the series that reinforces the old notion of the divine right of kings, especially in the pomp and ceremony of the coronation. And I am struck by the fact that Elizabeth was born in the same year as Miles Davis and Marilyn Munroe. Wonderful that she is still around
6
@GeoFfrey James: Piers Morgan is a TV presenter. Peter Morgan is the showrunner for The Crown.
3
I've been uneasy about the considerable liberties taken by Morgan, in this and other works, about historical figures. One of the worst, enough to put me off the whole thing, was a scene showing Churchill telling George VI "An empty cab pulled up to Number 10, and Clement Attlee got out". It's based on a story related by Jock Colville, but not wholly:
". . . Churchill’s private secretary came to him with a story men were guffawing over in the London clubs: “An empty taxi drew up outside Number Ten, Downing Street, and when the door opened, Attlee got out.”
"Churchill did not smile. There was an “awful” pause before his reply. “Mr. Attlee,” he said, “is an honourable and gallant gentleman, and a faithful colleague who served his country well at the time of her greatest need. I should be obliged if you would make it clear whenever an occasion arises that I would never make such a remark about him, and that I strongly disapprove of anybody who does.”
(NYTBR, August 28, 1983, "Modern Britain’s Chief Architect" by Godfrey Hodgson, p.8)
Churchill's language was specific and exact. "Honourable" referred to Attlee's long service in Parliament and his wartime service as Deputy Prime Minister. "Gallant" referred to Attlee's service in the Great War; twice wounded in action and awarded the Military Cross for bravery.
Churchill would have been equally appalled to be shown stealing a mot made originally about the anorexic Sarah Bernhardt in the 1890's.
11
Elizabeth II has been one of the noblest figures of her lifetime. End of discussion. Talk about a life of service!
33
@Fred White
Her life of service began when she was still Princess Elizabeth. She stayed in London during the Blitz; she learned how to work on jeeps. She became Queen at a very young age; she accepted the role and the unending responsibility it entailed. She is 96 yrs. old, dignified and scandal free. She represents continuity to the British; they respect her, even love her for the predictable dignity she shows to the world. I agree with you; she is a noble person due much respect. Compare her life of service to the corrupt grifter who now pretends to be a Head of State. He visited England and walked in front of the Queen whose home he was going to visit. His boorishness is on constant display. No doubt the Queen took it in stride; she owes nothing to a crude American President; she has seen other Presidents who were gracious and dignified.
20
@Linda Miilu
The Queen, who was born in 1926, is only 93. Her husband Priince Philip is the one who's 96.
4
@Nancy Robertson Philip is 98
The author certainly does seem to have a bias against the institution of the British monarchy and the symbolism it provides. It is a form of faith, and for those who don’t share in it, it seems absurd. For those that do, it seems a natural, and special, human social function.
10
@Stephen Obviously he is a British subject and therefore qualified to comment.
2
@Lauren Paul: I didn't see where Stephen claimed the author wasn't allowed to express his opinion about the British Monarchy (regardless of Mr. Harvey's nationality).
@Lauren Paul: I don't recall anything in Stephen's post stating the author wasn't allowed to express his opinion about the British Monarchy.
When I raised the subject, he mentioned a BBC lecture by the historical novelist Hilary Mantel. “History is not the past — it is the method we have evolved of organizing our ignorance of the past,” Mantel told her audience. “It’s the record of what’s left on the record. … It is no more ‘the past’ than a birth certificate is a birth, or a script is a performance, or a map is a journey.”
That's a great and quite accurate quote.
25
I didn't find The Crown to be a persuasive piece of evidence for the Royals' "relevance." Yawn.
2
Britain has an entire industry devoted to maintaining the myth of their monarchy. From the silly uniforms worn by the guards regiments (Amish-like, they have frozen the uniform of the Crimean War as the permanent look) to the relentless and sycophantic biopics (is there a single king or queen that has not had a movie, play or miniseries biography?), the monarchy industry works tirelessly to maintain the public perception that the queen is needed to keep the whole country from crashing down. Why so many people in the U.S. consume this propaganda with such devotion is lost on me. I like the regular British people and actually kind of like this queen, but the monarchy and upper classes seem like a complete waste to me.
21
@Joe Oh, Joe. You conflate so many issues into one stew. The crown is simply the mechanism for power to be exercised. The crown retains all executive power, but may now only be exercised by a government that has the confidence of the House of Commons. Loyalty is sworn to the sovereign and not to a constitution - see where your GOP senators' loyalty lies. Even the party in opposition to the government is know as "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" and is not described as being traitors to the state.
As for uniforms and conduct of the Guards Regiments, it compares well with the blue dress uniforms of American units as they shuffle around a parade square.
7
@Paul Despite what you say so condescendingly, the "crown" is an anachronistic and essentially undemocratic institution that allows people living under it to believe there is a higher (perhaps "ordained") loyalty than to mundane government and civil service. The primary function of the monarchy is to perpetuate itself.
I don't consider the self-serving GOP senators loyal to the country or the constitution, which sadly protects them in their disloyalty. But that is little different from the conservative MPs who use their power and position to alter the rules to their benefit.
As to the guards regiments, they are a tourist showpiece and a place for the sons of rich aristocracy to kill time until they can take a place in a firm run by their own old boys network. I lived there, knew people in the British Army and witnessed it all. And no amount of strutting around in front of a palace changes that.
2
@Joe Sorry Paul and Joe you both get it wrong England /Britain have a written Constitution but its found in several places as I have been boringly saying its mainly found in the Bill of Rights that followed the English revolution that was the start of American independence
The British government threw out their King in 1688 and made him into a government puppet so why dont we throw out all connections with Britain and go our own way as an ndependent nation
Incidentally one thing to show how even little things from Britain control you
In the 1600s the English Protestant Parliament was alwys irritated by King James II always trying to get more and more Catholics into government etc to make England a Catholic nation again.Parliamentf finally they introduced a law that said All Protesant citizens have the right to bear arms and this the law throughout the British American colonies.laterKing James II angered by this Introduced his own law saying All Catholic citizens had the right to bear arms but this was wiped out when he was thrown out in 1688 The original law remained in all of America however. When the US Constitution was beincreated it was naturally except for the slavery bits a coy of the British constituion but what to do about the right of Protestants to bear arms? The Americans decided to slightly change it to ^all citizens^History is not always boring!
I believe the apt remark Prince Charles made to Morgan when handing over his medal was a thoughtful one. Prince Charles is an intelligent, hard working man who does his homework. I’ve no doubt he read up on all the honorees and came up with a personal remark for each of them. Yes, this is a job, diplomacy, public relations..all done in person to underline the better angels of the country....not by twitter
24
Pure fantasy....akin to any sci-fi movie. The Brits were savage colonizers, brutal imperialists, presided over by the Queen. I guess now with Brexit that's going to render the UK irrelevant, nostalgia for something that was rotten to the core is all they've got now...
9
@Davinder
No doubt you think the Cheney-Bush attack on Iraq which was not part of the 9/11 attack was a brave enterprise. It was a brazen brutal attempt to secure another country's oil resources. Of course the Saudis who bankrolled the murder of more than 2,000 Americans were allowed to fly home from FL when all flights were grounded. Now we have a President in bed with a KGB thug, and a sheik who ordered the murder and dismemberment of a Saudi dissident residing in the U.S. Trump admires Putin, MBS, Duterte et al. Trump dishonors all those who fought and died in WWII; he dishonors men who fought and died in Korea and in Vietnam. My cousin, a Marine, lost his best friend in Vietnam. They didn't have a quack doctor to certify fake bone spurs. Time will tell how far into the sewer of criminality, corruption and general malfeasance Trump will drag the United States. Of there is always the chance he will be felled by one too many 'hamberders' and bags of fries.
4
@Davinder Oh dear this is embarrassing..There was continuous starvation small level starvation in British India but today about 200 million Indians go to bed hungry each night because of the caste system..check UN reportsmass slaughters in Ruanda 300.000 an estimated million killed ,half a million killed in wars between Huti and Tutsis South Sudan maybe 500,000 dead plus of course the 2million dead when Idia became indepedent and its three wars with Pakistan and another one brewing...The British were always a class conscious people in the past to their own population even but the nonsense pumped out about the past and the post independence horrors dont compare
1
Do please forgive me, Royalty Relevant, what decade/timewarp am I living in?
6
I'm a big fan of THE CROWN however IF Prince Philip is the "most likable character" in the latest series then something is seriously at odds with the truth. Anyway, I can't wait to see for myself - imagine, Prince Philip as "likable" already makes me smile.
11
Watching the first episode of “The Crown”, it dawned on me that the British royals are the ur-Kardashians. They are also famous for being famous. They provide a spectacle to entertain their viewers and the whole show is heavily choreographed and scripted. However, the British royals deserve less credit than the Kardashians, who built their own careers rather than being born into them.
The whole spectacle is a reality show, but I suspect that many of the players have bought into some of the myth (unlike the Kardashians).
I think that viewership will tail off once the queen dies as none of the supporting actors have the charisma to take her place (and unlike the Kardashians who can vary the script to focus on different members of the cast, the British law of primogeniture means that the gormless Charles will have to play the lead after mummy dies, rather than turn the spotlight to his marginally more interesting son). I think the show will be cancelled a few years later. Maybe the Duchess of Sussex can have a spin-off based loosely on “Who’s the boss”.
1
@Shiv The Kardashians are amazing. I am not a fan, but I am in awe of their creation. The crown takes what is available and puts the sovereign into the yolk of service. George IV was a poor monarch but his elderly brother, as King William IV, did well. Edward VII after a long and troublesome wait had a brilliant reign. Edward VIII was a popular Prince of Wales but an awful and self indulgent king, as well as being the third mate on an American tramp. His brother died young from his devotion to the unsought burdens of wartime service. We'll only know the qualities of George VII (Charles long ago commented he'd take his grandfather's regnal name) should he ascend to the throne.
4
Royals are certainly history, but they should be nowhere near governance, nor even the appearance of governance, as in the UK. Notwithsatnding the supposed utterance of the France-born, maladjusted, and insecure monarch of Shakespeare's imagination, that was no, "disavowing of his monarchic singularity", but merely a head fake.
There exits no cultural, political, nor moral force in Great Britain capable of diminishing the slide of the monarchy toward irrelevance. Tourism's pounds, dollars, and euros are simply the shiny objects that distract us from the real defect--the actual characters. Whether they be dissolute wastrels, or erudite scholars of the highest rank, they continue to be imbued with singular attributes that exist only in our imaginings.
Let them go. Nationalize thle residential properties, endow them with generous pensions, and say goodbye and thank you for 953 years of royal living. Carry on with the trouping of the Union Jacks and the changing of the guards. There are enough battlefields, monuments, art collections, museums, cathedrals, walls, and archives to serve history's eye to the future and tourism's appetite for revenue.
6
@JS I realise the editors of these comments have limits but please Mr JS other thousands read my comments here which The Crownrubbish totally ignores
Understand ..In the 1600s there was continuous conflict beween the Monarchs who still thought they had a Divine Right of Power given them by God to rule England usually as Catholics and the Parliament which was elected admittedly by a small number of fairly rich or important people usually Protestants
Finally King James II went too farbecoming a Catholic and asserted his right as King to make laws and make England officially a Catholic nation again.
This was too much for Parliament and they ordered him out.He left for France where he died
Parliament then INVITED William a Dutch/English nobleman to symbolically invade England with his English Protestant wife Mary
This was under condition they totally obeyed Parliaments new bill of Rights that guaranteed freedom of speech,that they would sign ALL parliaments Laws without question,that they would be paid a salary by Parliament (even if rich themselves to show they were only Parliments employees like the present Q ueen is paid a salary,and all future kings would be Protestants
Since 1688 England /Britain has been a Republic though not by name Its 1688 revolution is responsible largely for Americas independence ,the French revolution and all world democracy.
The British (and Monarchs) are fully aware of this total empty absurdity but respect its nationalistic symbolism
2
Who says the monarchy isn't relevant? Queen Elizabeth has a worldwide influence. She has something no Hollywood star can ever have. Is it her incredible restraint? Her modesty?
35
@Grittenhouse modesty, what a lovely rare attribute, I don’t think I’ve heard or read the word in a decade
11
@Grittenhouse or, heaven forfend, manners. What a concept. Long live the Queen!
15
Nobody makes biopics like the Brits - and I say that as a compliment.
13
Americans have Donald Trump as head of state; the UK has the Queen (as do Canada, Australia, New Zealand and odds and ends from Empire.
While Americans are kings of celebrity their understanding of monarchy is nil. The Queen embodies nation and constitution and commonwealth and church. She is the unwritten constitution. Every week since the death of George VI in February 1952 she has reviewed all cabinet documents and advised her prime ministers from Winston Churchill to Boris Johnson and all those chief ministers have sung her praises.
The monarch sees everything and can advise, encourage and "warn". During the world war, George VI had to ask Churchill to not advise the Crown on war plans.
The Prince of Wales has drawn truly vicious and uninformed attacks or bringing in organic farming to his Duchy of Corwall lands, defending alternative medicine, early activism on globlal warning, lengthy and learned commentary on architecture and urban planning.
For decades Charles has been at the forefront of social justice. His Youth Business Trust gives business start-up loans to unemployed inner-city youth, the disabled, and persons with criminal records--people not usually sought out by banks. The trust has launched 30,000 small enterprises and recorded an annual growth rate of 25 per cent.
The Queen's favourite prime ministers are said to be Churchill and Harold Wilson, both friends of the poor.
31
@Doug Broome
I think you are overstating the political influence of the Queen. Look at the so called Queen's speech. She gives it in a monotone voice, showing neither approval or disapproval. So when Thatcher was PM she gave the Tory vision for the UK. When Blair was in power, the labour.
Brexit is one of the most momentous decisions in decades for the people of the UK. What is the view of the Crown? Nobody knows. Why? Because the moment she steps into the political realm she or he, is trying to excersize power and that is not allowed. She can give all the advice she wants but every PM knows that that advice will never become public so they can ignore it completely without any consequences.
So technically she is the head of government but practically she has no ability to shape what the government does. It is strictly a figurehead position. If some mayor gives you the key to the city it doesn't mean it unlocks any doors.
7
Ingeresting. Until now, I thought that the foremost authority on the royal and upper-lass customs is Major Genral Alastair Bruce of Crionaich, Governor of Edinburgh Castle and historical advisor to the TV series Downton Abbey. Well, there is always room for more than one expert.
1
Having lived through Nixon, Clinton, Bush, and Trump, I think the Brits have found the perfect solution to the problem of egregious heads of state who need to be overthrown.
The person of the monarch symbolizes 12 centuries of national continuity in spite of those overthrows. No simple inauguration ritual communicates that sense of a national commitment to the nation itself, and a national (even divine) interest in staging a coup whenever whenever the head of state being inaugurated is a major goofball.
7
@Sequel I think if you look at their history the "continuity" argument doesn't hold water. Families have come and gone as the monarchs. The genetic connection between Henry VIII and the current queen probably is negligible. And it is no "perfect solution to the problem of egregious heads of state" unless you choose to forget that so many of the monarchs were autocrats, playboys or spendthrifts.
6
For all the comments against the British monarchy, don’t forget that the royal family attracts a tremendous amount of tourist income. London itself would be a much lesser pull without them.
And many Brits are favorably inclined toward the royals, particularly QEII. If the monarchy could survive the Royal Fools — Margaret, Edward & Wallis — they can surmount anything.
Many cultures enjoy the idea of someone, steeped in tradition, they can admire.
Our U.S. Royal Fool would love to have the same admiration. But it ain’t gonna happen, MAGA and gold toilets notwithstanding.
20
I grew up in a Republic and so the notion of a Monarchy makes absolutely no sense to me. But i do know this. Other then as a national symbol she, or soon to be he, has no actual political power. And if the majority of people wanted them gone they have the political tools to be rid of monarchy. Parliament controls the budget. Parliament could change things if they chose to and the royals could do nothing to stop them. So whatever their reasons, History, tradition, or simply because they prefer it the fact that the people on the whole seem to want the Royals to remain as they are is good enough for me. I don't get it , but it's up for the people of the UK to decide what they want and so far they seem to prefer the status quo. It's is up to them to decide.
11
OMG The Crown is Fantastic. So well written-converges history in such a way that keeps you mesmerized --as if you don't know ending when you do. Excellent Cast--definitely makes the Queen Exemplary.
16
The British monarchy is "relevant" to (most) Brits only because of its ceremonial role, and because where the rest of us see anachronism they see tradition. To anyone outside Britain, it's just another form of gossipy entertainment, and one which I've had quite enough of. Just because they have fancy frocks, fancy houses and stiff upper lips doesn't mean we should forever watch films about them. Basta.
7
@S North
Europe remains a collection of free nations due to Churchill and the Brits alliance with FDR in WWII. British soldiers died in WWII; young British pilots died over the Channel fighting the Luftwaffe; Britain stood against Hitler and remained a bastion of freedom and democratic governance. No one expects you to watch the Crown; no expects you to admire the British who rescued their men from Dunkirk to fight another day. British Royals have always served in the military; they have managed public lands well; they have presented continuity for the British people. Basta? Is that Italian? Other than the Italian fighters in the mountains, what part did Italy play in saving the free world in Europe? Italy can't even keep a government running with corrupt officials at every level. You might want to try a little of that stiff upper lip and dignity the Brits showed during the Blitz.
6
It isn't easy being anyone. I don't understand why I should feel "poor Queen of England" she really doesn't have a say on the matter when everyone experiences this same situation whatever your job/vocation is minus the glamour and the glitz. At least she never needs to worry what her children will eat, where they would sleep, and what clothes they would wear, and if schooling is a possibility.
9
@AA
Trump's family of entitled grifters won't have to worry about what their children will eat, where they will sleep or go to school in crime infested inner city neighborhoods. They lounge around NYC, sometimes in D.C., and take trips to ski slopes on AF One. Trump's resort in FL must be doing well now that it is the real WH. His failing resort in Scotland was used as a base for our military who could not afford to eat there; they were yanked from comfortable digs in the UK where they could afford to eat and drink at local pubs. I would put money on the table that Trump will never return to NY where the So. Dist. of NY has all of Mueller's files regarding Trump. How many indictments and jail terms under Trump's Cabinet? How many scandal provoked resignations? How many honorable people have walked away, i.e. Mattis and McMasters? How many public lands will be fouled with oil wells? How many National Parks will deteriorate for lack of funding and staff? How many waterways will be open to pollution now that the EPA has been gutted? How much tax will be inflicted on the future generations after so much damage from corporations given permanent tax gifts? The stench in D.C. will pollute our air for decades.
6
In the face of the forces behind Brexit, the English Monarchy represents a statement, a promise to the return of class and nationalism. One once again raising its ugly head once again as the sins, TOTAL destruction, and horrors of 2 World Wars fade from memory. Putin’s systematic long-term plan to firmly and decisively reinstate Russia as a world power, rising from the ashes of the USSR follows suit.
History is not so easily left behind. Nearly every European power has an empire and subsequent colonialism in their past, one habitual seen in glorious nationalistic terms that only the dominant cultures in those equations can.
The US certainly had its own colonialism and class/identity issues, one intertwined with, “The American Dream,” but our 300-year history is a blip compared to the 2-3 millennia history of empires and conflict of Europe. But a return to a time when White male het privilege wasn’t under constant assault is shared.
I doubt without a monarchy, the UK would even be talking about Brexit.
The realities are that most of this history was drenched in blood, cavernous inequality, profound social injustices, complete with slavery, debtor’s prisons, and mental health institutions where arranging for your wife to get a lobotomy was seen as preferable to the scarlet letter of divorce upon the family.
That is what the English Monarchy truly symbolizes, and its one better defined by Dickens than Bobbies at attention around the palace taking pictures with tourists.
10
Many years ago an American photographer was to be honored and introduced to Elizabeth along with many other lucky ones. She shook his hands and said "What a coincidence; I have a brother-in-law who is a photographer." He replied: "Ma'am, that IS a coincidence; I have a brother-in-law who is a queen."
56
That was hilarious, thanks!
8
I look forward to the next series like the next Bond film or Starwars. Long Live the Queen!
7
I would like to add that the presences of Judi Dench and of course, MAGGIE SMITH would also be worthy additions to any future episodes, and thanks to Eileen Atkins for bringing Queen Mary to us. These Dames are simply great dames. To any whom I have neglected to include, I beg your forgiveness. It is always a great pleasure to hear proper English spoken, where verbs are verbs, nouns are nouns, requests are not "asks", a gift is given and not "gifted", and most important and getting harder and harder to find...everyone knows the proper personal pronouns to use. Yay the UK, because America is a lost cause when it comes to grammar. It is no longer taught in school, I am told, and every twisted sentence wriggling out of mouths all over the media is more than proof that this is true. Even editors seem to not notice or care..here.
13
That does not excuse living off the back of regular citizens.
4
@JMF
The Royals don't live off the people; they are self supporting. They support good public land use; they support educational institutions; they bring in tourist money; they act as diplomats; they present something the British people support; they tend to be literate and polite. I would gladly give them Trump in exchange for the Queen, Princes William and Harry; or even some of the better members of Parliament.
5
Take home message: It's not easy being an anachronism. So just stop it already.
8
I love this show. No matter what your thoughts are about modern monarchy, it's an excellently paced, witty, compelling, well-acted drama. Thank you Mr. Morgan. (And Claire Foy and Matt Smith.) So looking forward to the third season.
20
Wow. This was an excellent article. I'm glad the screenwriter decided to do the interview. I didn't realize some of my favorite screenplays were all from the same person. As a history major who loves dramas about British history, thank you so much, Mr. Morgan!
8
I loved season 1 and the amazing John Lithgow but this show lost me in season 2 when it focused on Charles' trials and tribulations at boarding school. It became rather obvious that this is a story about people who just don't do all that much. It's Peak TV people. There are great stories being told. The Royals are simply not that compelling.
3
Can't wait for season 3. I watch everything from Mr Morgan.
10
So much PR work to get UK public (and us Yanks) to accept as palatable King Charles and Queen Camilla (and to forget Diana- and related Henry VIII-style marital ethics). So glad we overthrew the royals 240+ years ago.
19
@Fran Cisco
So glad we have a President who represents marital fidelity, decency, manners, transparency, and loyalty to those who fought with us, i.e. the Kurds. So proud of Trump, Ivanka, Don, Jr, and Jared. What a relief to be rid of those long married loving Obamas and their scandal free daughters. I am so excited to open the Antarctic to oil drilling, even if a drill punctures the ocean floor, releases toxic methane gas and kills all Marine life. So happy to know that Trump will provide rakes for Federal forest rangers. Trump is so right to roll back emission standards, even if automotive manufacturers are happy to comply with those currently in place. It will be swell to see L.A. enveloped in poisonous smog again. Love those MAGA crowds who appear to have lots of time to attend rallies for Trump who has to divide his time between TV, rallies, golfing, and speeches in support of Putin, Duterte, Erdogan, and Netanyahu. Shuttered factories, low pay service jobs in Dollar Stores et al, with no benefits. The unemployed factory workers must be so grateful that their jobs have moved to worthier folks in Mexico and Vietnam. No doubt McDonalds is happy to provide all the junk food an obese President wants. Win-win all the way around.
7
A perfect phrase to describe Prince Phillip’s character: “a well shaken cocktail to grievance and paranoia”
16
I'm a 39-year old American male who proudly goes up to folks at get togethers when talk of favorite TV programs inevitably occurs and without an ounce of bashfulness interject that this is my favorite show airing today. By far. Beautiful cinematography. Amazing written. Great performances. Looking forward to seeing where it all goes (but we kinda know already thanks to Wikipedia, right?). Kudos to Peter Morgan and the rest of the team that make this great piece of art.
47
I enjoyed Crown. One hilarious
piece is Mr Morgan being awarded
C.B.E. Without an empire, Mr Morgan
is the commander of a fantasy land.
2
@s.khan
Surprisingly, the British Empire - or commonwealth as it's now called - still stretches far and wide: The Queen is head of state to two G7 countries, as well as Australia, NZ and many of the Caribbean nations. Drive 300 miles north of where you live and you'll see her face on the money. She's still Queen to nations in Central America, Asia and the Pacific. For a country it's size, Great Britain still exerts a lot of global influence, behind the scenes or out front.
9
British Monarchy is a stable institution. It is cheaper than presidency, more respectful of rule of law and democracy. The other European monarchs look at it and learn. Abolishing an institution that works and constantly changes itself so as to be relevant makes no sense. And a great majority of Brits know it.
43
That works? Unless you count (no pun intended) cutting off ribbons when inaugurating stuff, they have never worked in their whole lives!
10
@LCG You're wrong to use the word "cheaper" regarding the UK monarchy. The royal family alone receives over $100 million annually from the taxpayers. Add that to upkeep of numerous palaces, maintenance of seven regiments of guards, travel expenses, etc., the total cost of this luxury must top one billion every year.
6
Imagining the lives of British Royalty has always been the stuff of good theatre. Just ask a fella named Shakespeare. Peter Morgan is doing an exceptional job living up to the task of telling this story.
It's nice to see this extraordinary woman being honored with such a beautiful, complex, telling of her life and love of country...she's not the only one who would prefer to spend her time looking after dogs and horses...duty calls us all at some point. It is her perseverance that has endeared us to her.
Now, bring on Season 3!
53
Great show, but as a Brit by birth I find the royal family a complete joke and waste of tax payer money
The north of England has huge poverty and homelessness issues, while these people live in their palaces sponging off the state.
May of been ok in 1350. Not in 2019.
29
@Paul
Worth reminding ourselves that Donald Trump's use of Air Force One alone (@$200,000 an hour), getting back and forth to his vacation homes, most likely eats more money than the entire annual budget for the Windsors. And you don't think the US has poverty and homelessness issues?
14
@George Haig Brewster That wasn't the point of his comment. The British royals should be like the Swedish royals, who work and lead more normal lives.
7
@Paul
The Royal family support themselves with independent wealth. The British taxpayers support the residences, because those belong to the people; the Royals do not own Buckingham Palace et al.
6
With all due respect, I think it was Claire Foy who “made the monarchy relevant again.”
18
I'm with Christopher Hitchens. My Britishness need not be defined by some inbred tosh sense of entitlement, lazy existence, and the foolish anachronism of showpiece pageantry. The obsequiousness, especially when the royals visit the 'colonies' seriously grates not to mention the piffery of their pseudo opinions on everything. It's time for a republican revolution. Oh oh Jeremy Corbyn!!
19
The monarchy's relevance will end when the queen dies. I hope they are all up for job training because they are going to need it.
19
Charles is a good man. I hope Brits rally around him when that sad time comes.
6
The monarchy fascinates me much in the same way as Orange Is The New Black. All prisons have their color....and a gilded cage is just that: a cage.
For me, how strange it all is has been brought into focus by Meghan Markle. For a grown woman, I have spent more time than I care to admit thinking about the plight of Meghan Markle. For the sake of her love, and possibly a tiara, Ms. Markle gave up her citizenship, her career, her home, her freedom, custody of any children and her voice.
.....and for what?
.....and why is this even a thing?
Here was this lively, intelligent opinionated young woman who might have gone into politics and now she is a virtual prisoner in her home. She can't walk down the street, or write an essay, or take her kid to the park. She is stuck inside a home with a cold-as-fish family of means on one side, and well, ok an insane family on the other side. Other than her husband, who seems like a nice guy, she is in the equivalent of a prison--one which she will bequeath to her children, and one that her inlays happily bequest to theirs.
Tell me why again? Is all that loss made up by nice houses and nice clothes and the occasional interesting trip? Hmm.
If I were Harry and Meghan, I would abdicate tomorrow and call a spade a spade. For their marriage and their sanity.
....and if I were William and Kate, I would find a graceful out. The thought of doing that to my child alone would be a motivator!
16
@Gwe They certainly could give it all up. They are independently rich and he is far from the throne. Sorry but the obvious answer is they like the perks.
9
@Gwe here's a clue why: 5 letters begins with M and ends with Y
2
Relevant to who? This king and Queen nonsense are hateful reminders of a barbaric and repressive past. The world would be better to kick them into the dust bin of history.
13
Can anyone imagine the institution surviving Elizabeth? Charles and Will seem like thin gruel compared to her.
16
Well, I loved Frost/Nixon and liked "The Queen" and love Helen Mirren BUT the Crown ultimately failed to interest me (I'm a Brit) because I just don't care if the Queen has a hard time sustaining the awful weight of having to be the monarch. I DON'T sympathise ultimately. The drama of the royal family is a petty drama of small incidents and personal failures - there are much, much more interesting dramas that went on during the period covered. The Queen is well acted, and beautifully directed - but it's built on a void - and the story of the decline of a small island off the coast of mainland Europe has been over-told, and has become very, very hackneyed. Who cares about the queen? I don't.
17
Helen Mirren is a genius. Claire Foy did very, very well. Looking forward to Olivia Coleman and the always excellent Helena Bonham Carter. These women are all so interesting. May none of them ever run out of tonic. Cheers, ladies! Next time write in a role for Emma Thompson as well, Mr. Morgan. I have found all the Royal history to be quite compelling. I remember growing up in NYC and seeing photos of Princess Margaret in Life Magazine
...always so pretty, and so very sad. All has been revealed, and it is a fairly sad if also inspiring tale. A lot of courage on display, for decades and decades.
16
@susan paul
I highly recommend "99 Glimpses of Princess Margaret" by Craig Brown. It is a fascinating look at her life.
2
As one whose ancestors arrived from England in 1730, settling in Massachusetts, but wandering west to Illinois and beyond over the years, I enjoy all things Brit and have thoroughly enjoyed this series. My close relatives were farmers in central Illinois and fought in WWI and WWII, far removed from the monarchy, but with an appreciation of the soldiers they served along side of. Yes, the monarchy is a complete anachronism and silly, but I enjoy it and it's history nevertheless.
9
That is what I love about this anachronistic system that you say is part of your heritage; the fact that it is so anachronistic, with all its complications and whistles and bells and something you can never quite figure out what the meaning of
6
The perfect "older" QE2 is Helen Mirren, from the 2006 film.
8
I believe Ms. Mirren has ruled out playing Elizabeth II in the final two seasons of THE CROWN.
2
I am one that is bored by the American worship of the British monarchy, but The Crown is well written, well acted with great production values and makes for riveting TV. Thank you Peter Morgan!
24
@Marti Mart
I don't think Americans worship British royalty. It is fascinating though that such a preposterous institutions continues to survive/thrive in the 21st century. I'll admit to being amazed at that.
10
@Marti Mart
I am not in thrall to the Royals, but "The Crown" is first rate viewing. I am looking forward to the new season.
8
@Marti Mart
I am one American who respects Queen Elizabeth and the Britain which stood against Hitler, holding the fort until America could declare war on the Axis and go all in. My parents' generation fought in Europe alongside Brits, Aussies, New Zealanders, Poles, brave Ghurka troops et al. Respect is not the same as "worship", and much is due to the Brits who stood strong for freedom and democracy. Odd that a citizen of a State which honors the Alamo doesn't respect the Brits who also fought against great odds. I visited a friend in Texas and saw the Alamo; it was awe inspiring. I have been to Arlington; it is also worthy of respect. The monument seen from the Key Bridge in D.C. honors those who raised the flag on Iwo Jima. "Broken" honors those who survived Japanese internment and torture. If you have any relatives old enough to remember WWII, you might want to share with them your lack of respect for those who died to save the free world.
1
As divisive as politics has become, in the US and the UK, the monarchy in the UK does serve as a unifying symbol. Having a monarch does relieve the prime minister of many perfunctory duties that are expected of an American president.
Under tRump those social obligations have become opportunities to bash the opposition or have become a campaign rally.
The positive value of the continuity the monarchy represents outweighs the negatives.
71
Queen Elizabeth II, a canny, steady presence in England, rolled up her sleeves and did her bit during the Second World War; and her son Charles has long been concerned about and worked on behalf of the environment since before it became fashionable to do so.
Anachronistic -- I think not. In need of rescuing -- no.
Our own royal family, vulgar, useless, and grifting parvenus, I trust will march into oblivion before too long.
192
@B. And Charles, who ditched his beloved wife for his mistress?
7
@Fran Cisco Charles was forced to marry a woman he didn't love, because she was from a noble family and was a virgin. It's no surprise that the marriage didn't work.
19
@Fran Cisco
Actually, I believe that Charles was asked to ditch Camilla and make Diana his wife.
16
Early in the series, Elizabeth learns about the different roles of Parliament ( the "efficient") and the Crown ( the "dignified"). The British can rail against the foibles of their politicians, while still admiring the sovereign as the symbol of their nation. We Americans have the worst of it- we have done it to ourselves, and are governed by corrupt con-artist who imagines himself a monarch with unlimited powers, enabled by sycophantic politicians in Congress.
137
In a worrying time of Boris Johnson's inability to be rational or truthful, Britain and perhaps a much wider world would prefer to see the wit and wisdom of a Dr. Ben Johnson in the time closer to the earlier Queen Elizabeth. Imagery of the wartime Britain with the truck-driving Princess Elizabeth and the eloquent Churchill, rather than the pompous bullying of today's frayed and fractured political parties where voters only seem able to vote for a majority but not the leaders, makes nostalgia relevant, as the country should be today.
33
@Ed Marth
When you play on Boris Johnson's name, are you referring to the 18th-century DR. JOHNSON? Or are you thinking of "the earlier Queen" Elizabeth's contemporary, the playwright Ben JONSON? In any case, your inventive conflation of all three "Jo(h)sons" fits nicely with Morgan's achievement in creatively remaking history.
1
Seasons 1 & 2 were primers for female leaders, Morgan's Elizabeth II belongs with Marion Zimmer Bradley's Viviane, Igraine, Morgaine le Fey and Guinivere from the woman-centric Mists of Avalon.
Every characteristic and quality a woman brings to her leadership is purely in its connection to womanhood both a boon and a bane. Every social, domestic, governmental and political situation is rife with false passages and the arrogance and cynicism of the male courtiers and ministers. The competent female leader must remain pragmatic and clear-eyed about goals, purposes and ethics. Morgan's Elizabeth does all of this while at the same time enacting the persona of a queen. Talk about the "work-life balance". Here it is in full panoply.
A modern female leader could much, much worse in her search for guidance than to study this remarkable woman as portrayed in this series.
38
It has been said that the last houses of kingdoms will be the United Kingdom and the deck of cards.
There's a monarchy over here as well, but I feel rather sorry for the family. They cannot participate in politics, not even vote and they have no surname. The king has to stick to one faith, the Lutheran Protestant Church, in accordance with the Constitution, and the kingdom goes on by hereditary as the first born will inherit the Crown.
All the other citizens can practize democracy.
25
'The whole world is in revolt,” said King Farouk of Egypt, as he was tossed unceremoniously from his throne in 1952. “Soon there will be only five kings left.” '
2
You left out the punchline: "Only five kings left: Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades..... and Windsor".
4
@Howard Ross
You are right, but I said the deck of Cards. ;-)
I don't care what the English do with their medieval political structure. As an American I'm fascinated with many fellow Yanks who fawn and bend the knee to British royalty. PBS has become a Country Life British monarchist TV channel. Now there is this Crown show, better termed Clown show: doubly laughable trying to make a dowdy middle class woman into a glamorous star.
14
@SF And yet — you watch.
17
@SF But the point, as I see it, of “The Crown” is not to attempt to make Elizabeth into a “glamorous star”. Instead, it attempts to show a woman who is a Queen as an average human being. I agree with your larger point, Downtown Abbey, for instance, to me was laughable; a farcical attempt to portray aristocrats as caring, egalitarian mensches. But The Crown is well-acted and gorgeously filmed with crackling, incisive dialogue, and it never loses sight of reality.
10
So don’t watch it. I don’t watch movies or tv with gratuitous violence or that glorify gun culture. Some people watch soap operas. Some watch stuff about British royalty. So what?
7
"What, exactly, is the point of the royal family?" After Elizabeth, in order to preserve "the Firm's" privileges," blindly prorogued Parliament during Boris Johnson's most recent debacle, I came the the conclusion that there is absolutely no point. And it's an expensive superfluity, when one considers the Civil List. So let's hope that William, at least, will modernize the monarchy and turn it into something modern. They might need to give up a few palaces and do their own grocery shopping (horrors!). But the family controls a sizable fortune—they can probably get by on a couple 100-million pounds.
The Brits need to turn their country into a Republic at long last. Or should I say, the English: I don't think Scotland is going to stay part of the Union after Johnson works his will.
25
@Wiltontraveler That “blindly” part deserves a season of its own.
3
@Wiltontraveler The Brits need the monarchy! It's the perfect illusion that GB is still great, the center of an Empire
14
@Wiltontraveler The point, I think, is to NOT modernize the monarchy. The world has modernity in abundance, but it's often a poor man's meal, stripping away memory, context, even history itself.
The institution of the Crown gives something valuable and relevant to all of us; it expands our living understanding of what it means to be human, and it does this at a cost to the British taxpayer of less than the price of half a cup of coffee per year.
27
In this age of Trump and other dicktators...it's so refreshing and reassuring to be a Monarchist.
86
"I understand why people are furious, why they want the whole institution gone."
What are people furious about? In modern Great Britain, the monarchy is probably the least of their worries. Brexit is probably going to kneecap their economy. I think that five or ten years from now everyone will look back and see that Brexit was a tremendous mistake and that it has seriously hurt the British economy and possibly resulted in the break up of the United Kingdom.
The artistic and literary classes in Britain routinely run down the monarchy and talk about how indefensible it is. But at present it is about the only think in the country that represents stability and continuity. The House of Commons (that "mother of parliaments") is a national embarrassment.
No, I think that if all of the British people wanted the monarchy gone, it would be gone. If government ministers thought that they could get votes by advocating the abolition of the monarchy, they would. Most members of parliament support the monarchy because that is the politic thing to do.
A lot of the support for the monarchy comes from the popularity of Queen Elizabeth. The Queen is a strange mixture of the royal and ordinary. A person who did not want to be Queen but nevertheless got on with it and has made a life of attending ceremonies and meeting and talking to strangers for about 15 minutes (or less) each. A grand life but highly structured and restricted.
110
@Aubrey
A good bit of the support for the monarchy also comes from people involved in associations and charitable organizations. If you run an organization such as the Royal Historical Society and want to have a social for publicity or to raise money -- you will probably get more publicity and raise more money if a royal comes to said social. It seems that many people will come and pay extra if they think that they can rub shoulders with a living royal. The Queen would be everyone's first choice but if she can't come then one of the lesser known royal children or cousins would come.
Prince Charles has raised huge sums for the Prince's Trust which helps disadvantaged youth and other similar causes.
The only time that most of American media talk about the British Royal Family is when they have a divorce or scandal. But there are long periods when there is no divorce or scandal.
Don't expect the monarchy to go away soon. A great many people in Britain loved Princess Diana. They are not going to want to boot out Diana's son -- the future King William V.
69
@Aubrey
I agree with much of what you say but not that the HofC is a national embarrassment. To be sure it has more than its share of fools and it has failed to agree (as democracy allows) but, aided by a great Speaker and the Supreme Court, it has risen to the task of mitigating at least some of the effects of Cameron's constitutional vandalism. Inch by inch it has managed to obtain influence over the agenda of government and prevent another dangerous prime minister from following his worst instincts.
10
@Martin Thanks for your comment.
Actually after I submitted my comment, it occurred to me that "national embarrassment" was too strong a term.
I have not followed everything in detail but
I have been surprised at some of the things the House has done and at their independence.
Maybe I am completely off base but I think that they should never have had the referendum. My feeling is that the will of the people (or nation) should be expressed in the House of Commons. In the past, questions such as free trade, home rule for Ireland, etc. were decided in general elections for the House.
I spent a good bit of time in London many years ago. The United Kingdom is a great country and great place. It is a shame that it is going through this uncertain time.
Best wishes and stay positive.
6