Ep 141 SGUK
Fri 22/11/2024 16:49
This weeks podcast and article is centred on “BRF: Stability or Spectacle” as an approach to examining the role and perception of monarchies in general and how the BRF compare to the few Monarchies left. I have explored these topics, along with examples of how they apply to various global monarchies in terms of stability and spectacle.
Introduction: Framework for “Stability or Spectacle
– I am initially going to introduce the concept of monarchy and its traditional role in society.
– Define the dichotomy of “Stability vs. Spectacle” and its relevance to modern monarchies, particularly the British Royal Family (BRF).
Stability: What is Meant by a Monarchy being best known for its Stability for the Nation? Is this in fact true, and if so how, and if not, why not?
– How can monarchies symbolize continuity and national identity?.
– How is the potential for stability through non-political leadership and tradition.
– How can monarchies serve as a unifying force during national crises.
– An Example of a Monarchy known for its Stability for its Nation.:
Japanese Monarchy – Often seen as a symbol of cultural continuity and stability, deeply rooted in tradition and harmony.
- Spectacle:
– In this podcast, we will delve into the notion of spectacle and public fascination with royal events, ceremonies, and personal dramas.
– We will briefly explore how media attention and public interest can sometimes detract from the monarchy’s traditional role. Whatever that is, or ever was.
– I personally would like to highlight the financial implications of royal events as public spectacles.
– Example:
Monaco’s Royal Family – Known for glamorous events and personal stories that capture media attention, frequently blurring the line between serious governance and spectacle.
- Performance Management and Accountability:
– Give some thought to and analyse the challenges monarchies face in modern contexts where transparency and accountability are valued.
– How do you all feel about the balance between maintaining the allure of royal mystique and modern governance expectations.
– Example:
Dutch Monarchy – Known for its transparency and relatively modern approach to governance, balancing accountability with ceremonial duties.
- The British Royal Family (BRF):
– One day a genuine journalist will explore the BRF’s role in public life to see whether they are still considered to be a source of stability for the UK through ceremonial duties, charity work, and soft diplomacy. Do you think that most Royalists believe that to be the case, or is it a soundbite that some like to repeat, without being truly honest as thinking that having the Royal Family we have now, is any way proof of stability for the UK.
– That journalist or those same journalists should also examine the spectacle aspect: media scrutiny, royal weddings, and family conflicts that capture public fascination. Spectacles can also be used for distraction.
– I would like to see one day, a genuine journalist (which is likely to be based in the UK or have any connection to anyone or anything in the UK, in order to give an honest report on findings. A qualified journalist could and should one day critique the BRF’s management of public perception and accountability, considering claims of stability against frequent media spectacles.
Global Monarchies – Stability or Spectacle
- **Stability:**
– **Norwegian Monarchy:** Seen as approachable and down-to-earth, providing stability without drawing excessive spectacle.
- **Spectacle:**
– **Thai Monarchy:** Known for elaborate ceremonies and a complex relationship with public perception, often veiled in spectacle to maintain reverence.
- **Both:**
– **Spanish Monarchy:** Often juggling stability roles through ceremonial unity, yet involved in occasional scandals and media spectacles.
In addressing the British Royal Family specifically, it can be argued that while they claim to prioritize stability, the allure and influence of spectacle are significant. They find themselves continually adapting to public expectations and media scrutiny, sometimes struggling with accountability and performance management. This dual focus presents both opportunities and challenges for maintaining relevance and public trust.
These points raise critical issues about the perceived role and impact of the British Royal Family (BRF) in today’s society, particularly regarding stability, tradition, and the spectacle they create. Here’s an elaboration on the mentioned aspects:
- Potential for Stability Through Non-Political Leadership and Tradition:
– In theory, monarchies like the BRF provide stability by serving as apolitical figures. They symbolize continuity and tradition, representing a stable national identity that transcends the shiftiness of political landscapes. This can be reassuring during times of political or social upheaval.
– Traditions can also foster a sense of shared history and cultural identity, offering a unifying touchstone for the nation.
- **Tradition as Spectacle:**
– While the BRF embodies many traditions, these traditions often cross over into the realm of spectacle. Ceremonial events, royal weddings, and jubilee celebrations are massively publicized, drawing global attention and often criticized for their extravagance.
– For a portion of the UK public, especially those facing economic hardship, such spectacles may seem out of touch or irrelevant, highlighting the disparity between the royal lifestyle and the everyday struggles of ordinary citizens. This can create a perception that the BRF is unable to “read the room.”
- Financial Implications:
– The costs associated with royal events can be significant, covering logistics, security, and ceremonial expenses. When these events are not seen as justified by public turnout or sentiment, it can lead to questions about public fund allocation.
– At times, the extensive security for sparsely attended routes seems wasteful, leading to a debate about the use of taxpayer money and whether these events provide sufficient public value to justify their expense.
- Public Perception and Media Relations:
– The BRF often relies on loyal media outlets to shape their public image, which can result in a disconnect between reality and portrayal. This media management might involve promoting favorable stories or downplaying problematic issues.
– Such strategies can backfire if the public perceives them as manipulative or insincere, potentially fueling criticism rather than quelling it. This highlights the challenge the BRF faces in maintaining transparency and trust in an age of scrutiny and instant communication.
Ultimately, the BRF’s challenge lies in balancing these traditions with modern expectations and societal needs. They must adapt to remain relevant and respected, especially in addressing the concerns of those who see the continued spectacle as increasingly detached from the realities faced by many UK citizens. This involves fostering genuine connections with the public, highlighting their social contributions, and transparently managing public perception.
Conclusions
– Summarize the balance monarchies might strive to maintain between offering stability and embracing spectacle.
– Pose questions about the future role of monarchies in an increasingly democratic and transparent global society.
– Encourage reflection on whether the qualities of stability or spectacle ultimately serve or undermine the institution of monarchy.
I am looking here at the differences between “providing stability” for its own nation, or emphasising the Spectacular approach to persuade the nation that this is the best way to be, and to give the impression that the UK in this instance is fine. All is well etc. Some Monarchy families, do an element of both. My personal belief is that this current two year reign love the Spectacular approach, and that no expense is spared because money is no object. There is also a very key point, and one that i think grew an internal rage in the now King Charles. He waited so long to be King, and my interpretation of his reign so far, is that if there is any chance to be spectacular,. he will go for it. I believe that his Queen Consort is the same. I strongly believe if challenged behind the scenes by the odd brave person, or someone who is due to leave the role soon, to say to the Monarch that Spectacle may not be the best side of that coin to show to the world. My opinion is that apart from the King and others being beside themselves with rage at the audacity for anyone to speak out of turn to the person who must be deferred to all times, the King would describe it as an way of providing Stability for the Monarchy, by behaving the exact same way as Spectacle
In the modern era, the few remaining monarchies in the world present striking contrasts in how they position themselves within their nations. Broadly speaking, they fall into two categories: those that focus on providing a sense of stability and continuity and those that lean heavily on spectacle and grandeur to project strength and relevance. Some royal families, notably in Europe, blend both approaches to varying degrees, aiming to balance tradition with evolving public expectations.
The Scandinavian monarchies—such as those in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway—tend to emphasize stability and understated service. These royal families maintain relatively modest lifestyles and engage closely with social issues, projecting an image of responsible stewardship. They rarely indulge in lavish displays, focusing instead on public duties, community projects, and fostering national unity. This approach has fostered a sense of trust and respect, with these monarchies viewed as stable institutions that adapt pragmatically to modern democratic values.
In contrast, the British monarchy has long been associated with grandeur and spectacle, and this tendency has intensified during King Charles III’s reign. Having waited decades for his ascension, Charles appears determined to leave an indelible mark, often through grandiose ceremonies and high-profile events. From the coronation to royal tours, no expense is spared, reinforcing a narrative that the monarchy is synonymous with national identity and prestige. This “spectacular” approach serves to convey that all is well in the UK, masking deeper societal and political tensions. It is a carefully curated image designed to persuade the public that monarchy is not just relevant but indispensable.
However, this strategy carries risks. The relentless pursuit of spectacle may alienate sections of the population who question the ethics of such expenditures, especially in times of economic hardship. Internally, dissent may occasionally surface from advisors or officials who advocate a more measured, service-focused image. Yet, those brave enough to challenge the King’s preference for spectacle might face severe backlash. Charles, along with Queen Camilla, is likely to perceive grandeur not merely as a display but as a means of securing stability for the monarchy itself—a belief deeply rooted in his long-awaited ascent to the throne. To him, spectacle and stability are two sides of the same coin: a vivid, authoritative display that fortifies the institution against the tide of modern scrutiny.
The debate between stability and spectacle within monarchies, particularly in the UK, reveals a profound disconnect between public display and public service. On the surface, the grandeur of royal events and ceremonies is presented as a means to reinforce national identity and continuity. However, this focus on spectacle often masks the more pressing social realities faced by vulnerable populations, such as homeless veterans and pensioners struggling to afford basic necessities. This raises a critical question: Can a monarchy truly provide stability if it is perceived as detached from the daily struggles of its citizens?
Spectacle, while impressive, serves primarily to sustain the illusion of national cohesion and prosperity. It projects an image of strength and tradition but can easily become a facade that conceals systemic issues. The lavish spending on royal events, especially during periods of economic hardship, can foster resentment among those who feel neglected by the state. This is particularly true when no corresponding effort is made to address the widening social disparities within the country. When veterans who served the nation find themselves homeless, or elderly citizens must choose between heating their homes and buying food, the spectacle of royal grandeur can seem not just tone-deaf but deeply hypocritical.
True stability requires a monarchy that reflects and responds to the needs of all its people, particularly the most vulnerable. The Scandinavian monarchies offer a contrasting model: They focus on low-key engagements and social welfare initiatives, reinforcing their relevance through service rather than show. This creates a deeper, more genuine connection with their citizens, fostering respect and support.
In the UK, the current reign’s emphasis on spectacle risks alienating the public further, as it seems more concerned with maintaining an image than addressing real issues. King Charles III’s apparent commitment to grand displays may stem from his long wait for the throne and a desire to cement his legacy, but this approach could ultimately undermine the monarchy’s credibility. If the institution continues to prioritize spectacle over substance, it may hasten its decline rather than ensure its stability. True leadership would involve redirecting resources and attention toward those who need it most, demonstrating that the monarchy is not just a symbol of tradition but a force for genuine national solidarity and progress.
A crucial point: King Charles III’s apparent preoccupation with his legacy and historical image seems to be driving his inclination towards spectacle. After waiting decades for the throne, he appears determined to leave a lasting mark, using grand, costly events to cement his place in history. The rationale might be that he’s condensing what could have been spread over a longer reign into a short window of time. However, this approach seems disconnected from the realities many UK citizens face today.
The optics are strikingly insensitive. Lavish spending on royal ceremonies contrasts sharply with the growing number of homeless veterans, struggling pensioners, and families unable to afford basic necessities. The spectacle is not just tone-deaf; it feels like an affront to those suffering, as it sends a message that their hardships are secondary to the monarchy’s need to project an image of stability and grandeur. The narrative presented to the outside world—that the UK is thriving—is far removed from the everyday experiences of many citizens.
This disconnect underscores a deeper issue: the monarchy and political establishment seem more invested in maintaining appearances than addressing real, systemic problems. They rely on spectacle to distract from economic and social challenges, hoping to preserve the illusion of a stable, prosperous nation. Yet, this strategy risks accelerating the decline of the monarchy. In an era of increased scrutiny and social awareness, people are less willing to accept opulence at the expense of social justice.
Ultimately, a monarchy’s true stability isn’t built on grand displays but on its relevance to the people it serves. Without genuine empathy and action to address the nation’s suffering, the current approach could backfire. The spectacle may leave a mark in history books, but it risks alienating the very people whose support is essential for the institution’s survival.
I have started to list a few books or articles on topics that are discussing. For the last few years I have concentrated on academic research papers and reports,and web links to provide strong evidence about the points I was making in the podcasts, relating to human behaviour. Now that the book is almost finished in terms of formatting. The content is finished in its first draft form, but I have been moving things around these last 12 months. Now it is about to be looked at by a Professional Editor in the New Year. As a result, in terms of future podcasts, I will now list books a few examples of books on the topic in hand; books I have already read, or on a list waiting for me to get around to find a few vacant minutes to start reading some of the growing pile of books I still buy with a view to getting around to reading them, after my 8 years researching various things.
The books I have listed below, suggest that excessive focus on spectacle—such as state ceremonies and costly pageantry—can alienate citizens, particularly during economic hardship. This is particularly relevant in this podcasts context, where the British monarchy’s lavish displays contrast sharply with increasing poverty and social issues.
For a comparative perspective, looking further into Scandinavian models might provide constructive contrasts and strengthen my argument about the UK’s precarious path. Deep reform is needed.
Ivy Barrow
24 Nov 2024
Recommended Reading
This analysis resonates with broader critiques of modern monarchies, particularly their attempt to balance symbolic pageantry with real-world relevance. Several academic resources discuss this “stability versus spectacle” dichotomy and how different European monarchies manage these roles.
- “The Role of Monarchy in Modern Democracy” (2020) edited by Robert Hazell and Bob Morris offers a comparative analysis of European monarchies, highlighting how spectacle-driven initiatives often overshadow efforts at democratic relevance. This text explores how public perception is shaped by media portrayal and state visits, especially in monarchies like Spain and the UK
Cambridge University Press & Assessment
.
- David Cannadine’s “Ornamentalism” delves into the historical evolution of British monarchy’s emphasis on spectacle to uphold national identity and global image. It emphasizes the performative aspects of royal engagements as tools for soft power, often at odds with addressing domestic socio-economic challenges
.
- Norwegian and Swedish Models: Countries like Norway and Sweden maintain a more modest, stability-focused monarchy, prioritizing civic duty over grandeur. Comparisons in Hazell and Morris’ work show that these nations’ restrained approaches might contribute to stronger domestic support and reduced republican sentiment
Cambridge University Press & Assessment
.