BREAD AND CIRCUSES: MONARCHY AND FEAR OF THE MOB

I.
Mobs haunt 19^th Century literature. In the shadow of the French Revolution petty bourgeois writers lived in fear of the lumpen proletariat storming the bastions of 'civilised' society. In the growing sprawling metropolises of cities like London, Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds the existence of this great mass of the unwashed could no longer be denied. The question was how to channel the passions of this populace away from the dawning radicalism of the age. Nationalism and the Church seemed to provide a solution. Monarchy, Church and state were the three great pillars holding the existing order together;[1] whilst the three great demons were identified as republicanism, atheism and socialism.
Respecting monarchy the first mass marketed monarch was Victoria, out of whose reign a narrative was formed of an extended 'family' of empire, with the Queen Empress at its head. In the emerging popular press, in the classrooms of schools for the poor, and in the bar room jingoism of the recruiting sergeant this propaganda line was poured out.  From the Crimean to the Boar war the populace could be induced to assemble in support of the imperial cause by invoking loyalty to this extended family. Patriotism became the litmus test of citizenship, as the alternative narratives of internationalism and socialism were declared illegitimate.  
This model of society proved extraordinarily successful. In any struggle between patriotic loyalty and international socialist solidarity the latter barely registered.[2] From the perspective of the ruling elite they had solved the problem that had haunted the early years of the 19^th century, how to channel the energies of a growing and increasingly literate populace. In that we will soon be marking the outbreak of the First World War we will be commemorating the legacy of this ‘success.’

II.

Since the end of the Second World War, the end of empire and the decline of deference this model has been forced to evolve from being highly deferential, cloaked in mystique, delivered to the masses in the hushed tones of a Dimbelby,[3] to something closer to Hello magazine; more demotic if not democratic in tone, tinged with a false familiarity that cloaks the underlying current of sycophantic deference. Moreover with the decline in religious belief monarchy has had to take up more of the strain, ever greater efforts being made to induce the population to don the union flag and throw street parties.

Though the tone may have changed however the underlying narrative remains the same. A new born baby is presented to the world, wrapped in a union flag, born to rule the great British family. 
When every newspaper front page is filled with images of the new born baby, when hour after tedious hour is filled with the same steady drip feed of fawning hysteria you are witness to the sheer scale of the effort put into pushing this myth.
As living standards fall, as access to law, privacy and social cohesion are all eroded the model is increasingly relied on to present a more comfortable portrait . We may be going through a tough patch, but Kate and Andrew are testament to the health of our society. Anyone who refuses to buy into this narrative is immediately suspect, rather as if they were somehow exhibiting a form of moral deficiency. One’s attitude to such occasions as the royal birth defining the nature of ones membership of society. The citizenship of those who say they do not care or are actively hostile to this festival of ‘fawnication’ have the very basis of their citizenship called into question. The cry why don’t you go live somewhere else is never very far away. Hence the spectacle of a spokesman from the organisation Republic being set upon by two ‘journalists’* on the BBC, who, abandoning any pretence at impartiality, are incredulous that anyone could be so crass as to attack the presentation of the love-fest of the royal birth. The idea that citizenship is a grown up business that should involve having a say in who should occupy the role of head of state, being presented as little more than party pooping.
In the world outside of this absurd fairy tale citizenship requires something more than mere flag waving or purchasing commemorative memorabilia, it is not a spectator sport, it requires active participation. Of course the monarchy is not the only institution holding back the development of a grown up society, but it is a extremely significant one.
History however tells us that the populace cannot always be brought off by bread and circuses and it is this fear that keeps the great royal PR machine pumping out the same old fairy tale.

* If this term can be applied to the vacuous couples who inhabit this world and who seem more intent on creating an impression of flirtatious harmony than informing viewers what is going on in the world.

---

[1]  Even in France the monarchy was re-invented in the absurd figure of Napoleon III, neither fully a president nor fully a monarch, a bit like a cross between a goat and a donkey, neither one thing or the other.

[2] There were very brave and noble exceptions, not least the actions of the Manchester mill workers in refusing to work with cotton sent from the slave states during the American Civil war.

[3] Famous British News Anchor, rather like a British Walter Cronkite.

Having visited this page I would be grateful for your feedback, either tick one of the boxes below or make a comment via the comments button.