Commentary — May 22, 2018, 11:01 am

Marriage of Myths

“Monarchy offers a fantasy of national communion while, by its very existence, making it more unlikely to ever come to pass.”

The Royal Wedding narratives were multiple and ubiquitous here in Britain. Good writers and usually canny broadcasters collapsed before the pair’s obvious love (almost uniquely among marriages, it was not the whole story) and thrilled to detail silk, flowers, gloves. But it was curiously uncritical, and oblivious, for a global event. Televised football commentary is more revealing, since at least it gets to the point. Televised royal commentary never does. The funeral commentary of Princess Diana came closest to the truth of monarchy—it is human sacrifice—but of course it didn’t say that.

Monarchy is about power, not love. I should have liked to have heard more about that on Saturday. The commentary gave us nothing but the pleasanter side effects of the drug that is monarchy: ecstasy, stupidity and, for relief, bewilderment. It could not admit to the institution’s essential greed; to the truth that monarchy offers a fantasy of national communion while, by its very existence, making it more unlikely to ever come to pass. It walked around the facts of monarchy and talked, instead, about dresses and actors and hats.

Except that Britain is a divided country. The current political state is so-called austerity. A public housing tower in London burnt down after years of unheeded warnings to the local council. We have been intentionally creating a hostile environment for legal residents of our country, and deporting some of them, if they are black. The current opposition to the government is, it said on Sunday, anti-capitalist. The wedding, and the pretty Cambridge children, and the $200,000 dress (I estimate)—an obscenity of a dress if you want dress commentary, and that is mine—is paper covering the cracks of a nation that no longer knows what it is. These people will only unite us briefly, and accidentally. They have no solutions and, as long as they lead us, I suspect we will find none either.

Of course, I am happy for those I have never met. Prince Henry (Harry), who lost his mother at twelve—lost her to monarchy, and the occasionally murderous intrusions that now define it—found a woman to hold him and, I think, he laid his heart before her. She was touched by him—Harry is a lonely prince, a semi-mythical being—and she picked it up. It looked real. I hope it is real, even as I resent having an opinion on a stranger’s love. That this was televised in an event as emotionally grasping as the funeral that incited the very need we thought we saw sated on Saturday should be obvious, but it was not mentioned. It should be the final, impolite word on the royal wedding.

But the people want more, and so does the monarchy. They feast, unhappily, on each other. Britain is a co-dependent state that is not in recovery from its past. We left Europe on the wings of ghosts and lies; Saturday showed us how refined our skills are in this matter, and how easy it is to burnish a dream if you have lived it since 1066. How glossy the horses! How polished the diamonds! How long the silks! Ignore the palpable resentment of the royal family for those who both elevate and seek to devour them. I have always thought that when we finally learn the depth of their contempt for us, we will be a republic by lunchtime, and I do not judge them for their contempt. No one really wants to be a human sacrifice, no matter how soft the bed linen. It’s just the family way.

It is true, and interesting, that Harry looked beyond his cold, incurious caste for a wife—to a biracial American woman who, whatever else she does, emotes, and speaks the language of the spirit. So his marriage is considered particularly suitable for a once-lost prince, a merging of his parents’ priorities in life. Diana is now, posthumously, a monarchist forever; her influence, in her son’s choice of bride, was good for the monarchy. But it is Charles who really wins, in the way that the monarchy always wins: by changing, and by staying put.

Monarchy always acts in its own interests; that is why the wedding was not at the Chateau Marmont. Its defense is that it is apolitical, but how can it be when it is predicated on its own political survival? Like the pretense that its members are thrifty—the Duchess of Cambridge wore a dress for the third time!—its recusal from any affairs of state is a lie. The queen’s silences echo, like Sir Thomas More’s, across Europe. The monarchy is always conservative, and is still monied.

But it is also porous and malleable when to be so is in its interests. The British aristocracy is the most successful elite in history, even if it presents itself as merely a tourist attraction, like a human sculpture garden, and this is why. My favorite photograph of the couple, taken from above, showed them as statuary; you could see only their hands clasped, and her shoulders. Nothing beside remains. They were dehumanized. They fulfill a need.

The criticisms—or rather prejudices—that Meghan Markle faced during her engagement died away, and so they should, not just morally but as a practical matter for all monarchists. She will strengthen monarchy and increase its reach. It is a political system derived from myth, and it makes no rational sense at all nowadays, but since no one seems willing to admit that, it should, at least muddily, mirror the myths that people are willing to engage with now: the Beckhams, the Clooneys, the Elton Johns, the Idris Elbas. Its greatest peril is indifference, and who is indifferent to George Clooney, the actor-humanitarian, in a chapel filled with silks?

It was thrilling, of course, to watch Bishop Michael Curry talk about Martin Luther King, Jr.—Zara Tindall, the Queen’s granddaughter, literally gawped with open mouth—but will this change Britain or make its elite more secure? It has already stolen the language of victimhood, and progressive politics. I wonder whether, as austerity goes on and monarchy solves nothing, progressives lauding the biracial duchess with the emblems of the Commonwealth sewn into her veil, will continue to believe in egalitarian and inclusive monarchy, or feel themselves used.

Share
Single Page

More from Tanya Gold:

From the October 2018 issue

Among Britain’s Anti-Semites

The Labour Party’s Moral Dilemma

From the March 2017 issue

City of Gilt

Searching for the town I used to love

From the February 2016 issue

The Queen and I

The awful seduction of the British monarchy

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $23.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

May 2019

Where Our New World Begins

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Truce

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Lost at Sea

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Unexpected

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Where Our New World Begins·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The river “flows up the map,” they used to say, first south, then west, and then north, and through some of the most verdant and beautiful country in America. It is called the Tennessee, but it drains some forty thousand square miles of land in seven states, from the Blue Ridge Mountains to Alabama, and from Mississippi to the Ohio River, an area nearly the size of En­gland.

Before the 1930s, it ran wild, threatening each spring to flood and wash away the humble farms and homes along its banks. Most of it was not navigable for any distance, thanks to “an obstructive fist thrust up by God or Devil”—as the writer George Fort Milton characterized it—that created a long, untamed run of rapids known as Muscle Shoals. The fist dropped the river 140 feet over the course of 30 miles, and therein lay the untapped potential of the Tennessee, the chance to make power—a lot of it—out of water.

Article
Slash Fictions·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

1. As closing time at Moscow’s Tretyakov Gallery approached on May 25, 2018, Igor Podporin, a balding thirty-seven-year-old with sunken eyes, circled the Russian history room. The elderly museum attendees shooed him toward the exit, but Podporin paused by a staircase, turned, and rushed back toward the Russian painter Ilya Repin’s 1885 work Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan on November 16, 1581. He picked up a large metal pole—part of a barrier meant to keep viewers at a distance—and smashed the painting’s protective glass, landing three more strikes across Ivan’s son’s torso before guards managed to subdue him. Initially, police presented Podporin’s attack as an alcohol-fueled outburst and released a video confession in which he admitted to having knocked back two shots of vodka in the museum cafeteria beforehand. But when Podporin entered court four days later, dressed in the same black Columbia fleece, turquoise T-shirt, and navy-blue cargo pants he had been arrested in, he offered a different explanation for the attack. The painting, Podporin declared, was a “lie.” With that accusation, he thrust himself into a centuries-old debate about the legacy of Russia’s first tsar, a debate that has reignited during Vladimir Putin’s reign. The dispute boils down to one deceptively simple question: Was Ivan really so terrible?

Article
The Truce·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

When I met Raúl Mijango, in a courtroom in San Salvador, he was in shackles, awaiting trial. He was paunchier than in the photos I’d seen of him, bloated from diabetes, and his previously salt-and-pepper goatee had turned fully white. The masked guard who was escorting him stood nearby, and national news cameras filmed us from afar. Despite facing the possibility of a long prison sentence, Mijango seemed relaxed, smiling easily as we spoke. “Bolívar, Fidel, Gandhi, and Mandela have also passed through this school,” he told me, “and I hope that some of what they learned during their years in prison we should learn as well.”

Post
Civic Virtues·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Green-Wood Cemetery, where objectionable statues are laid to rest

Article
Lost at Sea·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

A few miles north of San Francisco, off the coast of Sausalito, is Richardson Bay, a saltwater estuary where roughly one hundred people live out of sight from the world. Known as anchor-outs, they make their homes a quarter mile from the shore, on abandoned and unseaworthy vessels, doing their best, with little or no money, to survive. Life is not easy. There is always a storm on the way, one that might capsize their boats and consign their belongings to the bottom of the bay. But when the water is calm and the harbormaster is away, the anchor-­outs call their world Shangri-lito. They row from one boat to the next, repairing their homes with salvaged scrap wood and trading the herbs and vegetables they’ve grown in ten-gallon buckets on their decks. If a breeze is blowing, the air fills with the clamoring of jib hanks. Otherwise, save for a passing motorboat or a moment of distant chatter, there is only the sound of the birds: the sparrows that hop along the wreckage of catamarans, the egrets that hunt herring in the eelgrass, and the terns that circle in the sky above.

Cost of renting a giant panda from the Chinese government, per day:

$1,500

A recent earthquake in Chile was found to have shifted the city of Concepción ten feet to the west, shortened Earth’s days by 1.26 microseconds, and shifted the planet’s axis by nearly three inches.

The Cairo, New York, police department advised drivers to “overcome the fear” after a woman crashed her car when she saw a spider.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today