WHEN PRINCES AND PRINCESSES PLAY AROUND, THE ESCAPADES REVERBERATE
ON BOTHSIDES OF THE ATLANTIC. HOW DO THE PRIVATE LIVES OF PUBLIC PEOPLE,
WHETHER CANDIDATES OR KINGS, AFFECT THE TRUE QUALITY OF LEADERSHIP?
NOW,--AN INSIDER'S REVEALING REPORT
This is a morality tale about the world's most famous family--the
British Royal House of Windsor. Following the proposed divorce between
the Duke and Duchess of York, the press have told us that they are the
classic "dysfunctional" family. Yet if indeed they are dysfunctional, the
press itself is not only a symptom of the malaise, but also probably its
cause.
The press claims they have the right to dissect the British Royal
Family because, after all, is not leadership a question of character?
(They have used the same argument to justify the feeding frenzy around
Governor Bill Clinton.) Yet so is gossip: it is a question of the press's
character. The coverage of the royals is part of the flawed way in which
the media and public today are judging the fitness of our public figures
to rule us.
Day after day, in tabloids such as the Sun and the Daily Mirror and
serious broadsheets such as the Times and the Daily telegraph, even the
slightest detail of the divorce is given full front-page coverage. Other
papers followed the scoop, covering everything from what Fergie's
children were wearing to school to the whereabouts of her alleged Texas
lover, Steve Wyatt.
Americans are often (understandably) confused about the British
attitude toward the Royal Family. What do the Royal Family actually do?
my American friends ask me. Are the British shocked by the divorce of
Prince Andrew, the Duke of York? (As if there had never been any scandals
before.) Is this end of the monarchy? Is society in uproar? Were the
British sorry to see the end of the Duchess of York, known to her friends
as "Fergie"?
The British have traditionally looked to their Royal Family for
entertainment, rather like watching television. Lately, however, the
entertainment has not been a pretty sight, even for us British, who have
relished royal scandal ever since King Alfred burnt his cakes. The
British--overwhelmingly diehard royalists--are worried about the Queen's
family and the future of the monarchy.
One of world's few true generalizations is that all nations,
including the British and the Americans, fight the boredom of everyday
life by admiring and despising the flaws and glamour of their dynasties.
Thus the royals and the Kennedys fulfill the public's psychological lust
for fantasy and tragedy. But should we really be worried about our
royals? If we come down to basics, is not all this simply the public
agony of a privately dysfunctional family, just like any other?
This is the sad part of the story: How can we expect our princes to
have ordinary marriages (in an era of universal divorce) in an overheated
environment that does not allow them to live like ordinary people? In
many ways, the royals are indeed the ultimate dysfunctional
family.
Certainly, communication is not the Windsors' strong suit. Does
that mean they need to see a psychiatrist for family therapy? No
matter--it is unlikely they would go: Most Britons consider a visit to
the Psychiatrist either the luxury of a rich man or the necessity of a
mad one.
The press's feverish pursuit of even the slightest detail of royal
life is to blame for their dysfunctional family unit. To be fair to
Fergie, the tabloids were so vilely unpleasant about her--whether it was
because she was too fat or too thin--that, in the end, she may have come
to hate them so much that she no longer cared.
Finally, the Windsors are very rich and very famous, neither of
which is the formula for a happy family. Yet, for a typically British
family, formal and disciplined, the Windsors are surprisingly close. The
British sense the family behind the dynasty--and I love them for
it.
The unfair expectation that royal family life should be perfect is
a crime daily committed by both the tabloids and the moral middle class,
whom I call the Blue Rinses. The affair gives us a fascinating insight
not only into the British mind and culture, but also into the way the
United States selects its Presidents. From Buckingham Palace to Arkansas,
this was the season of adultery.
A HISTORY OF SCANDAL
Here is a story of Victorian politics: In a general election in the
1860s, Benjamin Disraeli was running against the incorrigible womanizer
Lord Palmerston, who was still Prime Minister well into his 80s.
Octogenarian Casanova that he was, Palmerston had fathered an
illegitimate child with a "low-born" woman in his constituency.
Disraeli's campaign manager urged him to reveal Palmerston's shocking
debauchery to the electorate (an early example of the "negative
campaign"). Disraeli refused categorically. "If we do," he answered, "the
old man will win a landslide!"
Disraeli was right: the British combine primness with a love of
titillating scandal and bawdiness that goes back to Chaucer's outrageous
farting and fornicating poetry. The British have always taken a sincere
delight in chronicling the wicked ways of their rulers. This is quite
different from the usual American view of the British as thin-lipped,
pale people who cannot have fun.
