We the Subjects

The city of Philadelphia is rich in cultural and historical attractions.  One of my favorites is the National Constitution Center, an institution dedicated to increasing public understanding of, and appreciation for, the Constitution of the United States.   Through a series of dramatic presentations and interactive exhibits, the Center describes the origins of the War of Independence, the adoption of the Articles of Confederation and the drafting and evolution of the Federal Constitution.   A visit to the center provides a reminder of the type of nation envisaged by the founding fathers; one of equality under the law, free of aristocratic rights and privileges.

How ironic, absurd even, that the National Constitution Center would play host to "Diana - A Celebration", Earl Spencer's traveling circus that "showcases [the] unique life and the legacy" of his late sister, Diana Princess of Wales.

The exhibit, which runs through December 31, is on loan from the Althorp Estate, the family home of the Spencer family, and is now on its second tour of the United States.  It is a tedious and unmemorable collection of costume jewelry, designer gowns, family photos and the like, seemingly intended to promote the Spencer family in general as much as Diana in particular.  To this end, an entire gallery is devoted to the "important women" of the Spencer family who, according to the official handout, "helped shape the culture of their age" (whatever that means).  A convoluted family tree purportedly demonstrates Diana's close familial links with the monarchy, and generally touts the Spencers as one of the most significant aristocratic lines in Britain.  Of course the most important gallery is saved for last - the souvenir shop, offering fake tiaras and other overpriced knick-knacks bearing the family crest.  I was curious to see what the visitors packing the exhibit thought about all of this nonsense and scanned the Comments Book on my way out.  I was depressed to find that every entry was a gushing tribute to the Princess and/or the exhibit and/or the Spencer family - but then again, I suppose that is the type of visitor the exhibit is intended to attract.

Earl Spencer has been criticized in Britain for attempting to cash in on his sister's memory.  I have no idea how much U.S. punters will be contributing to the family coffers; according to the exhibit's web site, profits go to the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Trust, but only after the Spencer family takes its cut, which equals at least 10 percent of the retail sales price of the merchandise sold in the U.S.  That's 10 percent of the retail sales price, not 10 percent of the profit.  As the English would say, "a nice little earner".

Ironically, the Spencers' attempts to use the Diana exhibit to hone their own aristocratic credentials tend to undercut the carefully-crafted image of Diana as the "People's Princess".  In the course of her very public estrangement from Prince Charles, she played (with the assistance of PR advisers and favored journalists) on the sympathies of the British people, portraying herself as the victim of a cold and arrogant system.  And in some senses she was.  But as the exhibit shows, she was also a product, and indeed a beneficiary, of that same system.   She and her family knew better than most the rules by which the game is played in the royal family.  She naively believed, to her cost, that she could change them.  She could not.  She learned too late that the system is one that readily devours its own, and at the end of the day that is really the ultimate tragedy of Diana.

I have no doubt that most of the people forking over their $23 to view the Diana exhibit are enthralled not just by her, but by the monarchy itself.  I have never understood the fascination that Americans have for the British royal family, given the efforts they went through to get rid of them.  But come to that, I confess I have never understood the fascination that many Britons sill have for them.  It is frankly absurd that in any modern democracy the position of Head of State should pass by heredity.  The very existence of the royal family, with its attendant legion of lesser aristocracy and social-climbing hangers-on, has long had a stultifying effect on the rest of British society, perpetuating an invidious class system and in turn impeding social mobility.  This isn't mere speculation.  A 2009 study by researchers at the London School of Economics and the Sutton Trust found that Britain and the U.S. have the lowest rates of social mobility among the eight developed nations studied, and that in Britain the rate is actually declining, notwithstanding increases in expenditures on education.

The current occupants of Buckingham Palace have shallow British roots.  They are basically German imports, a combination of the houses of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, who had the good sense to adopt the name "Windsor" in 1917, as Britain fought the armies of their cousin the Kaiser.  A few have served in the military (Prince Andrew did so with distinction during the Falklands conflict and Prince Harry served briefly with British forces in Afghanistan) but in general the Windsors have done little if anything to earn the respect or admiration of the people whose taxes support their lavish lifestyles.  Opponents of the monarchy portray them as a rather dim-witted group of reactionary and profligate philistines, with an ill-concealed contempt for those who foot their bills.   I happen to share this view, but I believe a more serious problem is that they just don't seem to understand the concept of a "constitutional monarchy" and refuse to acknowledge the impropriety of meddling in affairs of state or using their public office for personal gain.

Former government ministers have disclosed the repeated and entirely improper efforts of Prince Charles (whose views on most subjects could most charitably be described as "eccentric") to interfere in public policy and planning decisions.  In one recent and highly publicized case, he brazenly used his influence to have a leading British architect removed from a multi-billion dollar redevelopment project in West London, so that an architect of his choosing could be brought in.  Charles, whose views on architecture appear to be mired somewhere in the mid-eighteenth century, nonetheless regards himself as an authority on the subject, and seems intent on turning London into an outdated architectural pastiche better suited to the "Olde Englande" pavilion at Disneyworld than to a modern capital city.  His eccentricities don't stop with his opinions on architecture.  His "Duchy Originals" company, which peddles high-priced organic health supplements and prepared meals, recently found itself  in hot water with regulatory authorities for making unsubstantiated claims about the therapeutic effects of two herbal concoctions, while a third such product, the so-called "Duchy Herbals Detox Tincture" was branded by one expert as "outright quackery".   Always quick to lecture others about what's good for the country, Charles recently proposed that Britons should give up their cars in favor of public transportation.  Good advice perhaps, were it not coming from a man who owns two Jaguars, two Audis, a Range Rover and an Aston Martin, and who has consistently fought government proposals to scrap the royal family's private train, funded by the hapless British taxpayer to the tune of over $1.1 million per year.  The mere possibility of this man ascending the throne should be enough to send shivers down the spine of anyone who believes in a transparent and representative democracy.

Or consider the case of his younger brother Prince Andrew, who for some unaccountable reason was able to get himself appointed as a roving "trade ambassador" for Britain, and whose frequent taxpayer-funded first class junkets have earned him the nickname "AirMiles Andy".  The Prince, who needless to say has no actual experience in trade or commerce,  incurred the wrath of MPs earlier this year when he refused to make public a report he himself had commissioned from Pricewaterhouse Coopers in the hope it would demonstrate his effectiveness in the post.  Last month he again drew widespread criticism when he foolishly chose to weigh in on domestic economic issues about which he he equally ill-acquainted, defending the huge bonuses paid to City bankers and urging the government not to proceed with plans to close tax loopholes that favor wealthy non-domiciliary UK residents (many of whom, no doubt, he regularly sees on the golf course or polo field).   This is not the first time the aging playboy turned "ambassador" has embarrassed the government with his verbal gaffes.  He should never have been given the job in the first place, and needs to be shown the door before he causes further damage and wastes more taxpayer money.

The youngest of the three "Windsor" brothers, the Earl of Wessex, and his wife, are no strangers to scandal either.  He is alleged to have used public funds for an overseas trip during which he sought to raise cash for his ailing TV production company, which happened to be based in a facility that had been renovated at the public's expense.  In a separate incident, his overly-ambitious wife was taped making indiscreet remarks about members of the royal family and some leading politicians to an investigative journalist posing as a sheik, apparently in an effort to secure a lucrative contract for a PR firm in which she had an interest.

The royals have survived one scandal after another because they have learned the importance of a well-oiled PR machine.  They have also been able to count on a cadre of fawning hacks in the right wing press to keep making the case that the monarchy represents "good value for money".  That is an increasingly difficult argument to make, and the royal spongers don't exactly help their own cause.  In the face of an economic crisis that has lead to spending cuts throughout the British economy the Guardian newspaper disclosed that the royals were demanding an increase in the "Civil List" - the annual laundry list of taxpayer handouts for the Queen and her family - even though they currently have a surplus of over $30 million in the kitty.  They apparently won't get their increase - even the usually compliant Tories have said no to that - but it seems they will not be asked to take a cut either.  Had they any sense of civic responsibility (or simple common decency), they would have offered  to take a cut.  But they apparently have no interest in sharing any of the sacrifices their subjects might have to make. The time has come to call a halt to this.  The monarchy performs no function - from opening Parliament to opening garden fetes - that could not be performed as or more effectively, at lower cost and with greater transparency and public accountability, by an elected Head of State or other elected official. 

Abolishing the anachronistic institution of the monarchy would not only save money but - more importantly - would be an important step towards eliminating the insidious and pervasive web of patronage and privilege that permeates British society. At the very least, Britons deserve to vote in a referendum on the subject.  Proponents of the status quo should have no objection - assuming, that is, that they really believe they can sell the case that the monarchy earns its keep.  After all, public endorsement of the monarchical system in a referendum would give it a legitimacy it currently lacks.  Regrettably the Liberal Democrats are alone among the major political parties in advocating a referendum on the future of the monarchy.  Gordon Brown and his New Labour colleagues would do well to endorse the proposal too, as they look for ways to regain some political momentum and avoid the general election defeat now looks increasing inevitable.