« PETER HITCHENS: The Marxist Revolution is alive and well - in your child's school | Main | An interesting controversy over alleged scientific support for 'ADHD' »
Some thoughts on the play 'King Charles III'
I have now finally managed to watch the BBC TV version of Mike Bartlett's interesting play, 'King Charles III' . I saw it on the stage, with Robert Powell in the title role, at the Chichester Festival Theatre a while ago, and preferred the stage version – in which, as far as I can recall, the fictional Charles is *not* shown as saying 'At last!' as he contemplates the death of his mother. Nor is this in the original script, or at least if it is I cannot find it. So why did the TV version include it? I do weary of this 'Private Eye' view of Charles, as a man frantically waiting to succeed. I have my criticisms of the Prince of Wales, but I am completely unable to believe that he yearns for the death of his own mother.
In fact, as I explain below, I suspect Charles is increasingly contented with his role as heir. He must know that the end of his mother's reign, which is of course inevitable, will be a severe crisis for the monarchy and so, if he lives that long, which is of course by no means certain, for him, a heavy burden for him personally when he is by no means young and vigorous . Michael Dobbs's original fantasy on this subject, which I mention below, is now positively ancient. Many elderly gentlemen who wrote obituaries of the late Queen Mother died long before their words were eventually published. If we can speculate on the lives and deaths of others at all, which these dramas rather compel us to do, then why should we assume that Charles will necessarily outlive Elizabeth II?.
Mr Bartlett's play, in blank verse, is very clever. But it is not a wholly original idea. Something quite similar was done in Michael (now Lord) Dobbs's 'To Play the King', a book and then a TV drama, back in the 1990s. Once again a crisis was foreseen between Charles, newly King and impelled by a powerful conscience, and an unscrupulous Tory Premier. Once again, Charles lost the struggle and abdicated in favour of his own son.
In the Mike Bartlett version, the issue is a very clever one, namely, press freedom, much more cunningly chosen than the general vague differences in the Dobbs book. In my view, Mr Bartlett actually shies away from the conclusions of his own plot. Surely, if a government was proposing criminal penalties on journalists, as are mentioned in the Bartlett play, Fleet Street would be lined up against this, along with quite a lot of academic, legal and other influential opinion?
If the King refused to give his assent to such a law, he would not be alone. And if he dissolved Parliament rather than be forced to assent, how would the election then go? A King's Party might be a good deal broader and deeper than the shouty republicans who Mr Bartlett portrays as taking to the streets to call for the King's removal.
And I really do not believe that Charles or anyone in his position would permit tanks to be parked in the forecourt of Buckingham Palace to defend himself against such mobs.
I think Mr Bartlett has got carried away by the Shakespearean examples he seeks to follow, what with the ghost of Diana giving cryptic and easily misunderstood advice, and treacherous courtiers and princes ( and princesses) at every corner.
In real life, a well-chosen combat of this kind might well end up strengthening the Palace against Downing Street, as wise politicians well know. But it would have to *be* well-chosen.
The real problem for the Monarchy is not this at all. It is that the British people are no longer really grown-up enough to have a monarchy any more, and this will be brought home very coldly when the current monarch leaves us alone in a cold and altered world.
Hardly anyone grasps the simple point made recently by Prince Philip, that the monarchy exists for the benefit of the people, not for its own benefit. His own life, dutiful and taken up almost entirely with serving the interests of others, is a complete demonstration of this .
Yet millions think that the monarchy is a crude thing, a mixture of a Ruritanian playboy house and a Bourbon tyranny, living in gross luxury on the taxes of a groaning populace, while enjoying unfettered power. They absurdly think the monarchy is expensive, when it costs the taxpayer next to nothing, that it is luxury-loving, when the monarch lives frugally in small apartments in vast, decaying mansions, that it is snobbish, when the monarchy's modern roots lie precisely in the bond between the Crown and the East End of London, forged in the 1940-41 Blitz. And its most fervent supporters have always been among the poorest, who have for centuries seen the Crown as a last court of appeal against the powerful. And they think it possesses secret, sinister power when in fact it is largely ignored.
The Coronation will be the moment at which the difference between the dead and gone Britain which understood and accepted a monarch, and the modern country, largely indifferent to and ignorant of monarchy, is demonstrated.
This ritual (you may read the service on the Internet, and there is a pretty full recording of the actual ceremony commercially available) simply could not take place today.
It is fiercely Protestant, aristocratic, proudly backward-looking, monocultural, conservative, traditional and, in its essence, harsh. At its heart are the sword of state and the Cross of Christ, justice tempered with mercy, and the rule of law. The modern world doesn't much like any of these things, and if Charles wants to jettison quite a few of them, he won't be opposed by the government or the church or the media, or the Equalities commissars. The real problem is that Charles, who is fashionably caught up in the real religion of our age, man-made climate change, is himself a pestilential innovator. And the crisis will not be between him and his ministers, but between him and the ghosts of his ancestors.
And his monarchy will be the empty plastic thing which his fictional character denounces in the closing scenes of 'Charles III'. But then it very nearly is already. It is only the last trailing wisps and rags of majesty, like those ancient transparent battle-flags you find in cathedrals, left over from the imperial age and still clinging to crown and throne, which remind us of what a serious monarchy was once like. They symbolise a country which sees in its own revered monarch (regardless of his or her character) a living symbol of its sovereignty over itself, a free self-governing people with no other overlord, except God. They will soon be in a museum, where almost everyone except me thinks they belong.
Whereas egalitarian utopianism, which *ought* to be in a museum, if not in a hermetically sealed and guarded vault to prevent it from rising again, continues to flourish in the open air.
May 15, 2017 Comments (34) Categories: 'Democracy' , Charles.Prince , Culture , Egalitarianism , History , Monarchy , Religion | Permalink
That was emphatically not an example of the Royal Family serving the people.
Posted by: Peter Starr | 22 May 2017 at 03:42 PM
To Mike B,
Yes, I am aware of Van der Post, but I forgot to add him when I wrote the comment.
The really Protestant thing about the Royal Family is, of course, the fact that the Church is subject to the monarch in the 39 Articles. Whereas I can see that there is a balance to be struck between secular and religious values in our culture, and even in the church, I think the Anglican Church has got it wrong. Hence my comment below about the Queen being able to pressure Rowan Williams into blessing adultery.
@ Peter Starr 22nd May at 07:32AM
"I think that Prince Charles hangs around with chief rabbis, lamas, climate prophets and Orthodox anchorites so much that he sees himself as some kind of religious sage. The Holy Man of Highgrove, as it were."
Bang on the money, Peter.
What is even more disconcerting is that our future king fell so easily under the spell of that disgusting old fraud, Laurens van der Post and his pretentious, half-witted, pseudo spiritual bunkum. This was a man who, lest we forget, impregnated a fourteen year old girl, Evadne Baker, who had been placed under his care and guardianship by her parents when she travelled with him to London to take up a place at the Royal Ballet School, an opportunity she had to forego because of her pregnancy.
Reassuring, isn't it, to know that he stood as godfather to our future monarch, William, who, it goes without saying, is not to blame for his father's appalling judgement.
Posted by: Mike B | 22 May 2017 at 11:35 AM
"Charles, who is fashionably caught up in the real religion of our age..."
I think Prince Charles hangs around with chief rabbis, lamas, climate prophets and Orthodox anchorites so much that he sees himself as some kind of religious sage. The Holy Man of Highgrove, as it were. We will hear more of this when he comes to the throne.
Posted by: Peter Starr | 22 May 2017 at 07:32 AM
"... the bond between the Crown and the East End of London, forged in the 1940-41 Blitz." --PH
Here is an extract from an article in the 'Sydney Morning Herald' of 2 April 2002, written by Australian historian and journalist Gerard Henderson shortly after the death of Elizabeth The Queen Mother. I believe Mr Henderson is a member of the Australian Republic Movement.
"The King [George VI] was not very bright; he was a real live Bertie Wooster character out of a P.G. Wodehouse novel. The Queen, however, was very street smart. She was one of the first public figures in the 20th century to get into what has come to be called "spin" - well before the Kennedy family some decades later. Even today she is praised for remaining in London during the Blitz. In fact, the royal family retreated each night to Windsor Castle. The decision to avoid the German bombs was a sensible one. It's just that the mythology is in marked contrast to the documented facts."
Posted by: John Vernau | 18 May 2017 at 10:34 PM
Thanks to this discussion, I have been inspired to visit
the Swedish Constitution - Act of Succession:
'In accordance with the express provision of Article 2 of the Instrument of Government of 1809 that the King shall always profess
*the pure evangelical faith*, as adopted and explained in *the unaltered Confession of Augsburg* and in the Resolution of the Uppsala Meeting of the year 1593,
princes and princesses of the Royal House shall be brought up in that same faith and within the Realm.
Any member of the Royal Family not professing this faith shall be excluded from all rights of succession.'
Posted by: Ky | 18 May 2017 at 09:44 PM
I agree with the comment that the Queen is excellent value for money .
When or the existing setup is changed , modernised , I think it will be a retrograde change .
The Monarchy is above the party political infighting , on the surface anyway , which is a good thing .
President Kinnock or Major or Blair , would be a hard pill to swallow and would no doubt be more expensive to run than the present system .
Hereditary lineage , in America , Presidents Bush , intended Presidents Clinton & Kennedy , in Britain , political families seem to abound , Benns , Kinnocks , Soames , Churchills , Prescotts , I believe one of Mr Blairs family was or is intending to stand as an MP , strange that they disagree , most of those named , with a hereditary process for one family .
Please keep the monarchy , Queen & Country and all the flummery , it will be very sad and much missed , later , if it is changed .
Posted by: David Taylor | 18 May 2017 at 05:18 PM
Interesting that PH praises the Coronation ritual as "fiercely"Protestant". In a way he's right, not just about the Coronation, but about the monarchy. The monarchies of modern Europe are all "fiercely Protestant", even the ones in formerly Catholic countries like Spain. Their fierce Protestantism derives from their implacable opposition to the idea of binding dogma. Modern Whiggish Protestant monarchy serves as a kind of comfort blanket for traditionalists - very much including Catholic traditionalists. The Whig concept of royalty reassures us that we can have porn on our newsstands, abortion on demand, transsexual bathroom rights, and endless invasions that in no way meet the requirements for just war, but as long as we still have elaborate traditional rituals steeped in medieval imagery, we're not really a revolutionary society.
Many Catholic trads expend a great deal of energy condemning the evils of the French and American Revolutions, but taking their intellectually servile cue from Anglo-Whig conservatives, they avoid dwelling on the role of the so called Glorious Revolution in starting the age of fierce anti-dogmatism - 1776 and 1789 being only aftershocks from the series of cultural and political earthquakes that had transformed Britain in the previous century.
Posted by: Colm J | 18 May 2017 at 02:02 PM
My initial reply doesn't seem to have been moderated so I shall try again.
***PH remarks: Oh, then what about the bit that goes ; 'Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?
'Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?'****
But surely the Coronation Service (which is not in the Book of Common Prayer, even if the Prayer Book Communion Service forms an essential part of the rite) exists despite the Thirty-Nine Articles? It is much older. If certain "bits," such as the Oath, contain reformed theology that is incidental and can be described as like oil floating on a watery surface, as opposed to the service having an explicitly Protestant heart. The English Coronation order hardly changed at all between the coronations of Elizabeth I and William and Mary; William, being a strict Calvinist, actually whinced at certain "popish" elements, some of which he had altered.
***PH writes: As I am often obliged to point out, Anglicanism maintains many Roman Catholic forms, often rather better than the RCs do now, but its heart remains explicitly Protestant, as is clearly shown in this service and in the XXXIX articles.****
When I said "Catholic," I meant in the sense envisioned by the Nicene Creed and not ROMAN Catholic, as you suggest.
Posted by: Patrick Sheridan | 17 May 2017 at 08:28 PM
I believe the distinction between the institution and the personification of monarchy was well summed up in the following exchange from the TV adaptation of To Play the King:
"Urquhart: I wouldn't bet on it, sir. I'm afraid you won't be of much interest as a commoner. I doubt if anyone will be particularly interested in what you have to say. You have no constituency, you see. No power base. You represent nothing but one talentless, discredited family. And very soon, you won't represent even that. You will represent nothing. You will mean nothing. You will be nothing.
King: Well, we'll see. I spent my whole life preparing to be King.
Urquhart: I feel no compunction, sir. You tried to destroy me.
King: No, I didn't want to destroy you, man. You wanted to destroy the Monarchy.
Urquhart: Not at all, sir. Don't you understand what I'm telling you? I have no wish to. It is you I want to destroy, not the Monarchy. My family came south with James I. We were defenders of the English throne before your family was ever heard of. It is to preserve the ideal of a constitutional monarchy that I now demand your abdication."
With regard to Prince Charles, I'm very firmly with Francis...
Posted by: Mr Rob | 17 May 2017 at 05:14 PM
Peter Hitchens writes, "And its most fervent supporters have always been among the poorest, who have for centuries seen the Crown as a last court of appeal against the powerful."
This reminds me of the Gustafsen Lake Standoff in British Columbia in 1995. Members of the Shuswap Indian tribe occupied part of a private ranch that they claimed was a sacred space and part of their unceded territory. They petitioned our Queen for an international inquiry about their claim. 400 Royal Canadian Mounted Police descended upon them, put them under siege for 31 days, kept journalists away, and arrested the 20 or so protestors who opposed them in an operation that cost over $5 million. I felt at the time that all of that force, expense and danger could have been avoided if the Canadian government had simply respected its own Head enough to allow her to consider intervening on behalf of the Shuswap. Instead, I recall that the "Royal" police high-handedly insisted that its authority was absolute as if the Queen were just some legal fiction beneath serious adult contemplation. I think that much goodwill could have been fostered on all sides if Canada were still a country that understood its own monarchy.
Posted by: Brooks Davis | 17 May 2017 at 05:11 AM
Beautifully written, and, more importantly, true. Thank you, Mr Hitchens.
Posted by: Robert duncan | 16 May 2017 at 07:40 PM
@ Geoff Cavender 16th May at 04:05PM
"God Save The Queen".
Well, to quote Billy Connolly, "I think the Queen should be saved; I think it's a great idea, and, if anybody's going to save her, God's the very chap. Who am I to rock the boat?"
Posted by: Mike B | 16 May 2017 at 05:12 PM
The problem I have with Charles iii is that Charles Phillip Arthur George Mountbatton Windsor has let it be known that he will be George vii when he comes to the throne.
Charles is a family name. His grandfather was Albert who became George vi and his great uncle David became Edward viii. To avoid confusion, as he takes over more of the Queens work he will be known as THe prince formerly known as Charles.
Posted by: G Holwill | 16 May 2017 at 05:12 PM
@johnny - 'but it's absurd to say queen lizzy lives frugally,' well actually the Queen is renowned for being frugal and was once described as a 'child of the blitz' who goes around switching off unnecessary appliances. In June 2016 it was reported that her income was £42.8 million. This represents 15% of the profits of the Crown Estate from 2 years previously (2014) whose profits were given to the Treasury in exchange for an income. 85% goes to the Exchequer. The Sovereign Grant replaced the Civil List.
From that income, Her Majesty pays all the minor royals, her staff and her pension liabilities.
Her Majesty is great value for money and is I would contend cheaper than any elected President, Prime Minister or Political Party. Compare the cost of the Crown with the cost of say, the European Union or Wind Farm subsidies and you might agree.
Posted by: Geoff Cavender | 16 May 2017 at 04:05 PM
I used to be a complete anti-monarchist mainly on the basis of the 'ought to be' mentality that infests the ignorant and closed mind.Having now a reasonable understanding of the workings of a constitutional monarchy believe that the trade off that exists within this system as in all areas of life has benefited our society enormously .The sad truth now is that politics backed up by pseudo intellectuals finding 'solutions' to all our ills invariably commenting and working way outside their chosen areas of expertise have not the humility or experience to understand the principle of the lesser of two evils .
Posted by: tony archer | 16 May 2017 at 10:04 AM
PH;
*** "Whereas egalitarian utopianism, which *ought* to be in a museum, if not in a hermetically sealed and guarded vault to prevent it from rising again, continues to flourish in the open air." ***
Alas, Mr H, egalitarianism is part of universal unconditional suffrage; and once the mob were 'empowered' with such, the relativism it enshrines (in which ignorance and knowledge are equal) was bound to bring egalitarianism.
Such is what happens when people discard knowledge, with its inherent hierarchy of truth over falsehood.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy...
Posted by: L Porter | 16 May 2017 at 08:16 AM
It is horribly true that utopian egalitarianism is sprouting like some ghastly triffid. The country is filled with unwitting revolutionaries ready to follow the drumbeat, and maybe even indecorously garbed in the dreaded baseball caps that Nelson would not have been seen dead in.
A friend of mine some years ago was invited to Balmoral, to preach at Crathie kirk (wives are not invited - or spouses for those in favour of lady ministers). He said his room, all decked out in tartan, was freezing. There was only a single bar radiator and, apparently, the Queen went round the castle switching lights off. He was invited up to the bothy and had the surreal experience of seeing the Queen, Prince Philip and Prince Charles setting the table, cooking the sausages and tossing the salad. On Sunday morning at breakfast the family, gleefully and groaningly, read about themselves in the papers.
The Queen Mother's residence The Castle of Mey, as it was then, is even further north and colder. It was without central heating and would, I think, have surprised the average person with just how old fashioned it was. The Queen Mother's life when in Caithness was pretty spartan in many respects.
It is a whole other world of values and sensibilities. And the worry is that it is now unknown and cannot be understood or appreciated and so is lost and forgotten. Now we have the world, if you can call it that, underworld more like, of Mr L'Eplattenier and his ilk.
Posted by: tony foreman | 16 May 2017 at 07:54 AM
I agree with most of what you have said here. However, the continued accusations that anyone who does not share your particular viewpoint being not "grown-up enough", is becoming jarringly churlish. Its that sort of thing I've come to expect from the less articulate Christian right, rather than one who actual seems to have valid responses.
I also wouldn't mind seeing some evidence that "its most fervent supporters have always been among the poorest". If I were being anecdotal I would tend to think that the opposite were true; its most fervent detractors having always been among the poorest, for whatever (not necessarily valid) reason.
Regarding the monarchy, Ever since it "modern roots" it has been irrevocably linked to the weird personality cult that surrounds the Royal Family. Its future will forever be determined by its popularity, rather than by its legitimacy. I suspect that the general popularity of Prince William, his attractive wife and his adorable offspring have secured it for another generation.
Posted by: John Walker | 16 May 2017 at 07:38 AM
"Conservative, traditional and, in its essence, harsh..."
'Harsh'? Alright. But when the Royal Family's harshness extended to forcing that good man Rowan Williams to bless the so-called marriage methought I saw Catherine of Aragon weep again.
Mr. Hitchens,
I'd be interested to know in what ways HRH is a pestilent innovator? In many ways he seems to me a traditionalist on things like religion, architecture, and the countryside. Certainly, his traditionalism is tempered by a desire to keep the essence but adapt some of the forms, as all sound traditionalism is. He is open, for example, to some spiritual dialogue between the traditional exponents, especially the mysticically inclined, of workd faiths, whilst being a stout Anglican himself. Charles's work with the Temenos foundation seems to epitomise his outlook to me. And I'd say he was an exemplary modern conservative. You, Roger Scruton, and HRH are to me the premier British traditional conservatives.
Posted by: John | 16 May 2017 at 04:26 AM
petey... love ya work. but it's absurd to say queen lizzy lives frugally, or that that bad boy harry lives a life of public service
Posted by: johnny | 15 May 2017 at 10:42 PM
Mr Hitchens, let me assure you that your statement regarding the symbols of the monarchy, 'They will soon be in a museum, where almost everyone except me thinks they belong,' is false. There are many, many of us in the Realms, and indeed in the US, who strongly believe in the Monarchy. Those symbols may end up in a museum, but you will not be alone in mourning their passing.
God save the Queen, and God bless our next King, Charles III!
Posted by: Jovan Weismiller | 15 May 2017 at 10:09 PM
On reading these sort of articles I immediately get struck by a sort of sadness or nostalgia for what once was so important and imposing in British life, but now seems so unimportant and derided and taken for granted. It is true that the British in Ulster (to whom I belong) are almost obsessional in their devotion and love for the Queen and the Monarchy, so strongly that it seems almost comical to me now looking back. I remember Christmas Days many years ago with all the relatives - even those from Dublin and Cork with their thick Southern accents - and they all wanted desperately to hear the Queen's Speech at 3.00 PM ever year. Was the highlight of the day for them.
But I do think that the Monarchy is probably dying, the only question is what happens first - the ceding of Northern Ireland to the Republic or the end of the Monarchy in Great Britain (NI is probably much closer to the end to be fair).
Posted by: Marcus Orr | 15 May 2017 at 10:07 PM
I wouldn't have described the Coronation Service as "fiercely Protestant." It's neither of those things.
If anything, it's of a peculiarly Catholic quality within an Anglican milieu,
and one is reminded of Richard Hooker's description of ceremonies. Its structure goes back, in essentials, to the coronation order of St Dunstan, and by 1953 was something of an anachronism in continental Europe in which most countries had either abolished their monarches entirely, or, where they were coeval with ours (as in Denmark), had abolished any form of "coronation" or anointing. It is a fine service, though, and utterly majestic.