Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #3078345 in Books
• Published on: 2002-05-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 134 pages

Sunday Times Magazine,June 2, 2002
John Mortimer: 'The monarchy, argues the author, provides a secure background against which political change may take place without destablising society.'

Synopsis
"By the end of this century, there will be only five Kings left - those of Hearts, Diamonds, Spades, Clubs and England". This prediction was made in 1951 by King Farouk of Egypt after he had lost his throne, the latest in a long line of monarchies swept away since the Russian Revolution. The contagion was spreading to the Middle East and Asia - the tide seemed unstoppable. Not only has Farouk's prediction not come true, but six of the most stable countries in Europe have retained their monarchs to this day and in Spain the reinstatement of the monarch was part of the process of restoring democracy against an attempted army coup. "While monrachy is mainly a conservative force, helping to maintain stability, this very fundamental stability", the author argues, "enables the country to absorb more radical changes in its political and social structure than would otherwise by possible without risk of disorder". As Malcolm Muggeridge expressed it: "Monarchy is the bridge between what is fluctuating and what is everlasting in human affairs". The author writes entertainingly of the patronage of the arts and the many varied institutions which owe their origin to the wisdom and foresight of past monarchs, beginning with "a King about whom only good (except that he burnt some cakes) is known". He shows how, during the reign of Queen Victoria, the concept of a constitutional monarch first emerged, looking after the long-term interests of the nation above the changing spectrum of party political strife, and how subsequent monarchs have played that role according to his or her strengths and to the circumstances of their time.

Customer Reviews

History Light but with a Serious Point
This book is not what its title suggests. At a time when Britain is embarking on what appears to be a slow motion revolution in its constitutional arrangements, and when the place of the monarchy is being given increased scrutiny by political thinkers and commentators, author Charles Neilson Gattey has produced a work not so much about monarchy as monarchs. In “Crowning Glory: The Merits of Monarchy,” the reader is given less an argument for retaining the Crown, than an appreciation of those who have worn it.

Gattey, who ironically has an ancestral relationship to George Washington, is not concerned with constitutional, legal and political arguments. Not that he discounts those arguments. Gattey briefly and rightly argues that the monarchy helps to disguise and moderate change and therefore helps society to adjust to the turmoil that even beneficent change often brings. He further argues that by elevating the monarchy’s role above partisan politics, the state is protected from the more baleful influences of political strife. There is nothing new or original in this, and for readers who seek more in-depth analysis, Vernon Bogdanor’s “The Monarchy and the Constitution,” L.L. Blake’s “The Prince and the Professor,” or even Walter Bagehot’s famous work, “The English Constitution,” would be better choices.

Instead, Gattey, after some brief remarks about the monarchy’s role in British national life, offers in the introduction of his book brief descriptions of the contributions that various kings and queens have made to Britain’s historical development. In the chapters that follow, Gattey then describes Britain’s constitutional monarchs: Queen Victoria, King Edward VII, King George V, King Edward VIII, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth II, as well as their consorts and immediate family.

However, these are not biographical profiles in the conventional sense, with an emphasis on dates, events and actions. They are, instead, character appreciations that focus on the personalities of their subjects. The major historical events of the reigns of these monarchs are hardly mentioned at all. Indeed, even events that touch on the institution of the monarchy directly, such as the 1936 Abdication Crisis or the 1992 annus horibilis, are barely discussed.

At one level, this gives the reader a stronger sense of the monarch’s personalities. Thanks to Gattey, Queen Victoria can be appreciated for her sense of propriety, Edward VII for his sure tact and diplomacy, George VI for his courage and the current Queen for her almost superhuman patience and dedication to duty in spite of the foibles of her family and the tumultuousness of her times

Unfortunately, the picture is too unbalanced. Gattey’s monarchs are seen only in their best light, and their weaknesses are barely mentioned. For example, Queen Victoria can be appreciated for her regal bearing, utter lack of racial prejudice, and dedication to her work, but her self-indulgent seclusion from her ceremonial duties after the death of the Prince-Consort is barely hinted at. Edward VII is credited for his keen sense of the moment, but his recurrent infidelities at the expense of his generous and long suffering consort, Queen Alexandra, are ignored. Even more strikingly, Edward VIII is not even given his own chapter, but is instead mentioned only in reference to his father and brother, as if his thankfully brief reign had never happened. At one level, this may seem like an effort to create a hero image. However, the effect is the opposite of what is intended.

By failing to balance the various monarch’s undoubted virtues with a discussion of their vices, Gattey makes them less than human and therefore seemingly less impressive. The point is not that they should be seen as mere humans who, by accident of birth, found a crown upon their heads. The point is that the men and women that Gattey discusses have overcome their own weaknesses, jealousies, insecurities and petty indulgences to perpetuate an important institution that gives to the British nation far more than is properly appreciated.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in Gattey’s chapter on King George V and Queen Mary. Gattey justly heaps praise on the Queen for her artistic tastes and generous personality. Against her, however, the King is barely mentioned except as a stick figure who dearly loves his wife. This is a serious lapse. As Kenneth Rose has shown in his brilliant biography of the “sailor king,” George V was no intellectual, was unduly harsh on his children, (with significant consequences for the monarchy), and had few interests outside of stamp collecting and the Royal Navy.

Yet, George V was also capable of enormous self-discipline, was not afraid to make difficult decisions, and could summon in himself a surprising open mindedness and egalitarianism. His openness to, and indeed his ultimate friendship with, Britain’s first Labour Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, was a watershed in British class relations at a moment when those relations were still strained and haunted by the spectre of economic dislocation and rising totalitarianism. Similarly, George V was the pivotal figure in forging the emergency coalition government that dealt with the crisis of the Great Depression. These are significant moments that show the true strength of George V’s character, and he deserves better than the virtual non-treatment than Gattey gives him.

That said, in an age when readers often seek gossip and titillation for its own sake, and when “warts and all” biographies have become “all warts,” Gattey’s book helps to right the imbalance just a little. His appreciations, though hardly objective and often very light on solid history, nonetheless give the reader an insight into the remarkable people who have sat on the British throne. Although they are not the saintly and blameless figures that Gattey makes them out to be, they are still more remarkable and interesting than their critics have unjustly claimed. That may not be a merit of monarchy per se, but it is a tribute to the sense of duty and sacrifice of the House of Windsor, and for which the British people have been the sometimes insufficiently grateful beneficiaries.

A Light Read with a Serious Point
This book is not what its title suggests. At a time when Britain is embarking on what appears to be a slow motion revolution in its constitutional arrangements, and when the place of the monarchy is being given increased scrutiny by political thinkers and commentators, author Charles Neilson Gattey has produced a work not so much about monarchy as monarchs. In “Crowning Glory: The Merits of Monarchy,” the reader is given less an argument for retaining the Crown, than an appreciation of those who have worn it.

Gattey, who ironically has an ancestral relationship to George Washington, is not concerned with constitutional, legal and political arguments. Not that he discounts those arguments. Gattey briefly and rightly argues that the monarchy helps to disguise and moderate change and therefore helps society to adjust to the turmoil that even beneficent change often brings. He further argues that by elevating the monarchy’s role above partisan politics, the state is protected from the more baleful influences of political strife. There is nothing new or original in this, and for readers who seek more in-depth analysis, Vernon Bogdanor’s “The Monarchy and the Constitution,” L.L. Blake’s “The Prince and the Professor,” or even Walter Bagehot’s famous work, “The English Constitution,” would be better choices.

Instead, Gattey, after some brief remarks about the monarchy’s role in British national life, offers in the introduction of his book brief descriptions of the contributions that various kings and queens have made to Britain’s historical development. In the chapters that follow, Gattey then describes Britain’s constitutional monarchs: Queen Victoria, King Edward VII, King George V, King Edward VIII, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth II, as well as their consorts and immediate family.

However, these are not biographical profiles in the conventional sense, with an emphasis on dates, events and actions. They are, instead, character appreciations that focus on the personalities of their subjects. The major historical events of the reigns of these monarchs are hardly mentioned at all. Indeed, even events that touch on the institution of the monarchy directly, such as the 1936 Abdication Crisis or the 1992 annus horibilis, are barely discussed.

At one level, this gives the reader a stronger sense of the monarch’s personalities. Thanks to Gattey, Queen Victoria can be appreciated for here sense of propriety, Edward VII for his sure tact and diplomacy, George VI for his courage and the current Queen for her almost superhuman patience and dedication to duty in spite of the foibles of her family and the tumultuousness of her times

Unfortunately, the picture is too unbalanced. Gattey’s monarchs are seen only in their best light, and their weaknesses are barely mentioned. For example, Queen Victoria can be appreciated for her regal bearing, utter lack of racial prejudice, and dedication to her work, but her self-indulgent seclusion from her ceremonial duties after the death of the Prince-Consort is barely hinted at. Edward VII is credited for his keen sense of the moment, but his recurrent infidelities at the expense of his generous and long suffering consort, Queen Alexandra, are ignored. Even more strikingly, Edward VIII is not even given his own chapter, but is instead mentioned only in reference to his father and brother, as if his thankfully brief reign had never happened. At one level, this may seem like an effort to create a hero image. However, the effect is the opposite of what is intended.

By failing to balance the various monarch’s undoubted virtues with a discussion of their vices, Gattey makes them less than human and therefore seemingly less impressive. The point is not that they should be seen as mere humans who, by accident of birth, found a crown upon their heads. The point is that the men and women that Gattey discusses have overcome their own weaknesses, jealousies, insecurities and petty indulgences to perpetuate an important institution that gives to the British nation far more than is properly appreciated.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in Gattey’s chapter on King George V and Queen Mary. Gattey justly heaps praise on the Queen for her artistic tastes and generous personality. Against her, however, the King is barely mentioned except as a stick figure who dearly loves his wife. This is a serious lapse. As Kenneth Rose has shown in his brilliant biography of the “sailor king,” George V was no intellectual, was unduly harsh on his children, (with significant consequences for the monarchy), and had few interests outside of stamp collecting and the Royal Navy.

Yet, George V was also capable of enormous self-discipline, was not afraid to make difficult decisions, and could summon in himself a surprising open mindedness and egalitarianism. His openness to, and indeed his ultimate friendship with, Britain’s first Labour Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, was a watershed in British class relations at a moment when those relations were still strained and haunted by the spectre of economic dislocation and rising totalitarianism. Similarly, George V was the pivotal figure in forging the emergency coalition government that dealt with the crisis of the Great Depression. These are significant moments that show the true strength of George V’s character, and he deserves better than the virtual non-treatment than Gattey gives him.

That said, in an age when readers often seek gossip and titillation for its own sake, and when “warts and all” biographies have become “all warts,” Gattey’s book helps to right the imbalance just a little. His appreciations, though hardly objective and often very light on solid history, nonetheless give the reader an insight into the remarkable people who have sat on the British throne. Although they are not the saintly and blameless figures that Gattey makes them out to be, they are still more remarkable and interesting than their critics have unjustly claimed. That may not be a merit of monarchy per se, but it is a tribute to the sense of duty and sacrifice of the House of Windsor, and for which the British people have been the sometimes insufficiently grateful beneficiaries.