The Diamond Jubilee

H. recently forwarded an article to me by Tristram Hunt *swoon* on the Diamond Jubilee celebrations and the legacy of the second Elizabethan era. In it, he quoted a 15 year old Virginia Woolfe remarking that she thought that Queen Victoria must have been tired nodding at the troops parading past her. I don't think that this blog is so important, articulate, and funny that in 115 years time historians will be using it to understand British/ Canadian identity. However, it would be quite wrong if we didn't say a few words on this moment in history given our backgrounds and this blog's raison d'etre.

How will I be celebrating? There was talk of tea and scones with a friend. She's brought back Union Jack napkins and muffin tin liners from her recent research trip to the UK. But, that's it. I appreciate (perhaps more than most) the history of the monarchy and its symbolic significance. I like all the pomp. I do not, however, think that God has anything to do with their privilege or inherited wealth. Afterall, my scholarly training has taught me to curl my lip/ roll my eyes in disdain at the mere mention of monarchy. I was beginning to wonder when the ardent republicans would start their anti-monarchy barrage in the media and then Polly Toynbee published this piece in which she calls these celebratory spectacles a product of "majestic delusion." Banksy also released this print. PT's position is in the minority. She's articulating views shared by the same sections of society that fled the capital during the Royal Wedding. But, there is a strong voice attacking this archaic institution in Britain.

The Queen in techni-colour

Canada's federal government started preparing for these celebrations back in 2007! According to a CBC report, the federal government earmarked $7.5 million towards the whole of the celebrations with $2 million set aside for local celebrations. We've minted new coins, created a special set of stamps, and commissioned portraits as well as stained glass windows to commemorate the event. Two weeks ago, Charles & Camilla even made a blitz of a tour for the occasion. It included a day in Toronto where Charles rode the TTC and learned to DJ. Who says he's not "with it"? But, aside from marking the 60th year of Queen Elizabeth II's reign, why are we doing all of this for a Sovereign that reigns from the other side of the Atlantic ocean?

All of this is part of the PM's efforts to recreate Canadian identity: one that emphasizes a traditional "Queen & country" trope rather than that of diversity. Queen's historian Ian McKay has given several interesting talks on how the New Right has reappropriated Canadian history/ reconceptualized citizenship in order to peddle an ideological agenda. Why aren't Canadians reacting to this very narrow view of Canadian identity? It's also true that I don't see evidence of many people holding hand on heart and pledging allegiance to the Queen. There's no bunting to be seen in these parts. But, the government has set aside $2 million for local parties - this seems excessive. Are we talking about community street parties?! I have an inkling that only members of the Monarchist League of Canada will be making any applications for funds from this program. And, if that's the case, they should feel free to order that case of Krug.

This is indeed an historical event. The last time a Sovereign celebrated a Diamond Jubilee was in 1857. And, judging from who's next in line it's not likely that Charles will reach this feat himself. The tall ships sailing down the Thames will be a sight to see! I'm still baffled as to how the wider Canadian population is receiving these events. Is the Kate & Wills effect - do we love the Windsors more now that we can see Diana's son and his shiny new bride on the horizon of succession? Or do Canadians actually get quite sentimental about those days of Upper & Lower Canada? Are they even teaching this in Grade 9 History classes anymore? Do Canadians care about the royals as more than just figures in the celebrity world?

 

As you toast EIIR with a Dubonnet and gin (30% gin, 70% Dubonnet with a slice of lemon under the ice) this weekend, consider the following:

• Look at how technologically savvy the Palace has gotten: a special YouTube Channel, Twitter and Flickr page http://www.thediamondjubilee.org/ 
• Stephen Harper is also fawning over his personal shrine to the Queen. I imagine Harper's private celebrations to include a reenactment of the 1952 coronation ... he plays all the parts  
• This is a great photo of the Queen as a baby

@SloaneScholar1

 

I certainly feel ill-prepared for the Jubilee compared to my friend @SloaneScholar1. The occasion has snuck up on one, I dare say. My Englishness quotient for the week was somewhat filled by the "Last Night of the Proms" here in Vancouver.

I do plan to attend a Festal Evensong in Vancouver to mark the occasion -- even so far removed from Blighty the Anglican tradition manages to convey the continuity of tradition as much as it does religious heritage. I shall also, of course, watch the coverage on the telly, including the grand Thames River Pageant - which is billed as a once in 300 year event or something equally illustrious. CBC has dispatched Peter Mansbridge to London, which is when you know the occasion is serious. And for Canadians, yes, anything Royal is bound to receive a great deal of attention.

This question of the extent to which we are truly a "Royalist" country is an interesting one and I do think that recent domestic politics have played a role. For many people (in English Canada I should note), it is more a question of being "not non-Royalist." There simply is no solidly organized Republican movement which exists in Australia or, for that matter, the UK itself. Our peculiarly Canadian attitude is a combination of several factors: the most obvious of which must have something to do with our stereotypical niceness. This, combined with our deep-seated desire to be liked, probably best accounts for the type of reception the Royals receive during visits to Canada. While this is rooted in insecurity, there is a flip-side which also somehow makes us less prone to sneer.

The voyageur canoe representing Canada

While, as we have noted before those who wish to be taken seriously as critical British historians must at least feign disdain of all things Royal, there is no such requirement to be regarded as a member of the progressive educated class. In other words, we have no critical mass of Guardian-reader types to turn up our nose at the proceedings, or demand Royal Wedding-free buttons on news websites. The force that this class exerts in Britain is well-expressed by a tweet I espied by comedian and writer Simon Blackwell: "Police advising people at street parties to check regularly on left-leaning middle class neighbours in case they tut themselves to death." Quite.

I was quite chuffed by the fact that a canoe, paddled by Canadians, will be part of the river pageant. In the end I believe this one small element of the Jubilee may best represent our attitude to the monarchy. Eager but modest, enthusiastic but downsized, proud of our heritage but unwilling (dare I make the pun? Dare I?) to rock the boat too much.

@idlehistorian

The Monarchy Industrial Complex

Common touch?

It was only a year ago that the world descended upon London to watch two beautiful young people (one a "commoner" and the other a prince) walk down the aisle and pledge their love to one another. Kate Middleton (whose parents are self-made millionaires) was hailed as: a style icon, an ordinary girl, a suitable match (mainly because she didn't talk to the press in their courtship or party too hard), and the breath of fresh air that would save the House of Windsor. The inevitable comparisons to Diana were made especially when she brandished the famous blue sapphire on her left hand. But, as many seasoned royal commentators observed, Kate at 29 was a more mature and confident woman who seemed to know exactly what she was in for … right?

Remember in the months leading up to the wedding, all of those documentary style television shows that poked and prodded into her background? Where did she go to school? Where did she like to hang out in London. Where did she shop for those chic frocks and knee-length boots? And, ultimately, how did she meet and bag the future king? Lifetime even produced a terrible made for tv movie that chronicled the royal romance. The press liked to speculate on whether she was too thin (the Duchess does not have what one might call child bearing hips) or whether her make-up was (is) too harsh. Canadian television coverage was just as extensive (mind-numbing) as anything the Americans offered as we sent teams of (overly fake-tanned) entertainment reporters to: etiquette lessons (should they find themselves in the presence of royalty) and to prance around London tourist sites in outrageous fascinators. Was it just me or did these features on British culture present only the most (offensively) stereotypical caricatures of Brits? The media consistently adhered to the "happily ever after" narrative. After all of the bad examples the previous generation had set, this marriage had to work to ensure any future for the institution of monarchy.

I remember having a discussion with fellow academics over beers about the impending nuptials (NB: historians of Britain in their 40s are almost all anti- Monarchy and will roll their eyes in exasperation at the mere mention of the royals) and someone mentioned how boring this couple is. And, indeed, they are. They don't fight. They don't have romantic baggage. They get along with their in-laws. Much has been made of the "genuine love" between this couple. It is a relationship that has survived university life, co-habitation, a break-up, and international media scrutiny. It is a relationship based on a decade long friendship. It is a relationship that follows a long line of marital dysfunction. And, after 365 days together as man and wife, royal observers/ "experts" (a legit career title nowadays ... for the children of ex-Palace staff) are ready to declare this union a complete and utter success. The Queen could not have asked for more on this the year of her Jubilee celebrations.

Domestic harmony.

Yet, that's not what's newsworthy. It's not what sells magazines and papers. It's not what will keep people interested in this archaic/ traditional institution.

So, the engine of the Monarchy Industrial Complex (MIC) keeps chugging along waiting for something to happen. How will Kate face the loneliness of life in her Welsh cottage? How will they cope with married life (Kate was pictured shopping at Waitrose - *shock* pushing her own shopping cart! Golly. She is just like one of "us"). Will she be able to fulfill her public role alongside senior royals? How long will the press and readers continue to lap up such comfortable scenes of poise and harmony like this "Girls Day Out" before they beg for a public display of tension and discord? And, when will she produce the "heir" and "the spare"??

@SloaneScholar1

 The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge can certainly be credited with getting many things “right.” They are, at the very least, not this royal couple.

I've remarked before that the ballyhooed “sensible” nature of William's bride and ordinariness of the new royal family reflects a model which is, truly, more middle class than aristo-posh. Many of the truly grand families have never considered the royal family as more than common, middling, arrivistes – and German ones at that. The obvious disdain of Diana's brother, Earl Spencer, for the family his sister had married into reflected not only a typical ruckus between in-laws who do not see eye to eye but, I think, something deeper. The Spencers trace their spectacular ascent back to the sixteenth century, and they have intermarried with the grandest families in England – the Devonshires, the Marlboroughs. The Windsors, or Mountbatten-Windsors, are but one such illustrious name. So, while intimates of William were said (at one point) to mock Carole Middleton for her “doors to manual” past as an air stewardess, perhaps they now understand that a quotidien, comforting, everyday touch is what the modern day royal family is all about. OK! and HELLO magazines, with their multiple-page spreads on Kate's tasteful frocks, are the collective equivalent of being tucked in by the stewardess for a few hours on the aeroplane with a G&T (alright, one is alluding to a rather distant time here, but you get the idea). And why not? The eccentric posh are all well and good in their place, but you don't want them on your stamps. Bravo for the new royals.

As historians we are, as my colleague suggests, well familiar with the self-conscious eschewing of anything “royal” by many in our field. If they are forced to comment on royal matters at all, it is with the resignation (and possibly facial expression) of a duchess disposing of a mousetrap. Many are republicans (the British kind of course) – the sort of earnest Guardian-reading types so ready to find injustice in the world. We certainly require such individuals for many admirable goals. But I would argue that in a world with no shortage of wrongdoers and villains, getting too exercised about the comfy middle class royals is a little woolly-headed. Just a wee bit.

@idlehistorian