For example, all BBC domestic radio platforms - including Radio 1 and BBC6 Music - were for three hours
carrying an identical diet of semi-deification of a man who was no more no less
than a hardworking consort of the head of state. He was a war hero and launched
an impressive public service scheme. However Middle Eastern dictatorships, many
of with which I'm familiar, would do a lot less in propagandist wall to wall
coverage - in part admittedly because of modesty over what would be, by
definition, a female 'consort'. Why though is the state media of our great
British democracy engaging in serial broadcast hagiography of a figure who, by
definition, represented no one - and, constitutionally speaking, did not even
represent or deputise for the Queen.
Part of the answer is the BBC's irresponsibility and institutional cowardice. This
publicly-subsidised state broadcaster has a greater operational and political
distance from the UK government than officially independent media in most Middle
Eastern states or in, say, Russia or China. However state patronage wielded via
a regressive flat tax (AKA 'the TV license'), that these days only the
old-fashioned who watch terrestrial TV on quaint TV sets actually pay, has been
under political threat from the Right ever since the 1980s. The BBC's coverage
of Philip's death has exceeded the wildest dreams of even the most zealous
monarchists (the PR sop of an online complaints page was soon snuffed out). The
state broadcaster has sought to give itself domestic political cover at a time
when an opaque hereditary institution that determines our head of state is
deemed crucial to the establishment's rear-guard action to save the Kingdom.
Intra-Windsor fighting has though long weakened the royals' ability to embody
our imagined Union. And an out of touch terrestrial media won't breathe life
into that old firm, any more than it can ol' Phil, by behaving as if its role is
to serve the rulers of the state rather than to educate as well as entertain
HM's subjects.
Meanwhile the mullahs heading our state religious cabal were
widely deployed across the BBC in an anachronistic and sacrilegious application
of unction on a departed member of the royal institution that invented the
Church of England. Incredibly, nearly a century after its last serious political
opponent left No 10, Anglicanism still plays its dutiful part in a UK national
project rooted in the holy trinity of Royalty, Church and State.
The crass,
belated, neo-nationalist pincer movement of the last few days may come to seem
like a last hurrah for a Union about to collapse into far less than the sum of
its non-consensually joined parts. The castration of the UK's international
influence is the irreversible result of a prolonged period of strategic
self-abuse. This first began, unwittingly, with Blair's politically unnecessary introduction
of devolution, and was then deepened by both of the UK's leading unionist
parties being unable to hold Scotland in the 200 year old monarchial bloc. Those
unionists constituted in what the BBC these days absurdly refers to as the
'nation' of Northern Ireland were probably inevitably set to lose the numbers
game, and, dangerously, in the process lose control of their angry and
economically struggling community, in favour of Irish reunification.
The
grotesque UK ruling class folly of unthinkingly ramming through Scottish and
Welsh self-rule was though avoidable. Its ineptness was revealed in Cameron
granting, via the monarch, a Scottish independence referendum that he had no
political clue how to win, and seemingly little real political concern about either way. The close-run survival of the state after that particular indigenous
challenge could not withstand a further Cameron role in the inevitable
destruction of the Union. Our international relevance, long a key part of the
contemporary construct that is the UK, was then decimated thanks to Cameron providing
an unnecessary and highly irresponsible referendum on Brexit, followed by
Johnson's grossly inept, spatchcock, delivery of it.
After the widely admired
Elizabeth II will shortly come Charles III or perhaps an in-house monarchial
putsch in favour of William V. More relevantly, the rulers of a rump England,
with maybe the Welsh principality for company, will need for the first time in
the sceptred isle's history to admit to 'their' people that the future can no
longer be anything like the imagined past.
Who rules, and how, can never be
reduced to a binary referendum question. However there is a desperate need for
some very complex questions to be asked and for their resolution to be widely
debated. Post-Covid, this must, of necessity, mean mass and tactile engagement,
not the bougeois liberal stage-managed 'debate' in so-called Citizens'
Assemblies.
The supposed 'citizens' need to wake up to the inherently pre-democratic way in which they, as monarchial subjects, are governed, and to the fact that their supposed sovereignty is in fact loaned to political administrators wielding pre-democratic monarchial powers rather than actively exercised by the 'citizenry'. This by no means necessitates embracing a solely Left-inclined agenda, or even necessarily becoming a republic. It does require awareness of how we are governed and how little authority we, the people, have (in or out of the EU). Otherwise the political mire of division and petty nationalism
will continue in an England overseen by an almost natural Tory
'majority'. The propaganda machinations of the Windsors, the Anglican Church and
the BBC, conjoined with a Covid era nationalist add-on tritely called 'our
NHS', won't save an England that has never been able or even interested in
defining itself distinctly from the UK.
(This is an expanded and updated version of what I wrote on Facebook on the day that the
death of HRH Prince Philip was announced)
