Britain’s Royal wedding part of a greater national story
The royal wedding in Britain of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle of the United States, now the Duchess of Sussex, was news seen and heard around the world. The focus of the domestic and international media on this particular family event has been pervasive, pressing and — for some involved — prying.
For many, this is all so, so unnecessary. After all Harry’s grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, the head of state of the United Kingdom — which includes Northern Ireland as well as Britain — has little direct governing power.
Nevertheless, all those posh personalities, eye-catching costumes, and courtly ceremonies generate intensely interested international audiences. The storybook dimension draws both political and apolitical people, and at least positive news is featured for once — which is not fake.
This has been a busy spring for the British royal family. Last month, the big international news flash was that Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, gave birth. The youngest, if now not newest, member of the Royal Family of — careful here — the United Kingdom arrived April 23 in good form, and soon afterward was named Louis Arthur Charles. The baby boy weighed 8 pounds, 7 ounces.
The British government, following the June 2016 referendum vote to leave the European Union, has since been involved in a lengthy, complicated effort to do just that. Difficult negotiations have been internal as well as external, with the governing Conservative Party bitterly divided on the matter. With respect to Eurocrats in Brussels, please note the weight of the new prince is 3.8 kilograms.
Earlier, shortly before the general election in May 2015, Britain’s Royal Family announced the birth of another new baby. The arrival of Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana, also the child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, went smoothly and also was big news. As is customary, editors separated this development from any political news.
Over four centuries ago, namesake Queen Elizabeth I was forcefully in charge of the British Isles. Those were brutal times, and losing a power struggle could cost your life, sometimes quickly. Yet Elizabeth rightly receives credit for respecting established law, the prerogatives of Parliament and the advantages of prudent government. She stabilized politics and government following the tumultuous reign of her father Henry VIII.
Today, royalty and representative government have important complementary functions. As Walter Bagehot described in his 1867 book “The English Constitution,” Parliament handles the practical “efficient functions” of governing while the monarchy handles the largely ceremonial “dignified functions.”
The important ceremonial functions address the collective emotions of the people at large about government. In the 1930s, King Edward VIII generated great controversy when he wanted to marry Wallis Simpson, who was an American. In that different earlier time, the fact that she was not British did cause concern and debate. She also had been divorced twice. In general, notoriety followed her.
The vital concern, not publicly discussed by the ruling Conservative government, was that Edward was sympathetic with the rulers of Nazi Germany, as well as being personally highly erratic. German officials considered him a promising strategic asset, in both generating domestic support and eventually helping control Britain in a conquered Europe.
Monarchist Winston Churchill supported Edward with sympathy. At the time, this reinforced the controversial Churchill’s isolation in his Conservative Party.
Finally, Edward did abdicate the throne and marry his American. After war began, successor King George VI proved an effective, valuable wartime partner of Prime Minister Churchill.