Henry Prince 11846860 henryprince74@gmail.com Graduate School of Social Sciences University of Amsterdam Masters’ Thesis Dr. Kobe De Keere Dr. Jan Willem Duyvendak Submitted: 15/08/18 Word Count: 17,637
Romancing the Crown: The Loyal Orange Lodge and the
Monarchy
Table of Contents
Foreword: Notes on the Setting……….5
Abstract………...6
1. Introduction………..7
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Nationalism………...10
2.2 Nostalgia………11
2.3 Informalization……….12
3. Methodology………13
4. Findings
4.1 The British……….15
4.2 What Monarchy Does………...21
4.3 The Crown and The People: A Relationship...27
4.4 Unequal in Theory; Equal in Practice…………...32
5. Conclusion………...………37
References………..……39
Appendix………
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the participants who graciously sat down and shared their story with me. I hope I have done them justice. I would also like to thank my family, to whom I owe
everything. And of course, thank you to Dr. Kobe de Keere. For his tutelage, patience, and moreover, his understanding.
Foreword: Notes on the Setting
As with nationalists, monarchists are not a monolith. Monarchists are as diverse as society itself. The Queen and her constitutional regime means different things to different people. This thesis is concerned with what she and the institution she heads means to the Loyal Orange Lodge (LOL). The LOL is notorious in Scottish society. The common conception is that they are radical bigots whose sole raison d'être is to antagonise Roman Catholics, particularly those of Irish ethnicity (McCrone, 2017). Their most prominent anchoring
practice is the Orange Walks of July, where they march the streets donned in orange sashes to a chorus of whistles, drums and horns to commemorate the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. Mulholland (1999) has argued that the Orange Institution and its numerous demonstrations of strength effectively deny Nationalists and Catholics their basic human rights. The Orange Lodge are predominantly working class, and associated – as far as public opinion goes, exclusively - with the Glasgow football club Rangers (Bruce, 1992).
Indeed, for Scottish society at large, the Orange Lodge has been popularised by football. However, in the following thesis the theme of football is almost entirely missing. So too is the bigotry with which the Orange Lodge is supposed to survive on. Scotland’s most preeminent Historian, Tom Devine (2012), argues that sectarianism in Scotland has all but vanished, and it has retreated to the theatre of football. And, in its death throes, it is
amplified. The following however, if anything, is both an endearing, and calculated, defence of the monarchy.
Yes, the subject is at once the Loyal Orange Lodge. However, at the same time, they are a vessel in which to better understand support for the monarchy, which is the purpose of this research. I conducted interviews to gather data. Interviews took place between Glasgow and Edinburgh, Scotland. It’s well known that Glasgow and Edinburgh – Scotland’s two biggest cities – despite being 55km apart, have an intense cultural rivalry. As Scottish cultural lore follows, Glasgow is the working class city, where the people are friendly and boisterous. As the city brands itself, “People Make Glasgow”. Edinburgh is refined, historic, and the seat of political power. Posh, to their Glaswegian neighbours. Moreover, Edinburgh’s ‘New Town’ is the epitome of the Anglicization1 of Scotland. However, this isn’t the tale of two cities; it’s two cities, with one narrative. Therein the respondents make an appeal to a collective whole: as we Brits together. The uninitiated reader might well be confused by the Russian doll that is the United Kingdom: nations within nations; the nation of Scotland living within the nation of Great Britain. The question of nationhood is a battleground. The respondents here do not deny being Scottish, but see Scotland as being part of a formulation which they hold dearer, Britain.
Abstract
This research investigates supporters of the Monarchy. Through interviewing members of religious and monarchist group the Loyal Orange Lodge (LOL), the research has sought to answer the primary question: How do members of the Loyal Orange Lodge situate the monarchy in contemporary Britain relating to the following: its role in national identity, its utility function, how they view the relationship between themselves and the institution, and, how the monarchy relates to social inequality. Data was collected through interviews with members, former members, and supporters of the LOL. By applying constructivist theories of nationalism, of nostalgia, and informalization, the data indicates that for the sample at hand, the monarchy brings historical and future stability; it strengthens the British democracy; and, imposes no threat – ideologically or in practice – to social equality or social justice.
1.
Introduction“We don’t want to be made to feel stupid. We just like it.” To declare that you, just like it, was enough to justify the existence of the British monarchy for one participant. He followed, that republicans could make all the arguments against the monarchy that they liked, but none of it mattered, because people just like it. The Guardian in May this year posed the question, “Will republicanism survive Harry and Meghan?” (Harris, 2018). With Ipsos Mori (Skinner, 2018) having established that support for the monarchy is at an all-time high, we see that this should not be read as a facetious question. YouGov, as of May 2018 (Smith, 2018) counts 69% of Britons as monarchists (21% oppose, 11% don’t know either way). Assuming the findings from You Gov are transferable to the rest of the population, our 21% who oppose a royal family gives us a grand total of 13.9 million people. Of those, Republic – the foremost Republican group – boasts only 30’000 members. What we can conclude from this, is that the monarchy is the most popular form of government by a considerable length. Secondly, of the minority who oppose the monarchy, very few are active in campaigning against it. The abolition of the monarchy then, is untenable. Support for the monarchy in Scotland is significantly lower than the rest of the UK (Smith, 2018), however there are still more in support for the monarchy than oppose it. So much so, the party of the Scottish government and sole mainstream party to support Scottish independence, have declared they would keep the Queen as the head of state in an independent Scotland.
The myth of the monarchy is so strong, that not only is its abolition seemingly untenable, even British sociology struggles to see past the myths. As Nairn so accurately put it, “The British Monarchy, one of the sociological wonders of the contemporary
world, Europe’s greatest living fossil, the enchanted glass of an early modernity which has otherwise vanished from the globe, has received next to no attention from British social theory. Even more to the point, such attention as it has got consists mainly of acts of worship rather than examination.” (2011, Page 115)
Barthes (2009) saw myth as an articulation of an event, phenomenon or an object which carries expressions of cultural values or ideology, concealing the process from which it came. For Barthes, culture – and thereby myths – are located in societal structures. Britain is a country which presents itself as modern, democratic, and living in social equality. The institution of monarchy, philosophically speaking, is the antithesis of this. The question of this thesis then to analyse how monarchists reconcile these seemingly contradictory social systems.
Shills and Young (1953) were the first in sociology to address the monarchy. Drawing from Durkheim, in that social life is maintained through key symbols regulated through structure, they argued that the act of coronation was an act of national communion. For them, as in Durkheim, culture was motivating, and located in structure, as they poetically said, “The heart has its reasons which the mind does not suspect” (Page 63). In The Enchanted Glass, Nairn rallies against the work of Shills and Young in their argument that support for the monarchy is passive, mindless, and a general expression of popular feeling. His analyses is more complex, and he employs a production of consent model. His theoretical lineage is Gramscian, speaking of a national popular order that sustains a backward looking elite. He locates this historically in hypothesising that Britain had failed to modernise after the civil
war in the 17th century. Further, that the British – and particularly the English – use the discourse of the monarchy to reconcile a decline in power on the world stage.
Billig (1992) conducted the most thorough research on the popular attitudes on the monarchy. In interviewing 60 families, he saw that the Royal Family were largely regarded as the
idealised family. He suggested that the popularity of the Royal Family was due to certain member’s ability to combine celebrity status with some form of normality, most strongly typified by Princess Diana. For Billig the Royal Family was perceived as something world renowned, drawing envy from other nations. So despite the great cost for the taxpayer, they were value for money.
As well as better understanding support for the monarchy, this research looks to understand how the monarchy might be a cultural phenomenon that plays a role in sustaining social inequality. The study of social inequality is a wide area of study, so I have framed social inequality on the concept of the meritocracy. Firstly, as it is a myth which simulates social equality in British society. Secondly it is the conceptual opposite to the Monarchy. I outline the meritocracy as a social problem in that it is phenomenon which exists in social life, yet isn’t realised. The myth of the meritocracy is a phenomenon which I believe is similar to the love myth, as articulated by Swidler (2000). For Swidler, marriage is something society demands of us, it constrains us. Swidler sees love as a discourse which is used to make this institutional demand more palatable. Likewise, the myth of the meritocracy minimises the harsh realities of the reproduction of inequality. For the purposes of this research, I will appropriate the conceptualisation of the term meritocracy from Kim and Choi (2017), whom articulated it as “A social system in which advancement in society is based on an individual’s capabilities and merits rather than on the basis of family, wealth, or social background.” (Page 112). This definition is appropriate as it speaks for it as a social system; it emphasises the individualization of the system; and, it is defined in regards to its opposite.
Interestingly, Michael Young (1958), when he created the term ‘meritocracy’ in 1958,
envisioned it in a negative way. However, in contemporary society meritocracy is framed in a positive way. Young’s sociological satire describes how a purely meritocratic society would eventually reproduce inequality. Where privileged families provide a better education and cultural/social capital for their children, therefore earning coveted positions on merit, in a cycle that would sustain itself. This is how he envisioned a society that is meritocratic, but not equal. It is in this context, I avoid a conceptualisation of a meritocratic society as one in which provides “equality of opportunity” to all members of society despite their social status, as described by many authors (Lipsey, 2014; Martin et al, 2014; Talib and Fitzgerald, 2015). This is the dream of the meritocracy. The definition employed by Kim and Choi however frames meritocracy in a way which better reveals its discourse that sustains social inequality. The research question here is, how members of the Loyal Orange Lodge situate the monarchy
in Contemporary Britain relating to the following: (1) its role in national identity, (2) its utility function, (3) how they view the relationship between themselves and the institution,
and, (4) how the monarchy relates to social inequality. This research is relevant as the Monarchy is a fundamental part of the British state, culture and Identity; yet, it has been given limited attention in sociology. Furthermore, sociological research on the role of culture in sustaining the myth of the meritocracy is also limited. Nor have the coexistence of these
two social systems been analysed. This thesis will hopefully inform the sociological debates on the monarchy, meritocracy, nationalism, nostalgia and the reproduction of inequality. To better understand these phenomenon’s, I have applied a theoretical framework which is built on the sociological work on nationalism, nostalgia and informalization. The interview methodology is derived from the culture in action perspective.
The reader will see that the subsections are designed following the four subsections. In investigating the role the monarchy plays in British identity (sub-question 1) chapter 4.1 The
British discusses the themes of British history: participant’s thoughts on how Britons
understand their own history, who they feel are important historical figures, what they feel British identity is, what they imagine a post-monarchy society to look like, and the pomp and tradition of the monarchy. Sub-question 2 – how monarchists of the LOL see the function of the monarchy in contemporary Britain – is discussed in chapter 4.2 What Monarchy Does. This is done by discussing the themes of stability, destiny, the role of the Queen, religion, money and how the monarchy represents the nation on the world stage. Sub-question 2 – How monarchists view the relationship between the monarchy and the people – is tackled in chapter 4.3 The Crown and The People: A Relationship. Here, the themes of informalization, on service or overlordship, and the distance kept between the royals and the public. The final sub-question - how monarchists view social inequality in the context of the monarchy – is tackled in chapter 4.4 Unequal in Theory; Equal in Practice. This is done by addressing if society is skewed in favour of the rich, if there is an elite in Britain and who would comprise that group, social justice, and meritocracy.
The reader might ask, well, how are these themes and sub-questions related? As the reader will recognise, the themes outlined come to address and inform each other. Firstly, we better understand the monarchy in our participant’s eyes by addressing the wider context of the nation in which it exists. By addressing what the monarchy does and the working relationship the institution has with the people, we develop a deeper and richer pool of data to analyse. This handily allows us to analyse the respondent’s views on inequality with the potential of discovering subtleties in discourse that are not openly said. In other words, the themes and sub-questions are designed as such to acknowledge that the monarchy and sense of
nationhood are not singular (we can’t understand one without the other); and, it allows us better opportunity to ascertain what is not said.
2.
Theoretical Framework 2.1 NationalismNationalism asks us to view the nation state as eternal, and a naturally occurring
phenomenon; it lifts the nation to sacred status, beyond the realms of ideology and politics. Again, I am imploring for an understanding of these phenomenon as a concealment of power: “Ideology's first task - always, necessarily, accomplished invisibly - is to establish what counts as ideology. That is to say, it operates by naturalizing its own presuppositions and designating opposing political positions as 'merely' 'ideological'” (Fisher, 2005). Following the conceptualisation of the monarchy and nationalism as being myth laden, I have
constructed a theoretical framework which situates nationalism through constructivism. Theories on nationalism help primarily in understanding the first sub-question on identity and Britishness while informing the following sub-questions. Furthermore, literature on
nationalism will help us to analyse the data from this sample, as their politics is essentially nationalist politics.
Benedict Andersons (2009) much discussed work, ‘Imagined Communities’, is a constructivist model; Andersons work also falls into the structuralist category. A
constructivist model is one in which meaning is created through social interaction; as for structuralist, it is taken as meaning being consistent through the society. He argues that the modern nation “is an imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign.” (p. 6, 1983). The nation is imagined as it has finite - although not fixed - boundaries. Anderson says that no nation imagines itself coterminous with mankind; we need only consider the case of Brexit to identify Andersons work with contemporary Britain. For Anderson, the sovereignty of the nation state was born in the age of enlightenment. In which the legitimacy and significance of religion in peoples life was falling. Here, I hypothesised as Nairn does, in that the loss of empire and status on the world stage is reconciled with vigour for the monarchy. Exemplifying the need to implement the literature of nostalgia which follows.
As with Anderson, Wodak (2009) sees nations as mental constructions, which nationalised political subjects perceived as discrete political entities. Furthermore, National identities, are produced and reproduced, as well as transformed and dismantled, discursively. ‘National identity’, implies a complex of similar conceptions and perceptual schemata, of similar emotional dispositions and attitudes, and of similar behavioural conventions. Holders of this identity share it collectively and have internalised through socialisation. Wodak’s model is clearly informed by Bourdieu’s habitus then. Institutional and material social conditions and practices interrelate dialectically with discursive practices. Different social fields of action can, however, conflict with each other; for example, if official political ceremonial discourse attempts to justify, gloss over or obscure discriminatory practices and thus helps to maintain the status quo. In imagining a singular national identity, members of community
simultaneously construct distinctions between themselves and other nations, more so when other nations exhibit similar traits to their own. Therefore, there is not one identity: they are discursively constructed according to audience, setting, topic and substantive content. This is similar to Kešić and Duyvendak’s (2016) work on Dutch nationalism in that
nationalism and national identity is not coherent, and is reflexive. Kešić and Duyvendak also argue that nationalism is intensely political. They highlight Anti-nationalist nationalism as a technique of distinguishing oneself from ‘bad’ nationalism, typified by right-wing populism. Wodak and Kešić and Duyvendak then are relevant to this research as I am interviewing a
particular group of monarchists – The Orange Order – who advocate a discourse in
nationalism unique to their group; further, they themselves are highly active in political life, from a perspective which is informed entirely by their nationalist outlook.
The second work I will use for my theoretical framework is Michael Billig’s (1995) approach to nationalism as it focuses on everyday nationalism, as opposed to the trandional focus on extreme nationalism. In ‘Banal Nationalism’ He articulates how nationalism is an everyday occurrence, highlighted by the media, symbolism, language, flags etc. He argues that the "hidden" nature of modern nationalism makes it a very powerful ideology, partially because it remains largely unexamined and unchallenged. Therefore this work is valuable in trying to locate, where and how national identity is created and sustained. However, although I find Billing’s ideas more interesting, my study around Billig’s work as the culture I am studying doesn’t reflect the society at large. This is a culture in which people escape the everyday world and make conscious expressions which would not be described as routine. However, with further contemplation we see that for the people immersed in this culture, this is every day, it is society for them. Thereby understanding how these participants view the world even more important.
2.2 Nostalgia
History does not just erupt into existence. The present and the future are informed by an ideological conversation with the past. Therefore, a key theoretical theme for this research will be nostalgia, which I believe has also been understudied in sociology, and is a social phenomenon which could help understand monarchy and the meritocracy. Furthermore, I am seeking to locate nostalgia as a key process in the production of nationalist discourses. Hauntology is a concept created by Derrida (1993) in which he ascribes nostalgia in society as having a haunting affect. Fisher (2014) takes this philosophical concept and applied it to contemporary culture. Hauntology as articulated by Fisher (2014) is a concept that associates postmodern society with the death of the future. It suggests that culture in this era is obsessed with retro and prone to indulge in nostalgia; a time when the past still had a positive view of the future. In this sense, politics and identity of the Orange Order is haunted by its – right or wrong – view of its own history.
Miranda Joseph (2002) discusses how the idea of the ideal community recurs in various contexts such as art, media, non-profit and nongovernmental organisations. She contends that the nostalgic notion of the community acts to sustain inequality, racism and so on. Joseph’s analyses is useful as it places nostalgia in explicitly social terms; in its inequality outcomes, as opposed to cultural objects in Fisher. This reflects the literature mentioned in that Britain and its monarchy are a highly idealised national community. If we are to study nostalgia and its significance we have to directly locate it in the formulations it arises in.
Michael Kenny (2017) highlights how we have to consider that nostalgia can have an ideological element. Even simple phrases can have significant connotations with real outcomes. Take, Donald Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.” This phrase is vague enough not to be caught up in any historical or social commitments, yet it still captured a strong sentiment with his voters. It has meaning but does not signify a particular place or time. And further, it doesn’t contain any exclusionary language, but yet that is what it does. In its code is a tight exclusionary element. There is a relationship here with the work of Shills and Young in that totems and emblems, flags and paraphernalia, convey meaning
and are loaded with ideology without explicitly saying anything. The very fuel for the myth at hand.
2.3 Informalization
A concept which certainly facilitates my understanding of the phenomenon and theory at hand is informalization. Wouters (2007), extending the Civilising Process as articulated by Elias, suggested the 20th century saw an Informalization occur in social relationships. This theory is used to understand the sub-question concerning the relationship between the members of LOL and their monarchy. I hypothesise that there will have been a change in how these events are reported, and individualisation will be present. Historically, the Royal Family were at the summit of a highly rigid class system; they were private, superior, and sacred. In their modern incarnation, the Royal Family have been humanised: they are public property, and accessible. In contemporary Britain, they are represented like real people, just like us. The informalization process in the scope of this research is directly related to Billig’s work on the Royal Family previously discussed. In the other direction, I believe the
informalization concept is also relevant to the meritocracy. Wouters recognises this
informalization as a cultural tool to avoiding being seen as a snob, much like the omnivore thesis (Peterson, 1992; Peterson & Simkus, 1992). Therefore, I would argue that social interaction alludes to an egalitarian society, however this is again a myth, and that social distinction has adapted to become more subtle. For example, concept of cultural
3.
Methodology Qualitative ApproachI adopted an interpretivist approach for this research. How monarchists situate the role, function, relationship and relevance to social equality in contemporary Britain is a research question which in essence is looking to understand, and interpret the perspective of a group of people. We are looking to examine and account for the social relationship between a sample and an institution. Therefore an interpretivist and qualitative approach is useful as it allows the researcher to understand the social world through not only their own perspective but through the participants eyes (Snape & Spencer, 2003, page 23). An interpretive approach is determined by the fact that the culture in question “cannot be deduced but require empirical observation” (Baszanger & Dodier, 2004, Page 10). My aim is to say something interesting and meaningful about the culture, namely, Monarchists.
Although qualitative research is not homogenous in practice or in theory, there are
distinguishing features which do lend itself to some form of coherency in the methodology. Cloke et al have suggested it has common characteristics wherever it is practiced: in that it regards the ‘natives’ as knowledgeable, whom the researcher can learn a great deal from; it is immersive, allowing the researcher to discover the world views and structures of a society; at its core, it must have an extended period of participant observation; further, it takes into account “what people say they do and why, and what they are seen to do and say to others about this” (Cloke et al, 2004, page 169).
Interviewing
I used interviews to gather data as my interest was in how culture is used in sustaining the meritocracy and the Monarchy. Techniques in rationalisation are sometimes missed in quantitative research, in particular, contradictory logics, which I expected, and found in this research. I would call my interview plan as semi structure. However, my intention was to allow the interviewee to be part of a discussion and to articulate their own thoughts on this topic. The warnings of Bryman (2012) are well heeded, and technical jargon was avoided at all costs. Following the advice of Hennink et al (2011) I sought to ask questions that will invite the interviewee to tell their own story. For example, who where their British heroes? What does the monarchy mean to them? The process of data collection was a learning process however. Initial interviews ran too long on account of the open design and eagerness to delve into different topics of conversation. Therefore I adapted in the field, and remained more closely to the topic questions found in Appendix 1. Thereby avoiding the collection of frivolous – albeit interesting – data.
The Sample
Why the LOL? Firstly, this group has only been studied in a very particular context. That of religion, sectarianism, ethnicity and migration. By addressing this group in terms of the monarchy we are addressing new ground. I would argue that the monarchist element of this group is overlooked, just as monarchism in the UK is overlooked from a research perspective. Nobody has thought to ask why they are monarchists as they just are. It’s who they are, it’s in
their manifest. Furthermore, this sample was ideally easier to collate and made for a cohesive and consistent group. The results are testament to this.
I intended to get access to participants through the Orange Lodge, which exists to celebrate King William of Orange’s victory at the Battle of the Boyne, and to protect Scottish society from Catholicism. The Grand Master of the Scottish Orange Lodge and the District Secretary for Glasgow were gatekeepers who assisted me in collating the sample. This was facilitated by snowballing in the field and using my social network. The membership of this
organisation is largely working class and predominantly male, which offers validity, however, the fact that this group is uniform in their social outlook, I would describe this groups as homogenous. Therefore, I did not impose any demographic stipulations in my sampling. All interviews took place in Scotland, although two participants were English, the rest were Scottish, and all identified as British before being identified as Scottish. Regardless of which nationality people in Scotland identify with, they are British citizens by law. What is important to note is that this sample identified as British.
The sample here is comprised of 16 respondents. There were twelve males and four females, who’s ages ranged from 22 to 90. Four of the respondents lived in Edinburgh, and the rest of the sample lived in Glasgow. Note that the tale of two cities, of working class and middle class previously illustrated largely rings true here. The occupations varied greatly. Four respondents where retired. Five where middle-aged with occupations ranging from
productions assistant, a chef, a sports club secretary, a college secretary and a paper supplier. The following six where young people, of which there was an architect, an account manager, an accountant, a teacher, a bartender and a student. Fascinatingly, the data was not influenced by the respondent’s sex and gender. Affirming to my mind, the validity of the sample that I had hypothesised. This sample represents people who are loyal to the monarchy, more so than the lay member of the public. Their social life, identity and politics is based on being British, and of being protestant monarchists. To protect the identity of the respondents I spoke with, I have given them pseudonyms. I have given them names of Kings and Queens of Britain.
Analyses
The form of analyses was thematic. Thematic analyses prioritises patterns across a data set. My reasoning for employing this method is that the group I am studying is homogenous. A culture unified in religion and social background. They are bound by their morals, politics and worldview. By this logic, I expect to see a pattern of consistent themes. I coded the obtained data in accordance with the questions topic list, which in turn, followed from the sub-questions. Namely: Role in identity, the function of the monarchy, the working
relationship between the monarchy and the people, and concerning social inequality. These four themes had sub divisions for more precise coding and analyses. The framework of these themes was then used as the framework for which the analyses was presented below.
4. Findings
What was observed in these interviews were sombre and calculated defences and
observations on the monarchy. What struck me – and I imagine will strike the reader too – is that a majority of the sample were exercising something of a realpolitik. In that, the political sense in choosing a constitutional monarchy, is presented logically, responding to the
particular circumstances at hand; as opposed, of course, to a politics informed ideologically, morally, or ethically. However, I would maintain that of course politics can never be free from ideology. The monarchists here, in exercising realpolitik, are in essence exercising cultural repertoires. The realpolitik dissimulates the ideology.
4.1 The British
Our History
“People don’t care for their past… People aren’t grateful for the past generations sacrifices and don’t respect their elders now” - Harold
Jean Baudrillard said, “Our entire linear and accumulative culture collapses if we cannot stockpile the past in plain view.” (1994, Page 10) And the Crown as a symbol, perfectly represents this in British culture. It is clear from the data that the mystique and authority of the monarchy is grounded in some romanticised and undetermined collective history, as indicated by Harold. The fact that the monarchy can rely on this idealised history is one of its key tenants on which its continued survival and popularity rests. However, there was a homogenous response amongst the sample, in that the United Kingdom did not know enough about its own history. For the most part participants located this deficit in the education system. For two respondents it was a source of personal embarrassment: they felt they should have personally took their historical education into their own hands.
The school system was specifically targeted for the failure of British society to really have a working and appropriate understanding of its history: “it’s a shame. Kids in school now don’t get the grounding I certainly got.” George, a retiree, lamented. The data therefore directs itself to structuralist views on the state and school systems. The school system from this perspective are seen as the great social sorter; as much as it has the capacity to empower people, it also has the power to disenfranchise. For Foucault (1995), school enforces the norm. For Bourdieu (1994), it imprints the values of the state into the body of the individual. It is clear for the participants that state, nationhood and culture go hand in hand. The research below on identity and democracy also build on the validity of this relationship.
It was only Elizabeth who didn’t quite seem to ‘tow the party line’: “Scotland was quite a big part of the empire, but we talk about ourselves as an oppressed nation, and it’s like, well…. Maybe not. If people were more aware of where we came from, even stuff like immigrants as well, like former empire countries… there’s a lot of Asian people here… and people don’t understand that… the more you know, I think the more aware you are.” Britain’s empire and colonial history is something which the sample are proud of. Some writers argue this opinion is reflected across the population as a whole (Kumar, 2003). Respondents acknowledged
ill-treatment toward colonial populations, but it’s hard to see this as anything other than lip-service in most cases. Respondents expressed that they were annoyed at repeatedly having to apologise for British crimes against the world. There has been a tradition of repackaging the colonial experience as philanthropic, which still prevails today: Britain civilised the world, we made gentleman out of savages.
The anxiety of failing to have a collective working knowledge of the nation’s historical behaviour, makes sense in the context of this sample: as mentioned, and will be further discussed, it is the appeal to historical legitimacy and stability with which the monarchy and national identity is located. By this logic, a failure to appreciate, recognise, respect and to know the collective history of the nation then has significant consequences for the assured position of the monarchy and the stability of the nation.
The most prominent theme was that those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. There was also the potential loss of identity. This point was interesting as the logical conclusion drawn is that identity is a performative procedure. And yet, from the interviews one would be led to believe that Britishness and nationhood came naturally. To return to Baudrillard, perhaps that accumulative cultural history he describes manifests itself in the Queens Crown or the silhouette of her head on a postage stamp. Even in the everyday activity of opening a letter, one is assured of one’s historical legitimacy. The respondents noted that they enjoyed the pomp and tradition related to the monarchy. These everyday items are the micro-insignia of that. This would give power to Billig’s model of nationalism. Opening a letter is routine, banal, as Billig would have it. Yet it has the reverence to reinforce national identity.
Interestingly, one participant acknowledged that history can be subjective, and political. There was the sense from all the participants that history was powerful, but there was never the same sense of fear. For William, he feared the possibility that history could be narrated from a perspective which could influence a future generation to vote for Scottish
Independence:
“Nowadays, I’d be suspicious of an SNP2 (Scottish National Party) government,
introducing an approved syllabus for Scottish history. Because the way they SNP and their followers are, it would basically be teaching false history. It would be unbalanced, and it would be an un-teaching of history. I think Britain, before and since the union, would be absolutely open wide to being mythologised and demonised by an SNP government. I would rather people found out for themselves, rather than people take the chance of schools being turned into ideological factories.”
William was entirely correct to question historical narratives. However, he refused to
recognise that the traditional Whig perspective of history that had and has dominated Britain, is also framed to support a particular nationalism as well, one which he supported. The dominant political culture was a natural occurring phenomenon it seems. This is in line with Wodak who argued that dominant discourses of nationalism legitimise themselves by presenting themselves as being self-evident and timeless. In consulting someone of the
2 The Scottish National Party (SNP) are the ruling party in Scotland, and the only major party to support
opposite political persuasion - an independence supporter - one would imagine the inverse. Edward, was also worried about the wrong history getting out there,
“Some of the idiots you read online certainly don't but I suppose that's probably not a fair example sorry. Problem I have with people is when they think they know loads but actually they only have a wee bit of knowledge on the subject and base all their opinions on 1 or 2 facts. That's if they even are facts I'm pretty suspect most of the time when you read people on Twitter and the Facebook.”
The anti-independence supporters in this sample exercise an anti-nationalist nationalism theorised by Kešić and Duyvendak’s (2016). They look to make claim to an authentic and well-meaning British nationalism; while labelling the Scottish nationalism of independence supporters as bad nationalism. They frame the independence supporters as the nationalists
Defining Historical Figures
“Might be superfluous to say, William of Orange. Even going further back, Oliver Cromwell”
Winston Churchill was the frequently cited historical figure participants felt were significant for British History. One of the most vocal Protestants in the sample – with implied wit - cited Jesus as the most important figure in British history. Many sparingly mentioned King
William of Orange. This admission was quickly left for a more thoughtful answer as this was regarded as too obvious, too on the nose. The Orange Lodge took their name from King William, and their historical lineage is founded in his takeover of the United Kingdom. This answer might be superfluous as he is firstly a hero to this culture specifically, as opposed to a relevant figure in contemporary Britain. Secondly, King William in Scottish culture is
commonly known as King Billy, and is a caricature of sectarianism. In the context of this interview, replying to questions of British historical figures however, Churchill was the common answer. Perhaps as he is seen as a person who can transcend theological and political differences. He represents the British character during the master-unifying event of recent British history: WWII. Churchill specifically, and King George, were cited as leaders that led the nation through WWII. Their role was talked about so passionately, that the implication was that that if it wasn’t for their efforts, the war would have been lost. However, when asked, respondents reluctantly said the war would have been won regardless of those individuals. So what conclusions can we draw from this? That British people use these individuals as totems that represent the perceived character of the nation as a whole. “Big one is Churchill. The man led us through the Second World War to beat the Nazis and I saw some wee uni student online talking about how he was evil recently!! Couldn't believe it! Hundreds of retweets as well talking about all these horrible things he's apparently done in India and stuff. Mental. Guy's a hero and I'm glad most people agree with me anyway as I saw he was voted 'Greatest ever Britain'.” - John
This quote is useful in considering the tensions in how British people see themselves. As illustrated below British people can be defined by their sense of fair play, and doing the right thing. Arguments to the contrary draw animosity. They are perceived as an attack on the national character and identity. Attacking Churchill in this country is sacrilege; to attack this
one person, is to attack a figure in which the nation has invested symbolically and
ideologically in. To attack Churchill is to attack the very idea of Britain itself. This is why the Queen is so popular. The nation has invested in her as a public figure in the same way, only stronger. Whereas Churchill even amongst is ardent supporters, is famous for his social misdemeanours and contentious politics, the Queen is universally seen as infallible by the respondents in this sample. She is loved precisely as she has been so uncontroversial. But the most important thing to consider is that for British people, Churchill is a figure who
transcended politics and class, he is somebody for them that truly embodies the nation. “Churchill and the fact that we had parliament made up of different political
persuasions. And he decided to use the best men for the job rather than
conservative, labour whatever. I forget what type of name they gave that type of parliament3. I think that that helped us get through the war. I think it was a very,
very black time. People at the beginning of the war were expecting gas attacks and all these sort of things.” – Victoria
The British Identity
“The British, it’s a bit like cricket… fair game and all that. The British always do the right thing”
The phrases British identity, Britishness, and British values are common parlance in the United Kingdom. Like the flag, everyone seems to understand what they mean in the context of their conversations. Further, they are loaded with ideological connotations. And yet, when I asked the participants what they felt this master signifier phrase meant, there was little to no effort to answer. The interpretation here is that the participant either was not capable of articulating what it meant – this does in no way mean that they do not understand what it means – or that they felt it was so obvious that they didn’t feel the need to answer with any real vigour. The most concise and confident answer was from Henry, who described the British Identity simply as, “Noble.” However, there was a recognisable pattern in what participants believed Britain is. Britain was reported as being democratic, and having a sense of fair play, as recorded by 9 respondents: “British values… Democracy, justice, you know, social justice if you like. I see these as very much British things. A sense of fair play, democracy, a sense of liberty, tolerance. These are all great aspects of British society.” Said Elizabeth. The most prominent theme when it came to identity was of the sense of exemplary values. From the data, these characteristics were talked of as uniquely British. So to, was a sense of pre-ordained destiny it seems, that Britain had the uncanny ability to survive through hard times.
For James, the British identity could be watered down to the Crown itself. The whole nation for him manifested itself in that image, “Who’s on the money?” He said. Likewise, John said, “If you ask any foreigner to describe Britain the queen and our traditions would be right at the top. To lose that would be like our country losing its legs.”
For some, it was Britain’s achievements, for its perceived success in global terms. This is very much something we recognise in Anderson. Where the inequality of the many is subsumed under the success of the individual in the name of the nation. We read this in
Wodak as she recognises nationalism and national identity creation seeks to whitewash social problems through operationalising the effect of national iconography, ceremonies and so on. “Trailblazers. Simple. We've changed the world in so many different ways
through our history. For the better I should say, think of all the incredible inventors and people we've produced. Amazing progress all around the world. I think it's something to be very proud of that Britain has had such an impact on the world. Even in fashion, music, film the world looks to Britain to show the way. We maybe don't make as much as other countries but for ideas and inspiration we can't be topped.” – John
The sense of nationhood here is romanticised so that nobody is greater than the state, thereby only the state of the nation is what matters which can be read in Anderson. For example, George recalled hosting a Danish exchange student,
“I was very impressed with the education he had. And I said, we could learn a lot from the Danes. And he said, is that right, how many famous Danes can you name? What have they ever invented, what have they ever achieved in life? And when you think about it, when you compare almost any country, to what Britain has achieved, it’s just pretty amazing. Our history, of cleverness, and
inventiveness, in all sorts of fields.”
This is an example of how an individual’s success is claimed in the name of the people and of a nation, and, how these individual successes relegate the importance of the living conditions for the people living within the nation. By viewing this island nation as a collective whole, as an idealised community, you are using nostalgia to disregard institutional inequality (Joseph, 2014). As noted above, the education of people is not as well appreciated as being able to boast famous figures.
For Victoria, it was as simple as a sense of solidarity: “And when the British were up against it, we stick together. We look out for each other, and fair play, they’re quite formidable as a nation. They think of us all as a whole, rather than individuals. The war was a good example of that. Even ordinary things, like when we had the snow a few weeks ago, as you know I’m in my nineties now. And I was inundated with phone calls from my neighbours asking if I needed bread or milk or that. To me, that’s Britishness.”
Charles took pride in that Britishness just came naturally: “I think the beauty of it is, you can’t define it very easily. Scottish people try harder to emphasise their culture. For British, it comes naturally. It isn’t used as a propaganda tool. Britishness is beautiful because it’s so amorphous; it’s everyday life. It’s fun, its enjoyment, its pride. It’s not really associated with prejudice. It’s not ideological. It’s always been ascribed or related to institutions rather than on a blood and soil nationalism. Its ideas and institutions rather than something that’s racially based.” Charles was representative of the sample: Britishness was not constructed through social interaction, it was an objective reality.
Post-monarchy Britain: A Failure in Imagination
“I’ve never given that a lot of thought. I’ve no reason to think that we wouldn’t have our democratic structures. I think if we lost our monarchy, we wouldn’t
degenerate into chaos. I think it would be, in its own way, it wouldn’t be a disaster or a retrograde step in any way.” – Edward.
The respondents, besides from not wanting the monarchy to be dissolved, struggled to articulate what would or could come after it. This question was such a novelty to the
respondent’s that this is a future that just hasn’t even been contemplated. Like the inhabitants of postmodern consumer capitalist society can’t imagine a world past consumer capitalism (Fisher, 2012), monarchists cannot imagine a world without the monarchy; the assumption is that this social system will survive eternally. This question was interesting as it conflicted with the argument I heard time and time again, the stability line. As noted, the monarchy and the Queen provide a stability to the country. However, the respondents in chorus said that the country would survive all the same without the monarchy. Respondents would concede that the United Kingdom would survive unfettered. This breathes life into Anderson’s model of nationalism which located the nations stated power in the fact that no one person can be bigger than the state.
“It’s all kind of intertwined. I think you would lose the identity, money coming into the treasury, and just my opinion, I think there would be a push for Scottish independence.” – Harold.
George produced the closest thing to an answer in trying to articulate what a future without the monarchy would practically look like, “I think because it’s a parliamentary democracy which has evolved rather than revolutionised over the years, I think business would carry on as usual. I’m not even sure you’d get an immediate move to turn the House of Commons into some kind of senate.”
Indeed, one of the most popular defences of keeping the monarchy was, what would it be replaced with? There was a great resilience to adopt a president in which people associated corruption and a general divineness. There was consistent responses that a sense of identity would be lost, there would be economic loss, and democratic deficit. This might well be an example of hypernormalisation. The phrase, coined by Yurchak (2006), refers to an
altogether different society: Soviet Russia. His phrase refers to a society which was failing, however, there was seemingly no alternative to the status-quo. So, the people in charge carried on, maintaining that everything was going to plan. The illusion was so pervasive, it turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy: the people accepted the presentation of a fully
functioning society as the real. He names this hypernormalisation. The point I wish to make is this, the existence of the monarchy is presented as a natural and immovable entity in British society. What could possibly come next? “Oh wow” Victoria said, “You know I’ve never even thought of that.” This is so deeply ingrained into the British psyche that to consider anything else is impossible.
Pomp and Tradition
“As for the regalia and pomp, I love it all and it does help with the image of what we are; the royals are nothing without it in my eyes.” – Mary
The participants clearly are enamoured with the iconography of the royal family. They recognise its importance and that the pomp and ceremony are rich in historic and symbolic meaning. Furthermore, they don’t take it too seriously, nor do they treat it with too much humour. It is something which they feel very comfortable with, and, to them, is a completely naturally occurring phenomenon.
“I love how iconic the Union Jack is. When you go to London and see our flag on everything from tea-towels to key-rings and you see how all these tourists from around the world are buying anything they can with the red, white and blue on it, it does make me proud. I think if we lost the monarchy the flag wouldn't fit anymore. All these commonwealth countries that still have our flag is because they love our queen and if we lost that then I think you'd see a lot of countries changing their flags not just ours… Hand-in-hand with how people see Britain, and her Majesty is integral to that.” - Edmond
For this sample, the royal iconography is part of everyday life, but in the periphery. None of the participants in this sample collected trinkets or royal souvenirs. The paraphernalia is always in the background so that they don’t notice, but they know it’s there. It’s only an indulgence when there is a special occasion. A royal wedding being the prime example.
4.2 What the Monarchy Does
Great Britain: Stability and Destiny
“We’ve always muddled through. It’s a peculiarly British thing. You muddle through. A bit like Brexit. But we’ll muddle through that as well. We always do. Will it be a disaster, I don’t think so. Will it be an empowering blessing, probably not that either, but we’ll muddle through. We will get there. And that has been our history. We muddled through two world wars. I mean, how the hell did we beat Hitler? But we did, and if we go right back through our history, when the French were busy chopping off the heads of their aristocracy and doing away with their monarchy, why the hell did that no happen to us? Because there was tremendous fear it was going to happen here too. Yes, we had a civil war, but we muddled through.” – George
I hypothesised that support for the monarchy would be informed by a sense of loss in the world stage or of power. However, the participants in this research did not feel a sense of loss at all. Nor did they recognise the sentiments in the popular press that the nation was ‘going to the dogs’. Only, Henry, with his penchant for brevity, had a wholly negative view of the future when he said the future of Britain was, “Fucked, to be honest.” According to the participants the country was doing just fine. So either the country isn’t on a downward spiral in which we will never again achieve true greatness, or, they are in denial.
However, a recurring theme in my discussions with these monarchists was stability. The monarchy is a symbol of stability for this nation. They readily acknowledged that the nation and its people indeed changes; the future is uncertain, and can’t be controlled. But the future did not seem to worry these monarchists in the slightest. No matter how volatile the world was articulated in the popular press, one thing would remain constant, and that is that the Queen and monarchy would be there. Like a lighthouse in a storm, like a “safety blanket” as
Charles said, the monarchy becomes a symbol in which to believe, a deity that accounts for our continued protection. The arguments followed the logic that Britain will survive the future because it survived the past.
“I think we’ll be stable, in world terms. We have a diversified economy, for all its faults, we’re fairly well educated. We’ll certainly not starve, like other countries starve, whatever happens. I’m fairly happy with that.” – William.
“I don’t know too many fears to be honest for Britain. I think Britain has been a very blessed society. I don’t really see that changing. British society is slowly changing as it slowly has done. There’s always this flux in society. But it’s never been dangerous. We’ve always accommodated to new situations. And I expect Britain will continue to do that.” - Charles
There were issues which some respondents were concerned about, but the interpretation of the data, these are more roadblocks which will be overcome, rather than harbingers of doom. The two most prescient concerns were Brexit and the question of Scottish independence. Interestingly, these too issues are fundamentally questions of sovereignty and identity. “Uncertain just now, apart from what might happen with Brexit, I worry that the country will be drawn into another war… in this age of nuclear weapons will any of us have a future if that’s the case”
These concerns can be read as insular. I will qualify this by noting that respondents didn’t observe common international concerns such as global warming, or natural resources as potential threats to Britain. There is also a key distinguishing element with Brexit and Scottish independence regarding this sample. Brexit can be seen as a movement to reclaim national identity and sovereignty; whereas Scottish independence can be seen as an issue which is saving national identity.
“The Scottish Nationalists worry me… I’m very proud to be a Scot, but…We’re a small country for goodness sake, look at a map. Aye, Britain isn’t the power it used to be, and it never will be. It’s illogical to think otherwise. I don’t lament that we won’t be a leading superpower again” – Athered
Contemplating the future of Britain was also related to its historical status as a world superpower. This was a point of mixed reactions. For some, Britain’s reduced status on the world stage was one of acceptance exemplified by Athered above. This response was more in line with Nairns hypothesis that “The U.K. has so far striven to keep up appearances, via kind of half-honourable decline: unwilling negotiations with retreat, rather than outright defeat, the goal; a piecemeal and staged withdrawal rather than mere eviction from the world stage.” (Page vii). For Richard Britain’s lack of military and economic power was a problem, “Increasingly worsening economic situation and isolation from the world. NATO is under threat, we keep reducing expenditure on Armed forces and our “Say” in the world will reduce. Less Prestige!”
There was also a good deal of confidence to be found in this sample, Charles envisioned the fate of Britain being, “Strong and Independent”, which the monarchy would “represent UK PLC across the globe.” As for Harold as well, Britain’s future was to be, “A bright and
prosperous one!” Like in Cerulo’s (2006) Never Saw it Coming, the participants appeared to minimise and ignore negatives and highlighted and focused on the positive.
God save Our Gracious Queen
“I don't think we understand how lucky we are to have her as our monarch.” - Charles
It would not be an exaggeration to say that the reigning monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, is universally loved by the respondents. “She hasn’t put a foot wrong.” George repeated. There is clear admiration for the Queen as a leader and as an individual who rises above petty politics; regarded as illustrious in every sense. Henry regarded the Queen as “A mainstay of British culture overseeing many changes as the British Royal Family as an institution adapts to modern times.” There is a great deal of empathy for the Queen. Nobody sees her role as easy.
“The present Queen works every day with little privacy with no chance of retirement, and no real power: she is only a figurehead, if she didn’t agree with Parliament they could vote her out. However, she does a great job representing this country at home and abroad and I think that she is worth every penny, bringing in more currency from visitors who love the pomp of it all.” - Mary
Respondents also praised her for overseeing changes in British society, and directing the monarchy appropriately with them: “She is the longest reigning monarch and has had to adapt and change her views and traditions to make way for the modern monarchy British Royal Family as an institution adapts to modern times” For Anne here, the emphasis is not only on the Queen as a good monarch, but also the safety she affords monarchists, in this statement, the Queen is not only working to adopt to change in our time, but she is safeguarding the future of the monarchy and whatever changes the next generation of royals will face. “Seriously though, I’ve never known another monarch like our present Queen.
She’s the only one I’ve known my entire life. And I honestly don’t think she’s put a foot wrong. She’s had to bring the monarchy right through incredible changes in British society and British attitudes. And she’s been responsible for steering it in that direction. And the interesting thing is, she actually managed to preserve the mystique of monarchy.” - George
George’s comments put the samples adoration of Queen Elizabeth into perspective. She is not loved simply for the fact that she is Queen and is therefore automatically owed loyalty. As George has said, there have been unpopular monarchs in the past; she is admired as she is believed to be a good monarch. The monarchists I spoke to invested in this figure. In the Queen, they find a figure which gives them confidence, and assurance.
The Great British Democracy
“And no matter how you argue against it, and you can argue against it, even the House of Lords, an unelected chamber of guys who are born into privilege, and there is a very convincing argument as to how that’s an undemocratic system…
but it works. And it’s a fall back argument of mine, that it works. But it works. Give me a better system, I’m listening.” – James.
The assemblage of British democracy, as told by monarchists, reminded me of Velthuis’ interpretation of Durkheim’s model of the sacred and the profane. It is hard to commodify works of art as it is a process of reconciling two different – and for some, polar – systems of logic (Velthuis 2005, page 23). Namely, the capitalist logic, and the cultural logic. The capitalist logic is the dealer’s commercial drive. Where the gallery is a market place and the acquiring and selling of commodities for the greatest economic value is the primary concern. The cultural logic is at odds with this commercial enterprise. Here the dealer is a servant of history and society; they play the crucial role in as cultural gatekeepers. It is not economic success that drives them, but bringing the latest and best artists to the public for art’s sake. The art dealer comprehends this difficulty by distinguishing between the scared and the profane in their galleries, and, how they present their selves and their function (page 28). The sacred is the art itself, and the profane is the economic element. These worlds are
differentiated architecturally by the allocation of the sacred in the “front room”, and the profane in the “back room”. This allows the dealer to maintain their status as a cultural gatekeeper while still actively participating in commercial conquests.
In that vein, politics, and politicians, are talked of as necessary evil. They are deeply
mistrusted and are profane in the extreme. All of the participants on the other hand glowed in explaining how the Queen was absolutely non-political. She has no opinions, she is above petty party politics, and the associated self-interest. She is only interested in the nation as a collective and homogenous whole. Of course this served to illustrate the Queen as benign and as unthreatening, but it also serves to make the system of government more palatable: the sacred Queen incentivises the profane politicians. The non-political element was stressed emphatically. It is a useful debating tool that monarchists clearly love to use against Republican threats. She has no power, so what’s the problem?
The emphasis on the Queen and the monarchy being non-political cannot be seen as anything other than an ideological statement in sociological eyes. The Queen, contrary to the opinions expressed here, can be seen as political as she represents the status-quo: the establishment. This is well clearly illustrated by Nairn. This is a myth that needs to more introspection in Britain. The maintaining and reproduction of classed inequality through politics. The Queen literally represents the colonial history of Britain, in that she is the figure head of the
Commonwealth. The current wars Britain are involved in or waged on her behalf, by her government, through Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. The Monarchy is only non-political to those who support the current political system. William knew this too well when he said that the SNP don’t attack the Queen because it would be political suicide. Kenny (2017) would argue that the symbolism of the monarchy is all too powerful, as it doesn’t implicitly convey a message, but appeals to a greater authority, an idealised history.
“I think they've got it spot on really. I'd feel a bit uncomfortable if they started getting involved with politics. That would be a turning point for a lot of people I think. Obviously not for all and I can say that for sure after talking to members of my lodge! Seriously though, I think the progress over the year’s means they fit into our system and way of life well.” – Edmond
Government by constitutional monarchy is a system which the sample see as working very well. It is seen as something which is efficient, and provides stability, with little fear of corruption. Furthermore, they see it as culturally rich.
“There was a young American chap about your age, waxing lyrical about how government was done in those days. And he said it followed the British system, to a tee… and he said, you cannot conceive, there has never been conceived, ever, a better form of government. I nearly fell through the floor! I thought, has an American just said that? But then again, the American pride themselves in the fact that their system of government was derived from ours.” – Athered
Firstly, this comment is a recurring theme, that America and Americans admire and have wanted to emulate the British. Secondly, the respondents are not interested in change. The system in Britain works for them.
“The monarch stands above politics. She’s not part of government. She isn’t elected, she doesn’t represent left or right. She’s just there. And she’s very conscious of the fact that she has to represent the whole nation. And she does that, and there’s things the queen has agreed to and had to get involved with that’s surely not given her pleasure. But the point is she did it because she sees herself as the queen of the entire United Kingdom.” – Richard.
Religion
“There’s no question, the Christian faith, underpins British society and how it’s developed. I think it’s dangerous or flippant to say that’s not true.” - George
Harold was the most fervent in a religious sense when he said, “the royal family have been put on earth by God to do what they do, and so they are above the rest of us.”
However, historically, the relationship between religion, crown and the state has changed. From medieval times the Monarch ruled absolute, anointed by God. This changed when Henry VIII converted to Protestantism. Although he still ruled absolutely, and still, by claims to divine right, but now the monarch didn’t respond to a religious authority here on earth in the shape of a pope. The monarch was the head of the church. The next significant change was William of Orange: William the conqueror. But William didn’t conquer Britain, he was invited. He was invited by a Protestant society who found the popish and absolute rule of James Stuart. This is the system of monarchy we know in Britain today. The monarch reigns by consent of the people, and leaves the governance of the nation to other people.
The respondents lamented the decline of the nation’s piety: “Church have no say in society anymore. It’s been post religious for a long time. When big debates are happening, they’re invited in for a tea and a biscuit, but there’s no influence.” They respected and stressed the significance that the Queen is the head of the church in Britain. The members of the Orange lodge, such as John here, also appreciated that for most monarchists, the religious role of the Queen isn’t as prescient,“Although I don’t expect that’s what many monarchists see it that way, for example in England, they won’t appreciate the religious divide we have here.”
What was interesting, is that although the respondents did mention the significance of religion, they were not one dimensional in this angle:
“When you think of what we’ve been through, the disasters we’ve avoided, everything we’ve survived… how can you describe it other than anything other than a benign, divine influence, steering us away from catastrophe. That’s one way to look at it. Or are we just a peculiarly talented, a peculiarly lucky race? I don’t know.” - George
This then is similar to Wodack’s (2009) model of nationalism in which narratives are
adjusted and reconstructed in different situation. For these monarchists, the Queen is the head of the church, but when speaking to republicans they are able to adapt an argument to combat their concerns.
Money
“But whatever you replaced it with, it’s going to cost money. I think we should stick to what we’ve got.” - Athered
A point that kept being repeated was money. The monarchists in the sample were satisfied that republicanism was no threat, as it could easily be refuted pragmatically via monetary concerns. For them, there was no question, the monarchy made money for the state. Time and again the monarchists I spoke to stated how practical the monarchy was in terms of money. For them, it was an irrefutable fact that the monarchy brought money into the country through tourism. Furthermore, the common argument that the monarchy was a burden on the tax payer was refuted by pointing out that whatever would replace it – let’s say a president heading a republic – would still cost money.
The World
“They are a global brand. Whenever there is an anniversary or a royal wedding, it seems the whole world stops to take notice and brings the UK to the attention of the rest of the world.” – Anne
Anne, like Hobsbawm located the monarchy’s contemporary global success as being predicated in an age of media: “The Queen and her family travel the world, the family is a brand – like a posh version of the Kardashians - everyone knows who they are.” Furthermore, what the British monarchy has done – despite the process of informalization – has maintained an air of mystique. Henry made note that the case of the Dutch monarchy highlights this. The Dutch royals were all too human, and had thereby lost their appeal by romantic fascination. Research published by Ipsos Mori (Skinner, 2018) concludes that the monarchy has a positive impact on Britain’s reputation abroad. However, this as a fact does not serve the purpose of this research. The conclusion from Ipsos Mori could have been the opposite, whether other counties like the monarchy or not is almost negligible. What is of interest here, is why
