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 $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2019

Without a Trace

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

What China Threat?

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Going to Extremes

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“Tell Me How This Ends”

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
What China Threat?·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Within about fifteen years, China’s economy will surpass America’s and become the largest in the world. As this moment approaches, meanwhile, a consensus has formed in Washington that China poses a significant threat to American interests and well-­being. General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), has said that “China probably poses the greatest threat to our nation by about 2025.” The summary of America’s 2018 National Defense Strategy claims that China and Russia are “revisionist powers” seeking to “shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model—gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions.” Christopher Wray, the FBI director, has said, “One of the things we’re trying to do is view the China threat as not just a whole-­of-­government threat, but a whole-­of-­society threat . . . and I think it’s going to take a whole-­of-­society response by us.” So widespread is this notion that when Donald Trump launched his trade war against China, in January 2018, he received support even from moderate figures such as Democratic senator Chuck Schumer.

Shanghai Broadcasting Building, by Cui Jie (detail) © The artist. Courtesy private collection
Article
Without a Trace·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In December 2015, a twenty-­two-year-­old man named Masood Hotak left his home in Kabul, Afghanistan, and set out for Europe. For several weeks, he made his way through the mountains of Iran and the rolling plateaus of Turkey. When he reached the city of Izmir, on the Turkish coast, Masood sent a text message to his elder brother Javed, saying he was preparing to board a boat to Greece. Since the start of the journey, Javed, who was living in England, had been keeping tabs on his younger brother’s progress. As Masood got closer to the sea, Javed had felt increasingly anxious. Winter weather on the Aegean was unpredictable, and the ramshackle crafts used by the smugglers often sank. Javed had even suggested Masood take the longer, overland route, through Bulgaria, but his brother had dismissed the plan as excessively cautious.

Finally, on January 3, 2016, to Javed’s immense relief, Masood sent a series of celebratory Facebook messages announcing his arrival in Europe. “I reached Greece bro,” he wrote. “Safe. Even my shoes didn’t get wet.” Masood reported that his boat had come ashore on the island of Samos. In a few days, he planned to take a ferry to the Greek mainland, after which he would proceed across the European continent to Germany.

But then, silence. Masood stopped writing. At first, Javed was unworried. His brother, he assumed, was in the island’s detention facility, waiting to be sent to Athens with hundreds of other migrants. Days turned into weeks. Every time Javed tried Masood’s phone, the call went straight to voicemail. After a month passed with no word, it dawned on Javed that his brother was missing.

A screenshot of a December 2015 Facebook post by Masood Hotak (left), in Istanbul
Article
Going to Extremes·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

When Philip Benight awoke on January 26, 2017, he saw a bright glow. “Son of a bitch, there is a light,” he thought. He hoped it meant he had died. His mind turned to his wife, Becky: “Where are you?” he thought. “We have to go to the light.” He hoped Becky had died, too. Then he lost consciousness. When he opened his eyes again, Philip realized he wasn’t seeing heaven but overhead fluorescents at Lancaster General Hospital. He was on a hospital bed, with his arms restrained and a tube down his throat, surrounded by staff telling him to relax. He passed out again. The next time he came to, his arms and legs were free, but a drugged heaviness made it hard to move. A nurse told him that his wife was at another hospital—“for her safety”—even though she was also at Lancaster General. Soon after, two police officers arrived. They wanted to know why Becky was in a coma.

Three days earlier, Philip, who was sixty, tall and lanky, with owlish glasses and mustache, had picked up his wife from an HCR ­ManorCare nursing home. Becky had been admitted to the facility recently at the age of seventy-­two after yet another series of strokes. They drove to Darrenkamp’s grocery store and Philip bought their dinner, a special turkey sandwich for Becky, with the meat shaved extra thin. They ate in the car. Then, like every other night, they got ice cream from Burger King and drove to their home in Conestoga, a sparse hamlet in southern Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Philip parked in the driveway, and they sat in the car looking out at the fields that roll down to the Susquehanna River.

They listened to the radio until there was nothing more to do. Philip went into the house and retrieved a container of Kraft vanilla pudding, which he’d mixed with all the drugs he could find in the house—Valium, Klonopin, Percocet, and so on. He opened the passenger-­side door and knelt beside Becky. He held a spoon, and she guided it to her mouth. When Becky had eaten all the pudding, he got back into the driver’s seat and swallowed a handful of pills. Philip asked her how the pudding tasted. “Like freedom,” she said. As they lost consciousness, the winter chill seeped into their clothes and skin.

Illustration by Leigh Wells (detail)
Article
“Tell Me How This Ends”·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

America in the Middle East: learning curves are for pussies.
—Jon Stewart, The Daily Show, June 2, 2015

In January 2017, following Donald Trump’s inauguration, his national security staffers entered their White House offices for the first time. One told me that when he searched for the previous administration’s Middle East policy files, the cupboard was bare. “There wasn’t an overarching strategy document for anywhere in the Middle East,” the senior official, who insisted on anonymity, told me in a coffee shop near the White House. “Not even on the ISIS campaign, so there wasn’t a cross-governmental game plan.”

Syrian Arab Red Crescent vehicles in eastern Ghouta, March 24, 2018 (detail) © Anas Alkharboutli/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

Value of loose change left at TSA checkpoints in 2010:

$409,085.56

Eighty percent of those displaced by climate change have been women, whose voices have been getting deeper.

In Wichita Falls, Texas, a woman was banned from Walmart after drinking wine from a Pringles can while riding an electric shopping cart; she had been riding the cart for two and a half hours.

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

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“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