Royal scandal

Presents an insider's report on how the private lives of public people, whether candidates or kings, affect the true quality of leadership. Scandal surrounding the British Royal House of Windsor; Divorce of the Duke and Duchess of York; Coverage from the tabloids; What the Windsor affair gives us; The effect on the quality of leadership; The courage to make subtler judgments; More.

By Somon Sebag Montefiore, published on July 01, 1992 - last reviewed on August 26, 2009

On the contrary, the tabloid press in Britain is the rudest, most bumptious--and most powerful--in the world. The Sun, for example, sells five million copies every day, more than any other single U.S. newspaper. The tabloids actually have the power to dictate to Buckingham Palace. So the British expect the impossible of their monarchy: Drim public service on one hand, entertainment on the other. What went wrong in Fergie's case?

The British were at first refreshed, then shocked and finally disgusted by her. Unlike Americans--who treat the royals like gods whenever they visit these shores--the British love the institution of the monarchy but have never shown much reverence for it. This could not be more different from the exaggerated deference shown to U.S. Presidents.

Indeed, the British revel in their irreverence. Edward II was killed by his barons, who inserted a red-hot poker into his anus. Charles I was beheaded. The irreverence became less physical--and more witty--before it sank into the sleazy sewers of today's tabloids. Charles II (Rowley) was publicly satirized by his best friend, the poet Lord Rochester, who, in between accompanying the King on expeditions to bordellos and sharing his royal mistresses, published the following verses:

"Restless he rolls about from whore to whore A merry monarch, scandalous and poor Nor are his high desires above his strength His sceptre and his . . . are of a length.

So well, alas! the fatal bait is known Which Rowley does so greedily take down; And howe'er weak and slender be the string, Bait it with a whore and it will hold a king."

BRITISH TASTE

The Royal Family was never held in greater contempt than under the hated Hanoverian kings--the four Georges--whose carriages were stoned by a mob whenever they appeared in London's streets. George I's hideous pair of German mistresses were nicknamed Elephant and Castle, after the famed pub in Chelsea. George IV, best known as the Prince Regent, was so hated that when he divorced his wife, Queen Caroline, Londoners actually unleashed the horses from her carriage and pulled it themselves to show her their support. Queen Caroline became the heroine of the opposition. The British cared more about George IV's ill treatment of his wife than about George III's loss of America. But Fergie is no Queen Caroline--and Londoners are certainly not lining up to pull her carriage.

Even under Victoria's "We are not amused" regime, the public were disrespectful enough to believe that one of the Queen's sons was in fact the notorious murderer of prostitutes, Jack the Ripper. Let me make one thing clear: we British expect scandal from our monarchy--but scandal in good taste and at the right time. In the past, many royal scandals have made the monarchy far more popular. Henry VIII's elephantine sexual appetites, myriad divorces, and liberal beheadings asserted British independence from the Pope and delighted the public. It befitted a King. Charles II was so popular for his well-endowed debauchery that he won the fond nickname of Old Rowley, after his favorite racehorse. (Thus was born the modern meaning of the word 'stud.') And Edward VII, Victoria's plump, hedonistic son, lived for racing and racy women.

The people's admiration for these lusty exploits was very healthy. But the rule seems to be that the less power the monarch has, the better his behavior should be. The problems started when Queen Victoria's clever German husband, Prince Albert, allied the monarchy with the prosperous but prim middle class, who demanded that the royals set an example. It worked. The royals became loved really for their ordinariness. So, given Britain's history of riotous disrespect for our kings, why are Britons worried today?

BRITISH STYLE

Napoleon was right when he called us "a nation of shopkeepers." We like plain-spoken and industrious royals who know how to behave. The royals are still immensely popular. Thus the Queen Mother, the Queen herself, and Princess Anne are the favorites of every class. The intelligent Prince Charles, heir to the throne, and his glamourous Princess Diana are rightly popular because he is the first royal intellectual; she the first to look like an angel. Morality in itself is not so important. Appearances are everything: "You can do anything," the Edwardians used to say, "providing you don't scare the horses." The British are not offended by Charles's cool marriage; if they lead separate lives, it is their business.

What the British cannot tolerate in their royals is bad taste. Britain is an austere country where even the richest families live in palaces without central heating. The Duke of Bedford used to be mistaken regularly for a gardener at his stately home, Woburn Abbey. Ostentation is not appreciated. Understatement is a synonym for class. The Queen is loved for her slightly dowdy style--but no one doubts it is style. The British do not want their Queen to look like Nancy Reagan. And if she behaved like Nancy Reagan, there would be a swift revolution.

Thus yelling and skiing, slack-jawed and cake-throwing Fergie--the very picture of careless venal vulgarity, manifesting the insensitive philistinism of the upper middle class--was everything that the Royal Family did not need in the '90s. She was the equivalent of a bare-buttocked Ted Kennedy in Palm Beach, livid-faced and slobbering drunk.

THE PRESS'S "KOO" D'ETAT