09 AHH 051968 (to/d) 12/4/05 3:57 pm Page 215

A&H
Does Monarchy Matter?
dav i d s ta r k e y
Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, UK

a b s t rac t
The constitutional history of America, France and Britain, as well as monolithic
organizations past and present, shows that human beings cleave to single rule –
that we tend to develop quasi-royal dynasties, from Livia and Augustus to Bill and
Hilary Clinton. Monarchy is not quaint; it is universal. Nevertheless, it is most
surprising that there is still a monarchy in Britain. This essay asks, ‘Does the
monarchy matter . . . to the British?’ and answers ‘Yes: it did by its presence and
does still by its absence’. Its abolition would involve reconstructing both the
Constitution and a British sense of identity.

keyword s ceremony, constitution, government, monarchy, royal family

I wa s s t r u c k by the title ‘What Matters?’ One of the most interesting

remarks in English is by a man who combines roles we would nowadays tend
to think of as being contradictory or mutually exclusive. He was an aristo-
crat and an intellectual – a very strange combination. A.G. Balfour was Prime
Minister at the beginning of the last century. Balfour, a high Anglican
Christian, was not a very effective politician. But he was, incidentally, the
subject of one of the very best Edwardian portraits by John Singer Sargent,
now in the National Portrait Gallery. Balfour said ‘Nothing matters very much
and very few things matter at all’. We live in an age of relentless ‘mattering’
and imagining that things matter when they don’t. Balfour of course was in
a position to be detached. Many of you may know it: you become well-off;
you retire; you discover that curious sense of detachment. You acquire an
awareness that in a sense all human activity is filling in time: time between
being born and dying. The young don’t understand, but in 30 years they will.
When you’re young you think you matter. All kinds of approaches to
psychology, child-rearing and child-centred education encourage this illusion.
If we can take my general philosophical position – which is one of a certain

Arts & Humanities in Higher Education

Copyright © 20 05, david starkey, London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi ISSN 1474-0222
vol 4(2) 215–224 doi: 10.1177/14740222050519 6 8

[215]

Downloaded from ahh.sagepub.com at Purdue University on June 9, 2015

09 AHH 051968 (to/d) 12/4/05 3:57 pm Page 216

Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 4(2)

detached irony – for granted, we can then get on with the subject. But please,
please remember my little caveat to begin with.
When I first discussed this topic, I wanted it to be left a little more open.
Instead of talking only about the British Monarchy, I would like to raise the
question of monarchy in general. My approach will come as no surprise at
all for those of you who study Shakespeare. It is that all government is essen-
tially monarchical. Monarchy is the natural default form of human govern-
ment. For example, the Catholic Church is a monarchy. It’s an elective
monarchy by a gerontocracy but it is still an absolute untrammelled, unlimited
monarchy. Literally, what the Pope gets up and thinks is doctrine, is doctrine.
And if that’s not absolute monarchy, I don’t know what is.
Another example of a monarchy is the so-called Republic of France.
President Chirac is a monarch. He maintains the style, the pretensions, the
vapid arrogance of a monarch. Do you remember when Blair and Chirac
met? It was a bit like the meeting of Henry VIII and Francis I on the Field
of the Cloth of Gold, when they wrestled with each other. On that occasion,
the Frenchman was smaller in weight but superior in dexterity and threw
Henry. On this occasion, Blair verbally threw Chirac and Chirac’s response
was to say from his infinite height ‘he had never been spoken to like that
before’. The Frenchman’s outrage was understandable. For Chirac lives in a
Palace. He has a mounted guard. He is waited on by gentlemen ushers, who
carry wands, are dressed in black swallow-tail coats, white ties, have gold
chains round their necks and wear white gloves. He’s elected, but for the
period of time that he is in office, he is treated more extravagantly than a
very modest monarch like the Queen of England. Indeed, if you look at the
constitution of the Fifth Republic in France, you find it is modelled on that
of the Napoleonic Empire. The president who creates the fifth republic is De
Gaulle, the most monarchical man you can imagine. ‘La France, c’est moi!’
Similarly, in the United States of America, the President is an elected
monarch, whose powers are modelled on those of the real monarch, George
III, whom the Republic displaced. Let’s just pause and think about this one
seriously because it’s one of the things that has been very much written out
of modern American history. When you study American history as a first
year course, it’s usually part of a general mishmash of ‘Western Civ.’. Thus, if
you look at the conventional American accounts of the American consti-
tution, they emphasize its indebtedness to classical models (the Senate). They
emphasize its indebtedness to French theory, Montesquieu’s separation of
powers and so on. But the real model for the American constitution – the
one the Americans are familiar with – is ours. Americans speak English and
have English law which they have preserved much more authentically than
we have done. The position of the sheriff in America is still more or less the

[216]

Downloaded from ahh.sagepub.com at Purdue University on June 9, 2015

09 AHH 051968 (to/d) 12/4/05 3:57 pm Page 217

Starkey: Does Monarchy Matter?

same as it was in Sherwood Forest, with Maid Marian and Robin Hood.
Similarly, the American constitution is a very interesting adaptation of the
18th-century English constitution to the forms of democracy and election.
So Americans elect a president, who is the monarch. The Senate is the
equivalent of the House of Lords, enjoying exactly the same powers as the
House of Lords in the 18th-century constitution. The senators are like earls
or dukes in charge of vast constituencies, which are whole states. The House
of Representatives is simply our House of Commons. The chairman of the
House of Representatives is called the Speaker, just as he/she is in England.
What do you call the officer who runs it? The sergeant at arms. You even
have impeachment. What would have happened to Clinton if he’d been
impeached? How would it have been done? He would have been prosecuted
by the House of Representatives before the Senate. Compare this with the
impeachment of the Earl of Strafford at the beginning of the English Civil
War. He was charged by the House of Commons but tried before the Lords
with members of the Commons acting as his prosecutors. In other words, the
name and the procedure are borrowed from England. Only the penalty is
different: in England it was beheading; in America the loss of office and public
humiliation.
But the most important borrowing of all are the monarchical powers of
the office of President. Let’s look at some of the evidence. Most curious is
the role of the First Lady. What do we call a woman who occupies monar-
chical power just because her husband does? A queen. Isn’t the First Lady
effectively a queen? She sets fashion, like a queen. There are also different
types of First Lady, which correspond to their royal equivalents. So Hilary
Clinton, for example, is the classic ‘bad queen’. She’s the one who takes an
independent public political role, which is always controversial (look at
Eleanor Roosevelt). On the other hand, the current Queen Laura is the ‘good
queen’, walking one pace behind her husband, modest and interested in
utterly uncontroversial things like education and literacy. Like the equivalent
type of queen, Laura is popular and proved to be a major electoral asset to
her husband.
Let’s look at another example. Who chooses members of the Cabinet in
America? Purely the president. Now that reflects the English situation in 1776.
Thereafter, it changed radically in the later 18th and 19th centuries. Nor
(unlike British practice, both then and now) can members of the Cabinet sit
in the legislature. You have in that sense a real separation of power. Look also
at the White House itself. What does its interior remind you of? A palace.
Luxurious, opulent, with the Oval Office as a kind of throne room. Then
there’s the use of the flag, those posed photographs, and the new presidential
guard. With all of this, you are inventing quasi-royal ceremony. Of course, it

[217]

Downloaded from ahh.sagepub.com at Purdue University on June 9, 2015

09 AHH 051968 (to/d) 12/4/05 3:57 pm Page 218

Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 4(2)

goes much, much further than that. Look at the policy gap between Clinton
and Bush. When Bush stood for election, did he tell you he was going to
bomb Iraq? Was that on the campaign platform? No, it was: ‘I’m a sweet and
gentle chap and just happen to be the son of a former President’. Instead, the
decision to go to war was a pure product of that personal prerogative which,
again, the modern president shares with an 18th-century king.
Another striking development is the appearance in all kinds of countries,
which theoretically have elective governments, of quasi-royal dynasties. Bush’s
America is the most conspicuous example. The development is more or less
inevitable in any politics which depends primarily on personal wealth. And
it was anticipated (like much else) in that earlier great imperial republic of
ancient Rome.
So, in summary: the US presidency exemplifies the absolute capacity of one
individual to change everything. If Bush had lost the last election, all foreign
policy relations and huge swathes of domestic policy in America would have
changed like throwing a light switch. The only other form of government
that normally does that is hereditary monarchy, when one monarch dies and
another one comes along.
But of course we are limiting ourselves to talking about politics, whereas
in fact all kinds of organizations are essentially monarchical. Microsoft is Bill
Gates. Companies naturally retreat in to monarchy. So do public-sector
organizations like hospitals, schools and universities – look at the powers of
a President or increasingly (on this side of the water) of a Vice Chancellor.
Essentially what he/she says goes. This seems to be a product of a kind of
hard-wiring in the human brain. For most of the forms of government, as
the classical world understood, tend to lapse back into monarchy, or the rule
of one. In other words, trying to preserve representative democracy or the
elaborate forms of republican government is going against deep patterning in
the human brain. Look at the state of the late Roman republic. Look at what
people are frankly talking about now in the West: the end of democracy.
All this means that avoiding monarchical rule is exceedingly difficult.
Things tend to revert. The leader figure tends to emerge. Whether you call
him Monarch, Pope, Dictator, President or Prime Minister is immaterial. In
practice he is King. So I want to argue that monarchy is not simply ‘quaint’.
It’s not only something to do with moderately ancient European dynasties,
walking around in mothballed robes and funny crowns. It’s not just part of
the heritage industry. It’s universal.
This is one of the reasons that I am so active within the Society of Court
Studies.1 For monarchies are about more than kings and queens, they also
include those who surround them: the advisers, the friends, the cronies. In
true monarchies these are called a Court and the behaviour of presidential

[218]

Downloaded from ahh.sagepub.com at Purdue University on June 9, 2015

09 AHH 051968 (to/d) 12/4/05 3:57 pm Page 219

Starkey: Does Monarchy Matter?

and prime-ministerial entourages now display, as we might expect, full-blown
symptoms of Court life: the intrigue, the sycophancy, the corruption . . .
The position is even more complex in a country like Britain, where you
have two monarchies: the formal monarchy of the Queen and the elective
monarchy of the Prime Minister. In the case of Blair and Cherie there is
distinct and visible rivalry with the real monarchy. Blair tries to present
himself symbolically as the embodiment of the nation; Cherie parades in royal
‘off-the-shoulder’ dresses and pseudo-regal paste jewellery. But above all there
is the war with Iraq. Queen Mary Tudor, you will remember, is alleged to
have died with ‘Calais’ written on her heart. I think not a few of our political
leaders will die with ‘Iraq’ written on their hearts. More particularly, the results
of the various inquiries into the outbreak of the war have revealed how the
government under ‘King’ Blair actually works. I mean it is perfectly clear, from
the evidence that was submitted to Lord Hutton during his enquiry into the
death of Iraq arms expert Dr David Kelly, that the whole decision to go to
war was taken on a No. 10 sofa. This makes Louis XIV look like a model of
constitutional behaviour.
Curiously enough, having two monarchies is a frequent enough occur-
rence. For centuries before the Meiji restoration of the later 19th century,
Japan had two monarchies and two capitals. The historic Emperor, the
Mikado, whose role was purely religious and symbolic, had his capital in the
old city of Kyoto, the southern capital. Linked to it by the two post-roads,
which are followed closely by the line of the high speed trains, was the
northern capital, Tokyo. And Tokyo was the seat of the Shogun – in fact, an
hereditary noble – who actually ran the show. So you had a symbolic
monarchy and a real, functioning monarchy. A thousand years earlier and on
the other side of the globe, Merovingian France exhibited the same pattern.
The French monarchs were the descendants of the sacred House of Clovis,
and were known as ‘the longhaired kings’. They didn’t need to wear crowns
because, whereas everybody else cut their hair short, they let theirs grow in
cascading locks down to their shoulders. They spent their time being carried
around, usually rather drunk, from one sacred site to another, whilst a
nobleman of the House of Pippin held the office known as ‘Mayor of the
Palace’ and ran the country. So, again you have two monarchies, exactly as in
Japan, exactly also as in modern Britain: one symbolic, one practical.
Having established some very general points, we can now focus on some
very specific ones. Let’s have a quick potted history of the British monarchy
of the 20th century and come, as it were, to ‘Does the monarchy still matter?’
(Incidentally, may I remind you that things can matter as much by their
absence or by their weakness, as by their presence or their strength. We all
know this when we lose a loved one: the hole that’s left is very large and very

[219]

Downloaded from ahh.sagepub.com at Purdue University on June 9, 2015

09 AHH 051968 (to/d) 12/4/05 3:57 pm Page 220

Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 4(2)

painful. I just want you to carry that thought.) To return to the very quick
history: the thing to remember is that the most surprising fact about this
article is that there is still a monarchy in Britain. In the middle of the 19th
century there was a confident assumption that it would either go in revol-
ution or wither away. Victoria actually had open republicans in her cabinet.
You also had a degree of public hostility to Victoria, from the 1860s to the
end of the 1880s, which is really very striking. This was because she refused
to perform a public role after the death of her beloved husband Albert (who
incidentally caught the illness that led to his death in Cambridge . . . so the
University is to blame for yet another political disaster!). The monarchy
recovered significantly – but not completely – only in the last decade of the
19th century, with the two great jubilees of Victoria: her Golden Jubilee in
1887 and the more important Diamond Jubilee in 1897. With these mag-
nificent examples of ceremony, the monarchy deliberately puts itself back on
the map. But the interesting thing is to look at how it put itself back on the
map.
When I referred earlier to the model of the American constitution, I said
that the 18th-century English constitution, from which the American model
results, is radically different from that of late 19th-century and 20th-century
Britain. What happens in Britain – crucially – is that only one bit of the
ancient constitution democratizes. In America, all of it does: you elect a
President; you eventually elect the Senate; you elect the House of Represen-
tatives. In Britain, only the House of Commons is elected and the result of
that, of course, is wholly to unbalance the constitution. Only one bit of our
constitution can claim democratic legitimacy, whereas all three bits of the
American one can, which is why America still has a very complex interplay
of power. In contrast, the beginning of serious democracy in the later 19th-
century in Britain transformed the political landscape: the British Prime
Minister is infinitely more untrammelled than an American President; he has
no majority in the House against him and the only body that can possibly
oppose him is the House of Lords.
But if the British monarchy didn’t democratize itself, it did adapt to
democracy – which is the secret of why it survived at the end of the 19th
century. It’s done in two stages. The first of these, at the end of the 19th
century, transforms royal ceremony. If you look back into the history of the
English monarchy, you discover that royal ceremony essentially takes place in
Courts, behind closed doors. It’s a performance to the elite, which means that
it’s often very shambolic. (Similarly, if you watch an academic procession at
Cambridge, you will see that it is a shambles: half the gowns are green with
age and mouldering, with bits falling off, and they appear to be put on
deliberately askew. It is a mess, but, I think, a deliberately shambolic mess.)

[220]

Downloaded from ahh.sagepub.com at Purdue University on June 9, 2015

09 AHH 051968 (to/d) 12/4/05 3:57 pm Page 221

Starkey: Does Monarchy Matter?

That’s academic ceremonies, and Victoria’s coronation was very like this.
They hadn’t bothered to rehearse it. They hadn’t even measured her finger
for the ring and unfortunately they got it too small. (Victoria describes trying
to get it off afterwards in iced water, with her Ladies in Waiting tugging and
pulling to remove the thing.) The best moment came when one of the peers
tripped and tumbled – to loud cheers – down the steps of the throne. It
happened that his name was Lord Rolle and it was explained to foreigner
observers that he held his peerage by the service of ‘rolling’ down the steps
at each coronation! The ceremony turned into farce and the solemnity into
a joke.
Half a century later, however, when you come to Victoria’s jubilees, you
find British royal ceremony as we know it. It is immaculately rehearsed. It is
beautifully disciplined, with perfect, erect soldiers, marching perfectly in time.
And such reformed ceremony is consciously invented then. Why? Because
you are now performing ceremony to the newly enfranchized and
empowered people. They are ‘outsiders’, who don’t ‘understand’. So there is
no room for blunders and everything has to be perfect. Moreover, the fact
that the British monarchical ceremonial looks like a Hollywood spectacular
is not accidental. It is a product of exactly the same world. Remember, the
world of 1900 is just before the cinema: it is an intervening stage between
the theatre and the cinema, which is spectacular theatre.
That was stage one of the adaptation to democracy. But it’s not enough.
The other great trauma is, of course, the First World War. When we entered
the war, every country in Europe bar France, Switzerland and San Marino
was a monarchy or an empire. When it was over, only a handful were, of
which by far the most important was Britain. And the British monarchy
survived thanks to the second, more radical, stage of royal reinvention. It took
place, not coincidentally, in the Year of Revolutions, 1917. And the back-
ground was the fact that the monarchy had ceased to rule. But if it didn’t
rule, what was it for? Why did it matter?
One possible answer was that it was fun. The monarchy now became
important as entertainment. It was the prime material of the new popular press,
which was growing and developing rapidly (thanks to the ease of reproduc-
tion of photographs) at exactly this point. And when cinema came along
next, the British Royal family were ‘the best film stars we’ve got’.
But, under the pressure of revolution and total war, you needed something
a bit meatier. Above all, you need to identify monarchy and nation. This was
a great problem, of course, for the monarchy, which ruled Britain but was a
German dynasty with a German name. So the first step to the 1917 repack-
aging of the monarchy was to rename it. The name eventually chosen was
‘Windsor’. It was a brilliant choice, with just the right associations:

[221]

Downloaded from ahh.sagepub.com at Purdue University on June 9, 2015

09 AHH 051968 (to/d) 12/4/05 3:57 pm Page 222

Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 4(2)

Shakespeare’s Merry Wives, the Garter and Edward III, and the whole smell of
history and medieval romance. The next step was to do something even more
fundamental: to alter marriage customs. Up to that point, the Royal House
had been essentially exogamous: that is to say, you married out to German
Protestant princelings who were of the right status and religion. Nobody
could pretend that these marriages were love affairs; instead, they were purely
dynastic relationships. Look, for example, at George V and Queen Mary:
Queen Mary was not initially intended to marry King George at all. She was
supposed to marry his elder brother but when he died the garter robes, the
titles, the estates, the houses and the wife were simply passed down from the
elder brother to the next in line.
But, as King, George changed the rules and proudly noted the fact in his
diary. (His diary has much in common with that of Adrian Mole, although
it’s the diary of King George V, aged 52 and a bit. It is written on lined paper,
in a big, round schoolboy hand and contains a wonderful mixture of shrewd-
ness and naïvete.) ‘I . . . informed the Council’, he wrote in July 1917, ‘that
May [Queen Mary] and I had decided some time ago that our children would
be allowed to marry into English families’. The entry concluded: ‘It was quite
a historical occasion’. Indeed it was, and Princess Diana wouldn’t have existed
without it. Because, thanks to George’s ruling, for the first time royal heirs
could, as it were, mate within their own social sphere in London. Which in
turn meant that their marriages could be, and were, presented as love matches.
Walter Bagehot, the great analyst of the constitution, refers to the monarchy
as ‘head of society’ but also ‘head of our morality’. It’s a very Victorian vision
of monarchy. But it took George V’s changes to turn it into a reality. For the
new royal love matches could be presented as exemplars of perfect family life.
It’s a brilliant trick, since it enables you to reinvent the monarchy – with its
palaces, its Sèvres porcelain, its horses and carriages and Koh-i-Noor diamond
– as a lower middle-class family. And it works and continues to work: right
through to the Queen’s Silver Jubilee of 1977, the monarchy is presented as
the ‘Family Monarchy’.
But, again, does this really matter? I would actually say that it is crucial and
accounts for much that is peculiar about British history in the inter-war
period. For Britain is the only major European country that avoids revolution
and dictatorship in this period and in which the extremes of Right and Left
do not take over. There are many reasons for this. But the role of the
monarchy as exemplifying ordinary family values is one of the most
important. It enables the Crown to play an anchoring, symbolic role, as referee
between Right and Left, for the gap between Tory and Labour at this point
is huge. Why doesn’t it get out of control? Why isn’t Britain infected by the
virus of nationalism gone mad that destroys great civilized countries like

[222]

Downloaded from ahh.sagepub.com at Purdue University on June 9, 2015

09 AHH 051968 (to/d) 12/4/05 3:57 pm Page 223

Starkey: Does Monarchy Matter?

Germany, France, Spain and Italy in this period? Because the monarchy, once
again in the person of George V, set itself to moderate the Right and to incor-
porate the Left into the Establishment.
But the monarchy did more than referee national political disputes, it played
the same role here as a sense of national identity in most other countries. In
Britain, you don’t salute the flag (an Englishman is more likely to wear the
Union Jack on his underpants than to salute it!). And no private citizen flies
the flag either. Instead, you cheer the Queen; swear an oath of allegiance to
her and stand up (or not) for ‘God Save the Queen’. The monarchy, in short,
doesn’t simply symbolize the nation, it was substituted for nationalism. And
it has proved a far less dangerous drug.
The Windsor monarchy reaches its peak with the coronation of the present
Queen in 1953. The event was perfect as theatrical ceremony. But it went
further: even if you are totally unreligious, you cannot watch it on film
without a lump in your throat. It really pulls on the heartstrings and even
more so when you realize that they are actually using texts that were first
employed in England in about the year 800.
Why was it so successful? Well, victory in war is one reason and a young
and pretty Queen another. But, above all, the monarchy was celebrating its
successful adaptation to democracy, to nationhood, to nationalism: all forces
that have destroyed monarchy elsewhere. Why, suddenly, does the success
change to near disaster? It does so because the behaviour of members of the
royal family means that it can no longer function as the Family Monarchy.
The rot begins with Princess Margaret and it culminates in the meteoric
career of Princess Diana. It’s very easy to write Diana off as an unimportant
phenomenon. She is not. She did more damage to the British monarchy than
Oliver Cromwell and put the nail in the coffin of any notion of the royal
family as head of our morality.
But she also raised other questions: what sort of monarchy will replace it?
One possibility is, simply, ‘celebrity’, which Diana herself exemplified. But
remember celebrity is self-destructive. Celebrity re-enacts the role of sacri-
ficing the King. You build celebrities up to kill them, to fertilize the soil for
new ones. Killing the King. Killing the celebrity. Killing Diana. So celebrity
cannot be a stable model. It is also the direct antithesis of any notion of
national standards or values. Celebrity instead is about misbehaving. We want
them to have more interesting private lives than we do and we forgive them,
even worship them (like Diana) for their sins. But we don’t extend the same
indulgence to monarchy.
So ‘Celebrity Monarchy’ doesn’t work – or at least not very well or for
very long. But there’s something else that is even more frightening. If the
monarchy became in its moralized form the substitute for a British sense of

[223]

Downloaded from ahh.sagepub.com at Purdue University on June 9, 2015

09 AHH 051968 (to/d) 12/4/05 3:57 pm Page 224

Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 4(2)

national identity, does that national identity mysteriously reappear when we
stop focusing on monarchy? The answer, manifestly, is not. There is thus this
enormous nation-sized hole in Britain at the moment. There is also a huge
royal-shaped hole as well.
What I have tried to show is that monarchy did matter by its presence and
does matter still by its absence. Its semi-eclipse leaves the most enormous hole
and it’s not clear what will come to fill it. Certainly, if we did make a serious
attempt at getting rid of the monarchy we would have to reconstruct both
the Constitution and a British sense of identity. These are difficult tasks in
any circumstances. But they would have to be carried out amid the bitter-
ness and division which the abolition of the monarchy would undoubtedly
engender.
Better, perhaps, to do nothing and let it fade quietly away.

note
1. The Society for Court Studies, established in 1998, aims to stimulate and co-
ordinate the study of courts across all periods and all countries. It is deliberately
multi-disciplinary in approach, bringing together (amongst other areas) architec-
tural history, military history, art history and cultural patronage, and the role of
women in courts. It publishes a journal, The Court Historian, and organizes
seminars and conferences in London and America. For membership details phone
(+44 0) 207 503 9903, or e-mail <membership@courtstudies.com>.

b i o g ra p h i ca l n o t e
dav i d s ta r k e y is a Bye Fellow at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge. He is
renowned as historian and broadcaster, with a high media profile as a result of his
outspoken contributions to BBC’s Question Time, Any Questions and The Moral
Maze. He is an authority on Tudor England, and has published widely. David
Starkey’s recent television series Elizabeth I and Six Wives were top-rated Channel
4 shows and the accompanying books, Elizabeth: Apprenticeship (2000, Chatto and
Windus) and Six Wives:The Queens of Henry VIII (2004, Chatto and Windus), were
bestsellers. As co-founder of the Society for Court Studies, he is frequently asked
his opinion on current royal issues, and currently has a television series on the
kings and queens of England. [email: david@davidstarkey.com]

[224]

Downloaded from ahh.sagepub.com at Purdue University on June 9, 2015