« It's a Start | Main | Lieberman: Politics and Policy »
January 08, 2006
The Land of Make Believe
Shakes here... Britain’s Prince William is beginning his military training at Sandhurst Academy.
William, 23, the eldest son of Prince Charles and the late Princess Diana, becomes one of the 270 recruits taking the 44-week course. Charles traveled to the academy to accompany William on his first day.
The future king was required to bring his own ironing board as well as heavy black military boots…
William, who graduated from Scotland's St. Andrews University in June, will be the most senior royal in recent memory to attend the academy — opting for the army rather than the navy.
Charles trained to be a pilot with the Royal Air Force as well as serving in the Navy.
William follows his younger brother, Prince Harry, who enrolled at the academy in May.
Just the other day, Mr. Shakes and I were talking about the British Royal Family, of whom, being a Scotsman, he’s no great fan in a historical sense. But he has a deep respect for the modern Windsors, who carry on the admirable aristocratic tradition of serving their country—in the military and other ways—in exchange for the privilege the country affords them. Princes William and Harry have the same chance of serving in Iraq as do any other officers; their uncle, Prince Andrew, served in the Falklands War. When the British government wanted to relocate him to a desk job from the HMS Invincible, one of only two operational aircraft carriers available to the Royal Navy, it was the Queen herself who insisted that Prince Andrew be allowed to remain with his ship. After the war, the Queen and Prince Philip joined other families of the other crew to welcome the vessel home, just a mother and father like any other, glad their son was safe. During WWII, that same mother and father refused to leave their London home when London was bombed, standing in solidarity with the people who had no option but to stay.
We don’t have an aristocracy in America in the same sense as does Britain, but that isn’t to say we don’t have one at all. George Bush, in spite of his brush-clearin’ good-ol’-boy routine, is nothing if not an aristocrat—born to wealth and power, schooled in the best private instutitions, rising to prominence not on his merit, but his name. And like many American artisocrats, Bush used his privilege, while denying its existence at every turn, to avoid serving his country, until he could do so as a leader, at which time he shed any pretense of serving the country, instead serving the agenda of other aristocrats.
He is, however, of the new American aristocracy. There are still aristocrats in America who follow the British tradition, men born to privilege, wealth, private schools, and limitless opportunity who repay this debt of inherited fortune by serving their country. Men who graduate from an Ivy League School and enlist in the military. Men who go to war and come home to serve again, as prosectors and Congressmen and Senators. Our last two Democratic presidential candidates were men like this.
Men like this don’t mask their privilege, nor do they flaunt it. It simply is. But in our typical American way, pretending as we love to do that there is no aristocracy in America and hating the merest whiff of blue blood, we reject patricians and disdain their privilege, particualarly when they have never sought to use it to their own advantage.
It’s a peculiar tendency, this, to hold in contempt a person who has no personal need to care about the trials and troubles of others and yet does so nonetheless, who recognizes his or her fortune as a fate as random as that of someone who struggles. It’s an odd inclination to prefer the charade of Bush’s self-made man to Gore’s nobility (in both its senses), considering it is the former who would most eagerly see the perpetuation of the divide we revile in the moments we are honest enough to admit it exists in the first place.
Someday, barring a tragedy, Prince William will become a king, and the people of Britain will remember that he served his country, and even many of those who would see the monarchy wholly dismantled, and their fortunes turned over to the people of Britain, will respect him for his service. They don’t have the option of pretending that their aristocracy is anything but what it is. Some would say that’s a burden; I think it’s a gift. Our insistence on make believe has imagined us right into a new Gilded Age.
(Crossposted at Shakespeare's Sister.)
January 8, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/3995504
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Land of Make Believe:
Comments
One of the things that the UK got right over time (and the Israeli's, too, among others), is their separation of the personal symbol of national unity - the Head of State, from the actual figure of national governance - the Head of Government.
The King/Queen as head of state can function without political power (and the favors/burdens that confers). The head of government (the Prime Minister) does not monopolize the national attention, and gain authority from the necessary symbolic acts of representing all of the people on appropriate occasions.
We can understand why our founding fathers wanted nothing like the kingship of George III, but in retrospect it perhaps would have better for our President to be just head of government.
Prince William, for whom I have sincere regrets that he will never have a real personal life, seems to embody the best results that a privileged life can bring - and I wish him well. And isn't he stuningly handsome?
Posted by: JimPortandOR | Jan 8, 2006 4:21:33 PM
separation of the personal symbol of national unity - the Head of State, from the actual figure of national governance - the Head of Government
Absolutely. That's something I've written about a couple of times before over at Shakes.
Posted by: Shakespeare's Sister | Jan 8, 2006 4:30:35 PM
George Bush and noblesse oblige can only be linked with a negative.
Posted by: Scorpio | Jan 8, 2006 4:46:13 PM
I've thought of the Bushes as sort of the anti-Kennedys, or at least the mirror image of the family since RFK was assassinated...
J.
Posted by: Jay Tea | Jan 8, 2006 5:16:41 PM
Your mention of your husband brings to mind the following from the 1st Blackadder series:
"The Duke of Edinburgh? That's about as Scottish as the Queen of Englands' tits!"
Posted by: The Dark Avenger | Jan 8, 2006 5:39:07 PM
I don't know... I'm sure that nice German family with all the money in England is made up of very nice service minded people... but if monarchy is so wonderful... well, you get the picture.
The commitment of the Royal Family to military service and setting a positive example in these public displays is quite easily offset by their ostentatious and embarrassing wealth, the embarrassing behavior of their relatives, not to mention the intra-family squabbles that destroyed the life of one Princess and the reputation of the other.
It would be nice if G.W. bush and the rest of his clan provided a positive role model image for the country, but frankly, what I love about America is that we don't we have royalty and the people with money, power, and position tend to wear their flaws openly and not be perceived as somehow superior to the rest of us. The reality of Ronald Regan - a divorced man with a blended family and a reputation as a remote, hard-to-love parent - is, ultimately, the saving grace of the eighties. The image of the "moral majority" President whose first wife was barely civil to him undercut the attempts to bring government into our private lives. And similarly, President Bush, a reformed drunk with somewhat wayward daughters, tends to keep the intrusive social agenda to mere rhetoric.
In many ways we do have a privileged class that sets an example - of private sector support for charitable causes, the arts, and education. There are plenty of examples of well-off people who give generously of their time, and their hearts to help others, and to serve their country. We don't need a Royal Familyt, or a President's family to show us how. I think that's the beautiful thing about America.
Posted by: weboy | Jan 8, 2006 6:08:03 PM
weboy: i agree we don't need (or should want) a inherited royal family, so my comment above shouldn't be read that way. But I do think that an elected non-partisan Head of State separate from the Presidency makes sense - even if it is unlikely to happen through constitutional amendment.
Posted by: JimPortandOR | Jan 8, 2006 6:23:09 PM
A minor quibble with a good post - the same mother and father didn't really stand firm as their house was bombed in WWII, as they didn't get married until two years after the war ended. The late Queen Mother, however, was everything you describe and more.
Oh, and nice first comment Jim!
Posted by: Paul | Jan 8, 2006 7:15:40 PM
That's really nice, Shakes.
A generation ago, the Repubs were the party of noblesse-oblige: Rockefeller, Eisenhower, Dole, even Daddy Bush. Then with Dan Quayle, and later Junior and the chickenhawk cabal, all that changed. They're the party of fake brush-clearin' "jes folks". The Dems are the party of noblesse-oblige. It's Dem primary voters and strategists who are anxious to find nominees and prominent spokespeople who "served". It's the Repubs that don't give half a shit, just like they don't give a shit about anything really except power and cutting deals.
Posted by: Laura | Jan 8, 2006 7:27:57 PM
my, what a good-looking figurehead that kid's turned out to be. he's certainly grown into his teeth.
our country has played the victim to faux-folks (thanks, rush!) two too many times. i think they've finally noticed that they've been duped.
Posted by: pluripotentate | Jan 8, 2006 9:29:55 PM
As a brit, I find this quite bizarre. Prince William has just followed the career route of every other aristocrat not quite bright enough to work the old boys network to get something in the city, or the courts, and joined the army, where he can enjoy his class privilege in an institution designed to perpetuate it without having to over-exert his sadly not top-class mind. Noblesse oblige all the way.
Posted by: Robert Jubb | Jan 9, 2006 7:05:35 AM
"One of the things that the UK got right over time (and the Israeli's, too, among others), is their separation of the personal symbol of national unity - the Head of State, from the actual figure of national governance - the Head of Government."
I've often thought there is an interesting parallel in the business world. In the US, it's standard practice for the chairman and the CEO of a company to be the same person, whereas as in the UK and especially the rest of Europe this is frowned upon. Given the strength and importance of checks and balances in the US political system (and for that matter far sterner oversight of corporate governance than in the UK), it's curious that this obvious anomaly should remain.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Jan 9, 2006 7:51:47 AM
Ginger Yellow -
The "anomaly" will remain because our form of government is the bestest form of government ever, and anyone who tries to change it in any way is a traitorous scumbag who hates freedom.
Or, at least, that's the argument that would be used to stop anyone from suggesting that maybe the President has too much in his job description and maybe we might want to think about learning from the other democracies in the world. We do it with our economy, why would our system of government be any less sacred?
Posted by: NonyNony | Jan 9, 2006 10:50:20 AM
仓储笼
仓储笼
折叠式仓储笼
仓库笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
杭州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
储物笼
上海仓储笼
南京仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
Posted by: judy | Sep 29, 2007 11:34:35 AM



