The Royal Element

With King Charles' coronation it is time to assess once more the value of everything royal

Normally I try to stay away from royalty on this newsletter, but the last year has been exceptional of course with the Queen’s passing and the Sussex saga. So tomorrow will see the coronation of King Charles III and it is bringing out the endless commentary on monarchies, the relevance they have in the 21st century, now with a focus on how Charles is going to engage with his subjects. And in Canada, Australia and New Zealand the debate about it being time to get rid of the royals altogether and establish a republic will get traction again as it always does. The outcome of that debate by the way will be the same as always: nothing will change. The rest of the world has moved on it seems as there aren’t that many monarchies left on the planet.

The heart of the issue in the case of King Charles is on the one hand the global role that the Mountbatten-Windsor family has always played, on the other it is the truly bizarre relationship they have entertained with the press. Add to that the British obsession with tabloid style news and you have an idea of where all the drama originates, all of it not helped by how some of the royal family behave, from time to time.

In stark contrast stands for instance the Dutch royal family who tend to have a far more relaxed and dare I say informal relationship with the press and their subjects. As opposed to the Mountbatten-Windsors, the Oranje-Nassau family does not have the global franchise and is therefore far less valuable as an item for the tabloids who also play a far lesser role in The Netherlands. And the royal family tends to keep its behaviour in check, the infamous Lockheed affair in the 1970s was probably the most noteworthy royal transgression in my lifetime and it wasn’t even about sex. And so they have generally been on good terms with the press, a relationship that is cleverly managed by giving the media access from time to time in return for distance and privacy.

And it is not just that. The Dutch are quite willing to give the royal family their space and respect, you would not want to do to them which you don’t want to do to your neighbour, so to speak. I recall how in the late 1980s the current monarch, King Willem-Alexander, was mentored by a professor who happened to be a close friend of my parents and whose wife actually was my math tutor. Of course the regular visits of the then Prince of Orange with our friends who lived very close to us was dinner table fare. Yet we never brought this news out to the world at large, even I did not use it as an item to gain favour with my friends, and some thirty-five years on I still feel some reluctance to write it down. It simply was, and is, not done to violate the royals’ privacy.

Although times have changed, the implicit contract the Dutch have with their royals is one of respect and the result is a far more informal attitude and relaxed relationship. There’s a fit between the sovereign and his subjects and the latter know intuitively what it is. And it is also understood where the value of the monarchy resides: in tradition and a shared identity, both of which in times of trouble get elevated to gain strength and comfort. During World War II the exiled royals were a symbol for the Dutch resistance, in more recent days it was the down to earth way in which the king and his wife consoled the nation after the downing of the MH-17 over the skies of Ukraine.

And royals wield a measure of soft power often used in international affairs, like on trade missions or in sensitive matters where cabinet ministers have less of an ability to sway matters. We have to see if Ukrainian president Zelensky’s meet-up with the Dutch king yesterday in The Hague yields any dividends for the former. But the royal seal of approval is of value and if there are doubters about support for Ukraine, the Dutch king may have nudged them along a bit in the right direction. And if he hasn’t, he certainly has given Ukrainians a token of moral support in the dark days they are facing.

Yes, it is in symbolism that royalty primarily lives. But the imagery, the handshakes, the building bridges where there aren’t any, do help nations come together and do provide support, however flimsy it may sometimes be, to those that need it. And it makes great photos. When you are looking at Charles and Camilla tomorrow, think about the scorn they both have received over the years. Yet now at age seventy-four the former Prince of Wales is set to make the most of it and it feels like everyone wants him to succeed. And he did not have to really do anything for that, just wait for that point in time where he could ascend the throne. The role and its symbolism is that powerful. It has value and most of us love it. God Save the King.