The Parable of Harry and Meghan
The stability of tradition; the dynamism of change.
Royal weddings are always a spectacular occasion full of pomp and circumstance, ritual and symbolism. This one added another ingredient to the formula though. The word that springs to mind is transcendence. The wedding somehow transcended both the old world and the new, and thereby produced something better than either.
It is almost trite to observe today how divided our politics are. The center has been abandoned. Everyone has decamped to trenches well to the left or well to the right. The capacity for creative dialogue seems, at times, to have been lost completely. Lost with it is any sense of how much the left and the right, progressives and conservatives, both need each other and complement each other: The one brings the stability of tradition and the other brings the dynamism of change. The wedding ceremony of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex married those values together in a seemingly perfect union which our broader political discourse would do well to learn from.
There were some powerful ideas being promulgated through the marriage. Perhaps the most significant was the sheer normality of a Prince of the Realm marrying a descendant of slaves of former colonies, an idea all the more poignant for the fact that the monarchy has its roots in stringent ideas about divinely-ordained social stratification.
Aside from a lesson in what surprisingly comfortable bedfellows tradition and change can make, the Royal Wedding was also a reminder of how increasingly important cultural power — as opposed to political power— is in the 21st Century. Of course, the political power of royalty is strongly limited at this point in the life of the institution. Under the British constitution the role of the Head of State (currently Queen Elizabeth II) is to carry out the ceremonial, symbolic aspect of representing the country. Her prime minister is responsible for the day-to-day politics. The two meet once a week, because the Queen retains a constitutional right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn. (In so doing, given that the current Queen’s first prime minister was Winston Churchill, she presumably has quite the depth of political experience and wisdom to draw on.) This division of power is the product of many hundreds of years of tension between Crown and what is now Parliament, with the absolute power of the Crown gradually migrating across to the People.
In the thirteen original colonies of the United States the process of the People extricating themselves from an overbearing Crown was approached rather differently. For them a complete break and a re-imagining of how power might best be contained was in order. Consequently a U.S. President has the burden of wielding political power like a prime minister, and embodying the dignity and decorum of the State like a monarch.
The relative merits of both systems aside, it is worth remembering that they are just that: systems, theoretical frameworks of ways in which political power can be contained and exercised. Both systems are only brought to life by the animating spirit of the people who fulfill the various roles within them. It is important, therefore, that those people are conscious of the cultural, not just the political power, that they wield. Cultural power is arguably more effective at introducing ideas and solidifying new norms than any amount of legislative power.
Harry’s mother, Princess Diana, was the first member of the Royal Family to recognize the extent of this power. She knew that actions such as taking her sons to visit the homeless, and shaking hands with HIV/Aids patients, were a way of rendering the untouchables touchable and thereby affecting political discourse. There are echos of this in the decision by the couple to include the Myna Mahila Foundation in the list of charities guests were invited to donate to in lieu of gifts. Based in Mumbai, it is the only non-UK based charity on the list. It’s purpose is to provide access to sanitary pads for women living in slums. Meghan Markle visited the charity last year.
Most of us have neither the high levels of cultural power of senior royals nor the high levels of political power of senior politicians. We do, however, have a bit of both. In exercising that power, a broader appreciation for both tradition and change would be a salve for our current political climate. It is also worth remembering that our actions in terms of who we interact with and how we esteem them, usually speak much louder than words.
