This would appear to be the new liberal creed.
The compulsion of Prince Harry, third in line to the British throne, to attend an equality and diversity course for the use of a racist term to a fellow officer cadet at Sandhurst has a certain irony about it. The idea of a royal prince being lectured on the merits of an egalitarian and multicultural society is patently ridiculous. Whatever the questions that may be asked about the prudence of Prince Harry's remarks, this episode has exposed the utter incompatibility of the egalitarian values stemming from revolutionary France that are held so dear by the left, with the institution of hereditary monarchy.
Modernisation has been billeted as the method of preserving the Crown in a society that no longer embraces deference and tradition as it used to. The reformers, as we shall call them, wish to abolish what they see as the embarrassing feudal remnants of a modern institution, such as the preference of males in the succession, bowing and courtseying to members of the royal family, and the association of the Head of State with a national tradition that is rooted in the historical experience of a particular ethno-cultural entity. It is of course the latter that has come in for criticism after the revelation of Prince Harry's ill-advised, yet innocent, remarks. How can, the reformers ask, the monarchy be the symbol of a classless society (to use Jack Straw's words) if it remains stuck in an imperialistic and upper class time-warp. And to classless society we might well add multicultural.
It is difficult to argue against such an approach, at least within the confines the liberal political culture has set down for any debate on such a subject. Since republicanism is clearly not a realistic option (as the nation more than anything simply does not understand or empathise with the republican spirit), the political correctness brigade want to make the Throne represent all the values they assume contemporary society embrace. The trouble is that these values run directly counter to the values that are the Throne's foundation. How is the idea of the royal dynasty representing the continuity and permanence of the nation sustainable, if the nation itself is diluted with elements that do not share our language, our culture, and do not have any link with the historic national community? If the very idea of national identity is perverted from its roots in blood and history to something little better than a voluntary association ascribing to values that any human being can hold, how can an institution that gave the country the former idea of national identity survive in a society that embraces the new one? Surely the result would no longer be a monarchy, but rather a celebrity family that occasionally dresses up and attends political events. The symbolic role of the Crown would wither away, it would be, to quote Bagehot, like letting daylight in on the magic.
Of course, it could be claimed that such a transformation has already happened, or at least that it is inevitable. But I think not. There have been crises in national identity before the advent of multiculturalism, and the twin problems of immigration and integration are not new. But in previous times the monarchy, along with our other traditional institutions such as Parliament and the Church, have acted as beacons of stability grafting even the most radical modernisers into a continuous national tradition that celebrates the past, embraces the present and prepares for the future. The monarchy cannot support an equal and diverse society because it is the symbol of an hierarchical and historic nation. So while I cannot but offer a reproach to Prince Harry on account of his imprudence, I must condemn the linkage of the institution he represents with the multicultural society.
The compulsion of Prince Harry, third in line to the British throne, to attend an equality and diversity course for the use of a racist term to a fellow officer cadet at Sandhurst has a certain irony about it. The idea of a royal prince being lectured on the merits of an egalitarian and multicultural society is patently ridiculous. Whatever the questions that may be asked about the prudence of Prince Harry's remarks, this episode has exposed the utter incompatibility of the egalitarian values stemming from revolutionary France that are held so dear by the left, with the institution of hereditary monarchy.
Modernisation has been billeted as the method of preserving the Crown in a society that no longer embraces deference and tradition as it used to. The reformers, as we shall call them, wish to abolish what they see as the embarrassing feudal remnants of a modern institution, such as the preference of males in the succession, bowing and courtseying to members of the royal family, and the association of the Head of State with a national tradition that is rooted in the historical experience of a particular ethno-cultural entity. It is of course the latter that has come in for criticism after the revelation of Prince Harry's ill-advised, yet innocent, remarks. How can, the reformers ask, the monarchy be the symbol of a classless society (to use Jack Straw's words) if it remains stuck in an imperialistic and upper class time-warp. And to classless society we might well add multicultural.
It is difficult to argue against such an approach, at least within the confines the liberal political culture has set down for any debate on such a subject. Since republicanism is clearly not a realistic option (as the nation more than anything simply does not understand or empathise with the republican spirit), the political correctness brigade want to make the Throne represent all the values they assume contemporary society embrace. The trouble is that these values run directly counter to the values that are the Throne's foundation. How is the idea of the royal dynasty representing the continuity and permanence of the nation sustainable, if the nation itself is diluted with elements that do not share our language, our culture, and do not have any link with the historic national community? If the very idea of national identity is perverted from its roots in blood and history to something little better than a voluntary association ascribing to values that any human being can hold, how can an institution that gave the country the former idea of national identity survive in a society that embraces the new one? Surely the result would no longer be a monarchy, but rather a celebrity family that occasionally dresses up and attends political events. The symbolic role of the Crown would wither away, it would be, to quote Bagehot, like letting daylight in on the magic.
Of course, it could be claimed that such a transformation has already happened, or at least that it is inevitable. But I think not. There have been crises in national identity before the advent of multiculturalism, and the twin problems of immigration and integration are not new. But in previous times the monarchy, along with our other traditional institutions such as Parliament and the Church, have acted as beacons of stability grafting even the most radical modernisers into a continuous national tradition that celebrates the past, embraces the present and prepares for the future. The monarchy cannot support an equal and diverse society because it is the symbol of an hierarchical and historic nation. So while I cannot but offer a reproach to Prince Harry on account of his imprudence, I must condemn the linkage of the institution he represents with the multicultural society.
This is obviously more of a symbolic gesture than anything; I wouldn't worry that it reflects a genuine usurping of the backward Monarchist tradition. In any case, Harry's too thick to learn anything from it.
ReplyDeleteThat might be true if New Labour and Prince Charles weren't insistent on modernisation.
ReplyDelete