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

The British tabloids justify their pursuit of the royals the same way that the U.S. media justifies its pursuit of Gary Hart or Bill Clinton: the people have a right to know. But here, the press's decision is final. Like the death penalty, a misinformed judgment is extremely hard to reverse. Ask Bill Clinton. Mud sticks.

For example, Prince Andrew is the real victim of the press getting it wrong. He is very popular. As a youngster, he was the most admired and handsome of the Windsors. The Blue Rinses may have disapproved, but the upper and lower classes adored him--a modern Rowley. What is more, he was a genuine war hero in the Falklands, where he piloted naval helicopters in the heat of battle.

But the love of his life, the charming and popular Koo Stark, was crucified by the tabloids, who alleged the cultured and well-educated American was a disreputable actress in seamy movies, even though she had acted in only one vaguely erotic film, directed by the Queen's cousin, Lord Pembroke! The war hero who had fought the Argentines in mortal combat was forced to surrender Miss Stark.

Instead, he married jolly, buxom Sarah Ferguson, regarded at first by the Windsors as a "breath of fresh air." The irony is that the discreet, intelligent, and beautiful Miss Stark, now a successful photographer, would have made a fine Duchess of York. But the petty morality of the Blue Rinses won the day. The rest is history.

WHAT PRICE ROYALTY?

Britain is a bizarre cocktail: a socialist country with a hereditary monarchy. The Queen is Head of State, Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces (like the President), and the head of the Anglican church. Unlike the President, she reigns but does not rule. However, she receives over 50 million pounds a year from the British people to maintain the Royal Family, who are not really as rich as they appear. Most of their supposed billions belongs to the British people. Thus the British have a constitutional right to know what the royals are up to. They want to know what they are getting for their money. Apart from thoroughly good entertainment, what do they receive?

Political stability is the most significant benefit of the monarchy's survival. There have been no real revolutions since 1688's Glorious Revolution. The Queen has more influence than power, though she is something of a statesman herself. She meets her Prime Minister weekly to discuss policy. She was taught the ropes by the titanic old Churchill, her first Prime Minister, who declared that he was in love with the young Queen and could not see her without his eyes filling with tears. Surprisingly, she gets on better with earthy Socialists, like Wilson and Callaghan, than with snooty Conservatives. She did not like Mrs. Thatcher, who was as imperial as the Queen is royal.

The monarchy is also a prestigious sales force for British power and, most importantly, commerce. They are also the apex of Britain's society--that flexible mixture of meritocracy and class. (Class in England is far more open than most Americans realize. The upper class was always open to outsiders, in fact. Each new wave of entrepreneurs was welcomed into the system as they rose--receiving titles and access to the monarch, and sending their children to Eton or Harrow. Hence, the British did not require revolutions to open up the aristocracy.)

Lastly, as Defender of the Faith, head of the Anglican Church, the royals are supposed to set a high moral example. This was the reason that Edward VIII, in the 1936 abdication crisis, gave up his crown to marry an American divorcee, the "woman I love." The crisis was so serious that Prime Minister Baldwin's government almost fell. Churchill, that delightful romantic, supported his King--but in vain.

In the past, British taxpayers have always decided that the monarchy was cheap at the cost. The Fergie affair has not changed that, but nevertheless it has come at a very bad time. Britain is in a deep recession. The monarchy needs to show that it is worth its cost. Thus, the York divorce is unusual as far as our scandals go; it has truly damaged the mystique of the monarchy.

What is a constitutional monarchy but mystique without power? Two things are in danger of destroying this magic: the first is the tyranny of the tabloids. Secondly, if the royals keep behaving like spoiled children (Fergie gave the impression of cavorting like a brash jet-setter, oblivious of lengthening welfare lines), the people in the end will treat them accordingly. When the mystique is gone, the monarchy will be no more than a family of pathetically ordinary (divorced) people who receive vast sums of taxpayers' money to flaunt themselves in front of their poor subjects. This is a terrifying thought for most of the British, myself included: no one wants a republic. The agony of the Windsors is the agony of every Englishman.

THE EFFECT ON THE QUALITY OF LEADERSHIP

The real question is whether the private lives of public figures matter. Just because they divorce, are the Royal Family failing to perform their jobs? Clearly not. Are we getting stronger and better politicians by searching their pasts for dirt? No, just cleaner ones who lie better. In fact, it is arguable that in the last 10 years the Blue Rinses in England and the moral majority in the United States--backed by the press--have weeded out some of the strongest and most able politicians.