https://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/issue/feedM/C Journal2024-03-12T13:45:46+00:00Axel Brunseditor@media-culture.org.auOpen Journal Systems<h1>M/C Journal</h1> <p><em>M/C Journal</em> was founded (as "M/C – A Journal of Media and Culture") in 1998 as a place of public intellectualism analysing and critiquing the meeting of media and culture. <em>M/C Journal</em> is a fully blind-, peer-reviewed academic journal, open to submissions from anyone. We take seriously the need to move ideas outward, so that our cultural debates may have some resonance with wider political and cultural interests. Each issue is organised around a one-word theme (<a href="https://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/issue/archive">see our past issues</a>), and is edited by one or more guest editors with a particular interest in that theme. Each issue has a feature article which engages with the theme in some detail, followed by several shorter articles.</p>https://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/3044Royalty and Its Representation in Popular Culture2024-03-07T01:38:49+00:00Jo Coghlanjo.coghlan@une.edu.auLisa J Hackettlisa.hackett@une.edu.auHuw Nolanhnolan3@une.edu.au<p>Modern and historical royal families are a popular area of scholarly interest, with power and politics the centre of much research. Royalty is also a popular area of study in a range of other areas including gender, class, material culture, celebrity studies, consumption practices, and cinematic representations. Much of what we understand about royal families comes from mediated images, meaning we see a public version of kings and queens and their children. These images are heavily curated and stage-managed, with the aim of affirming them and their values in a positive social and national light. While some royal families are in decline, others such the House of Windsor and the House of Saud remain very visible and hold significant cultural and historic value. Popular culture uses the label ‘royals’ not just for royal family members, but it is largely used to denote someone who has hit the top of the game, like Tina Turner the Queen of rock'n'roll, or those seen as the Queens of daytime TV. Disney has made a habit of endearing royalty to its audiences with its imaginary famous queens and kings. In these few examples it is apparent that royalty is mediated, romanticised, imagined, and contested within a range of historical and cultural spaces. </p> <p>Because most people will never get to meet a member of a royal family, we are keen to know what their lives are like behind the palace walls. It is perhaps this desire to peek behind the walls that explains our interest in watching films and television about royals and buying magazines with royals on the cover, amongst a number of other ways we seek to engage with royalty. Royalty, especially British royalty, also needs to engage with us. They need to maintain their relevance and authority, so making public appearances provides opportunities – even if heavily managed and curated – for the public to see them, and ideally to consolidate public affection for them. Popular culture representations – in the media and other cultural and social spaces – provide audiences with a broader canvas on which to examine the power and relevance of royalty. How they are represented and framed in popular cultural can explain and challenge normative meanings about the roles they play in modern society and allow us researchers and audiences to consider royalty in regard to gender, age, biopower, class, empire, and colonisation.</p> <p>Given the death of Queen Elizabeth II on 8 September 2022 and the coronation of her son Charles III and his wife Camilla as King and Queen on 6 May 2023, there is increased global and Commonwealth interest in royals of both the past and the present. It also coincides with public discussions about the future of the British monarchy. While the royal family find themselves at the dawn of a new era, King Charles was born in 1948 and is 75 years old, and there is disquiet in the House of Windsor, positing that it is timely to examine the space and place of the British royals in contemporary society. But the British royal family is one of 43 nations with sovereignties. The <a href="https://www.therichest.com/rich-powerful/the-10-richest-royal-families-in-the-world-as-of-2022-ranked/">British royal family</a> is arguably the best-known royal family, and it is also a wealthy royal family, worth an estimated US$88 billion. However, if we correlate wealth to power, it is the royal families of the Middle East who dominate the list of the world’s most powerful. The <a href="https://www.therichest.com/rich-powerful/the-10-richest-royal-families-in-the-world-as-of-2022-ranked/">Saudi royal family</a> are thought to be worth more than US$1 trillion, the richest royal family in the world. The wealth of these two families alone may mean that there is popular interest in their lives. However, as royals with significant wealth and power bring influence, that too increases interest. Such influence means their relationships, fashion, children, and lifestyles are endlessly speculated about, giving royals a celebrity status. It is this celebrity status that drives royal consumption.</p> <p>In Lisa J. Hackett’s exploration of historic British royal memes, this issue’s feature article, she delves into the cultural transmission of royals through Internet memes. In the age of rapid communication and viral trends, Internet memes play a significant role in shaping cultural narratives about not only current royals, but royalty in history. As a form of social communication produced for users by users, memes are also circulated, imitated, and transformed as they are consumed. In a digital culture they provide avenues for royalty to be satirised, parodied, and critiqued via humour, with the use of intertextual references. As such, memes are cultural artifacts which reflect and remake the commodification of royal celebrity. When thinking about royals of the past, memes can shape current meanings about long-ago kings and queens. This case study of historical royal memes shows the framing of Elizabeth I with contemporary pop songs, Lady Jane Grey with Netflix films and former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, Shakespeare’s Richard III’s ‘Winter of Discontent’ reference with play on words like ‘disco tents’ and ‘discount tents’, as well as the intertextuality of Blackadder and Joni Mitchell. In these memes, which are both fluid and static, audiences form, unform, and reform meanings about historic royals.</p> <p>Dennis Olsen’s article “Consuming Royalty: Promotional Narrratives and the British Royal Family” examines the intersections of the British royal family and consumer culture, with a focus on the coronation of King Charles III. Conducting a content analysis of visual elements, captions and/or hashtags of sponsored posts, stories, and reels that promoted the British monarchy in the week leading up to the Coronation on 6 May 2023, Olsen found that there is a shifting landscape when it comes to the British royals, tradition, lifestyle, and consumption. He demonstrates that while brands from diverse corporations contribute enduring appeal of the British royals, and with narratives appearing to bridge the gap between royalty and the public, contemporary promotional narratives did shift focus from the sovereign and royal family to the broader institution of royalty. In “The Royal Treatment: Fans and Fan Practices of the House of Windsor” by Bridget Kies, the focus is on examining how celebrity and star studies can understand how public personae are manufactured, with reference to cultural representations of the British royal family in a number of cinematic and textual examples. She posits that both fan and fan practices deliver not only royal fan affect: there is also evidence of anti-fandom in some cultural products. </p> <p>Jo Coghlan’s discussion of British royal traditions and practices, historical and contemporary, posits that much is invented about the House of Windsor. From Empire Day to Royal tours to the commodification of images of the royals on tea towels and magazine covers, British royal iconography has intruded into the daily lives of Australians. She argues that not only have the British royals entered our public imaginations, but they have done so as part of a hegemonic project to successfully consolidate their legitimacy and exert their colonial right over Australia. It is in examining the everyday ways in which the British royals are embedded in Australian society that apathy if not opposition to Australia becoming a republic is found. In “Violence and Power of the Modern British Monarch: A Case Study of the Reaction to Princess Diana’s Death”, Anna Molkova asks a series of sociological questions to understand if the British monarch can ‘reign but not rule’ in a modern democratic society, with reference to the cases of Princess Diana and King Charles III.</p> <p>The last two articles in this issue examine non-British royalty in its socio-cultural contexts. Huw Nolan and Amy Tait examine the television series <em>The Great</em> (2020-2023), a satirical comedy-drama television series created by Australian screenwriter Tony McNamara. Combining historical facts with intentional anachronisms, views of the eighteenth-century aristocracy and Catherine the Great’s journey from outsider to enlightened Empress provide a backdrop to reflect on a range of societal and ethical themes. A close reading of <em>The Great</em> in “‘Don’t Say Neigh, Say Yay...’: Human-Animal Relationships in TV’s <em>The Great</em> and Their Potential Impact on Modern Audiences” reveals how animals are treated within the royal court, serving as a symbolic reflection of the era’s hierarchical structures and ethical norms. It also considers the juxtaposition of archaic, often barbaric practices with modern views on animal welfare, prompting viewers to reevaluate their moral perspectives on human-animal relationships, in this case in a broader royal context.</p> <p>Lastly, Simona Strungaru’s article “A Kingdom of Possibility: The International Rise, Affluence, and Influence of the House of Saud” provides a unique insight into the world’s most wealthy royal family, the Saudi Arabian royal family, the House of Saud. With a history dating back to the eighteenth century, the House of Saud has overseen the development of a relatively young nation (formed less than a century ago) to a state that has undergone significant transformations in terms of economics, technology, regional and international influences, and social and cultural change. With a focus on Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (known colloquially as MBS), the article examines how MBS has become a household name since appearing in the public eye in 2015 when, at only 29 years of age, he was appointed by his father King Salman as Defence Minister and Secretary-General of the Royal Court. His quick advance in rank and position to Crown Prince in 2017 and Prime Minister in 2022 has led most political and social commentators appropriately to consider MBS as the de facto ruler of present-day Saudi Arabia.</p>2024-03-12T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Jo Coghlan, Lisa J Hackett, Huw Nolanhttps://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/3024Historic British Royal Memes2024-01-29T02:25:04+00:00Lisa J. Hackettlisa.hackett@une.edu.au<h1><strong>Introduction</strong></h1> <p>A successful Internet meme entwines comedy with social commentary to make its point. This potent combination provides an accessible way for individuals to participate in public discourse. A sub-category of Internet meme are historic royal memes. These memes leverage shared historical knowledge to communicate ideas. This article examines memes that use imagery of past English and British monarchs from William the Conqueror (1066) to George VI (1952). It will provide illustrative analyses of memes that use Lady Jane Grey (1537-1554) and Richard III (1452-1485) as their inspiration to demonstrate how historic events are leveraged for both humour and social commentary. In doing so, it asks: what do historic royal memes reveal about how English and British monarchs are remembered in the popular imagination today? Findings reveal that on aggregate, monarchs are remembered more for their failings rather than their achievements, and that the politics of the past often mirror those of today. In this way, historic royal memes have much to tell us about our society today.</p> <h1><strong>Memes</strong></h1> <p>The focus of this study is on memes from the category ‘Internet memes’. Just what constitutes an Internet meme is not completely settled. For example, di Legge, Mantovani, and Meloni provide the broad definition “the term ‘Internet meme’ concerns a user generated content, i.e. a union of different semantic units (typically still images and text, or animated GIF, or a video), that spreads online and changes along the way” (Di Legge, Mantovani, and Meloni 409). Limor Shifman provides a definition based on memes as a corpus rather that a singular unit: "(a) a group of digital items sharing common characteristics of content, form, and/or stance; (b) that were created with awareness of each other; and (c) were circulated, imitated, and/or transformed via the Internet by many users" (Shifman "Humor"; Shifman <em>Memes</em>). Bradley E Wiggins provides a more nuanced description, stating that “the internet meme is … defined as a remixed, iterated message that can be rapidly diffused by members of participatory digital culture for the purpose of satire, parody, critique, or other discursive activity” (Wiggins 453). In particular, he notes that Internet memes “are heavily dependent, one might even say obsessed with parody and intertextuality and even intermemetic-referentiality (memes that refer to other memes)” (Wiggins 480).</p> <p>Memes in this context can enjoy either a short life-span or can be recycled for years. They can be static images, GIFs, or videos. They are often recycled or put into new contexts. Memes work especially well if they are a complete text within themselves; that is, as Nadia Agatha Pramesthi argues, “they do not have to occur in a conversation. They also do not depend on a special context for their interpretation" (Pramesthi 215). In her study of memes shared in the Reddit group <em>r/HistoryMemes</em>, Pramesthi found that many of the memes were easily understood outside the community by those who did not have specialised knowledge in history (Pramesthi 228). As anthropologist Daniel Miller puts it: “an internet meme must be easily understandable and reproducible. For a meme to exist successfully, it must catch on and be shared as often as possible” (Göke).</p> <p>The rising popularity of memes at the turn of the millennium can be connected to five principal facts, according to di Legge, Mantovani, and Meloni: </p> <blockquote> <p>the leverage for creating memes provided by graphics editing programs and the Internet; the adaptability to a wide range of uses, communicating jokes, emotions, advertisements; their ease of mastery, since most of them are made by using cut-copy, paste and text tool functions; the accessibility of memes, which depends on the accessibility of their habitat, the Internet; lastly, their transferability, relating to their most important quality, namely replicability in different cultures. (Di Legge, Mantovani, and Meloni 409).</p> </blockquote> <p>The comedic value of memes provides a safe way for individuals to engage in public debates, as Daniel Miller euphemistically puts it: “somebody who is quite shy and [doesn’t] want to express political views or opinions, [doesn’t] want to give religious opinions, they will send memes” (Borgerson and Miller 525). As a communication device, creating a meme is relatively easy, allowing for even the most casual Internet users to be able to participate in their creation and dissemination. There are even Websites such as <em>Make A Meme.org</em>, <em>iloveIMG.com</em>, and even Adobe which allow users to create memes with little knowledge of either graphic software or computer coding. Free and easy to use, you can create your own meme and publish it in just a few minutes. Maybe it will even go viral.</p> <p>As a cultural artefact, memes have several functions beyond humour. Daniel Miller argues that one of the primary functions of a meme is that they “basically denigrate what they don’t agree with or laud behavior they do agree with; so memes are what we call the moral police of the internet” (Borgerson and Miller 525). Knobel and Lankshear (218), in developing a typology of memes, provide several motivations for their creation, grouped under the umbrellas of social commentary, humour, expressing fandom, and creating hoaxes. For Valeriya Kalkina, “one particular function that memes fulfil in contemporary culture is mocking all subjects, for instance, our daily life, current political issues, historical events or famous personalities” (Kalkina 133). Di Legge, Mantovani, and Meloni argue that “memes, as part of popular culture, are first and foremost an accurate mirror of society, as they reflect the changes in our perception of a world in which humour seems to be [what Limor Shifman calls] the ’unique key for the understanding of social and cultural processes’” (Di Legge, Mantovani, and Meloni 417). Thus, rather than being the aim, humour is the medium through which memes make social statements.</p> <p>Limor Shifman found that most popular topics in Internet humour were global in their understanding: “sex, gender and animals” were the most prevalent, with more local topics such as “politics, sports and ethnicity” being less so (Shifman "Humor” 200). Shifman notes that “the Internet is a suitable medium for sexual jokes, as the anonymity and isolated reading process may encourage people who find it embarrassing to tell or hear sexual jokes in the ‘offline world’ to send or read them online. In addition – sex, maybe more than any other topic – is global in its nature” (Shifman "Humor” 201). While the assertion that sex is more “global in its nature” is arguable, Shifman’s conclusions posit the question: is the Internet an ideal forum for a range of jokes that would be socially embarrassing to participate in otherwise, for example racist or sexist humour?</p> <p>Internet memes have shifted the way we participate in social communication. Shifman argues that “three fundamental characteristics of the Internet come into play: Interactivity, multimedia, and global reach” (Shifman "Humor” 204). The hierarchy between joke-teller and audience found in legacy media such as television or on stage collapses here. Instead, the roles are fluid. Additionally, the original author is often anonymous, and may have only fleeting control over both the content and the dissemination of the meme. Audience members are free to take a meme and redistribute it, and transform it howsoever they wish. The meme becomes the creation of a loose coalition of individuals who may have only ever had fleeting contact through the meme. This leads to the phenomenon of transformation, where memes seem to take on a life of their own as they travel through culture. Their success, however, remains within their level of saliency: do the results remain instantly recognisable to the other members of the group?</p> <p>Shifman argues that there are three defining characteristics of online humour. The first is a feature she calls "highlighted incongruity”, using collage techniques to juxtapose elements into a single form. The second, the fusion of real and fiction within a meme, is what Shifman calls the ‘postmodern spirit’ of the genre (Shifman "Humor" 205). The third can be found in the “the comic commodification of celebrities. Many of the new texts focus on famous people, from various spheres such as sports, politics and entertainment. In this process, iconic images of celebrities are chopped into visual and audible pieces, which are then manipulated in order to generate scornful laughter” (Shifman "Humor" 205). Memes seemingly cover a diverse range of elements; however, Shifman found in a study of Youtube memes that there were “six such features common to a majority of the sampled texts: A focus on ordinary people, flawed masculinity, humor, simplicity, repetitiveness and whimsical content” (Shifman "Anatomy" 192).</p> <h1><strong>History Memes</strong></h1> <p>Royal history memes are a sub-category of history memes. The cultural significance of memes has resulted in calls for history memes to be taken seriously as a unit of study. Di Legge, Mantovani, and Meloni say that history memes' “popularity should be taken seriously as objects of curation and collection” and can reveal how “non-academic audiences play an important role in the representation of the past” (Di Legge, Mantovani, and Meloni 407-08). Prominent historical imagery is imbued with shared cultural knowledge that allows them to be exploited by meme-makers. From Soviet propaganda posters to art to sepia-tone photographs and black and white film, historic artefacts can be repurposed for the present. For example, Valeriya Kalkina found that “Soviet-related memes may provide a grass-roots re-conceptualisation of the Soviet past” (Kalkina), free from the original intended propaganda meanings. Di Legge, Mantovani, and Meloni note that “some memes can summarize – though in a simplified manner – even complex historical issues (Di Legge, Mantovani, and Meloni 412)”.</p> <p>Further, Makhortykh argues that “in the case of historical memes, it is not possible to ignore the large body of their offline precursors” (Makhortykh 70). In this vein, he states that historical memes can broadly be sorted into three categories: replications, transformations, and inventions. Replications reproduce pre-Internet era memes. Transformations are also based upon pre-Internet memes; however, they repackage the original: “such memes often acquire humorous features and serve as parodies that make fun of the meme’s original meaning” (Makhortykh 70). The third and final category is inventions, which do not have any off-line predecessors. In his study of Russian Second World War memes, Makhortykh found that while the boundaries of each category were not always clear, the majority of memes, approximately three quarters of them, fell into the first two categories, with replications being the largest category, accounting for about 55% of the memes. This suggests that shared cultural memory is an important factor in the success of a meme.</p> <p>AV Ramos argues that history memes are an understudied, yet important source of information about politics and culture today. His study of the memes designed by the US Republican party during Donald Trump’s election campaign attempted to position Trump as a defender of the American political traditions of freedom and liberty. By appropriating the imagery of the past, the past is made present to the viewer (Ramos 649). While history memes may seem inseparable from political memes, Mykola Makhortykh argues that historical memes should be seen as a distinct category as “historical memes are explicitly related to a particular historical event or personality and often refer to existing memory practices by satirising, strengthening or propagating them online” (Makhortykh 64). As a subcategory of historical memes, royal historical memes have not previously been studied in detail, which this project aims to address.</p> <h1>British Royals in Memes</h1> <p>There are two overarching visual categories of royal memes. The first features imagery of past queens and kings to make their point (e.g. historic paintings); the second uses contemporary images, often recycling other memes, in reference to these monarchs. For example, <a href="http://beingbess.blogspot.com/2014/12/beingbess-memes-ditchley-portrait.html">a meme based</a> upon the c. 1592 <a href="https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw02079/Queen-Elizabeth-I-The-Ditchley-portrait">‘The Ditchley Portrait’</a> of Elizabeth I included the wording “because I’m all ‘bout that bass, no treble” from the 2014 body-positive pop song by <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PCkvCPvDXk">Meghan Trainor, “All about That Bass”</a>. The meaning is easily discernible here, even for those with scant knowledge of sixteenth-century fashion. We see instantly the wide skirt, held aloft by a farthingale (a hooped petticoat), and the flattened elongated trunk created by the bodice. The humour here also brings to the fore the changing social relationships with royalty. The Ditchley Portrait is an artefact of Elizabethan propaganda, one of its primary functions being to venerate the queen. The contemporary irreverence of the meme reveals both society’s changed relationship with royalty and our more tolerant political discourse. While respect for the monarchy remains for a portion of society, the relative anonymity of the Internet allows for more light-hearted critique of monarchy, often among those of a similar political persuasion.</p> <p>Memes often require knowledge of previous memes. For example, the cousin Throckmorton memes which proliferated after a tweet by @ChibsArts, who <a href="https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1628968-cousin-throckmorton">posted an image</a> responding to a question posed in his physics textbook featuring “your cousin Throckmorton”, who is skateboarding “down a curved frictionless ramp”, and asking the students to ascertain his speed and “the force that acts upon him”, prompting the tweet asking “sorry, my cousin who?” The seemingly improbable name led to a number of memes celebrating the skater Throckmorton. According to knowyourmeme.com (Adam), one of the authors of the textbook, Roger Freeman, texted that the name Throckmorton itself was used in homage to a character on the classic American sitcom radio show <em>The Great Gildersleeve</em>, which ran between 1941 and 1958. So, imagine one history student’s delight when he found out that there was a <a href="https://br.ifunny.co/tags/mycousinthrockmorton">Throckmorton involved</a> in a 1583 Catholic plot to overthrow Elizabeth I and replace her with Mary Queen of Scots. The humour of this development works as it relies upon the element of surprise; readers can imagine that it is the same Throckmorton across each source.</p> <p>These memes are reductive in nature; they highlight what is remembered from each of these monarchs’ reigns. While it is outside the scope of this article, the wider research that this is part of finds that much of this knowledge is shaped by our cultural exposure to past monarchs, gleaned through a mix of popular culture and history lessons at school. Further, royalty itself has long been adept at propaganda, curating and reducing its own image into easily digestible pieces for consumption. These memes posit how the general public receive and understand these ideas. Some of the memes discussed here have a wide reach, whereas others have circulated among a smaller audience who participate in fora focussed on particular historic events. For these memes, audiences are assumed to have a high-level knowledge that is required to make the meme salient. The following two case studies illustrate how propaganda, humour, and political discourse come together in memes.</p> <h2><strong>Lady Jane Grey</strong></h2> <p>The Lady Jane Grey memes demonstrate how layers of meaning can combine in memes. This first set of memes leveraged the shockingly quick rise and fall of the young Lady Jane Grey (c. 1537-1554), known as the ‘nine day queen’. Grey, a great-niece of Henry VIII, was the figure-head of a plot to seize power after the death of the young Edward VI. Despite Henry having two daughters of his own, there was no precedence for a female monarch. Further, there was the complication of Henry’s many wives and the shadowy legitimacy of his daughters Mary and Elizabeth. Mary was arguably illegitimate, as her parents’ marriage was annulled. Elizabeth was the daughter of a traitor. Add in Mary’s Catholic status, and the conditions were ripe for a power play. This came in the form of teenage Lady Jane Grey, Henry’s niece, and was led by Jane’s father-in-law, the Duke of Northumberland, who was both protestant and legitimate. She also had the privilege of being name by Edward VI as his successor and had the support of the Privy Council. Jane went to the Tower of London to await her coronation. However, in a matter of days, support quickly switched to Mary. Jane’s reign lasted just 9 days and she would be executed the following year; she was aged just 16 or 17.</p> <p>Memes played upon the perception of the young queen being a puppet to political events. <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/f2xq3g/figured_lady_jane_grey_needed_some_love_on_the/">One meme</a> uses a <a href="https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-1379364">sixteenth-century Francois Colet portrait</a>, embellished with the words “TFW [that feeling when] it wasn’t even your idea to be queen in the first place, but they behead you anyway”. Another meme recycles the <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/shittymoviedetails/comments/ut66l3/in_spiderman_no_way_home_willem_dafoe_makes_a/">William Dafoe Spiderman meme</a>, with the words “when Edward VI dies and names you Queen but you only rule for 9 days before everyone betrays you in favour of Mary and you’re executed: You know, I’m something of a monarch myself”.</p> <p>The story of Lady Jane Grey has then been used in relation to events in modern politics. As an example, two of memes which illustrate the transformation of Delaroche’s masterpiece <a href="https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/paul-delaroche-the-execution-of-lady-jane-grey"><em>The Execution of Lady Jane Grey</em></a> (1833) to political and social commentary are presented here<em>.</em> Created three hundred years after the event, the painting dramatically depicts the execution of Lady Jane Grey, based upon Delaroche's study of historic documents. The following two memes use this picture to comment on contemporary events. In the portrait Lady Jane Grey is blindfolded, a feature that inspired one memer to compare it to the ‘Birdbox Challenge’. In <a href="https://imgflip.com/tag/lady+jane+grey">this meme</a>, Delaroche’s painting is overlaid with the words “after being Queen of England for nine days, Lady Jane Grey takes the Birdbox Challenge”. The challenge, which involved participants filming themselves undertaking everyday tasks whilst blindfolded and uploading it to social media, was inspire by the Netflix film <em>Birdbox</em>, in which Sandra Bullock’s character must elude entities that kill through getting people to look at them. Hence, she makes her escape in a blindfold. The challenge went viral; however, safety concerns were raised when social media stars filmed themselves driving and walking through traffic whilst blindfolded (Andriani), risking a fate as tragic as Jane’s.</p> <p>A <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/y925oq/the_new_lady_jane_grey/">second meme</a> is much more political in its tone. Here the painting is serving to highlight the parallels between the short tenures of Lady Jane and the British Prime Minister Liz Truss, but also to make commentary on the political machinations behind them. Truss had the ignominy of being the shortest-serving British Prime Minister. Her tenure lasted for just fifty days between September and October 2022, a consequence of her disastrous interim budget. In this scene, entitled erroneously “44 days a PM”, the faces of the key characters in the painting have been replaced by key political figures. Truss is Lady Jane Grey, the executioner is her successor Rishi Sunak. The recently deceased Elizabeth II and King Charles III watch on; if not active participants in the political execution, then at least unwilling to intervene. The parallel with the brutality of historic political events provides a lens through which those of the present can be interpreted.</p> <h2><strong>Rehabilitating Richard III</strong></h2> <p>The case of Richard III, who ruled for just a short period between 1483 and 1485, is an interesting example of how changes in knowledge can shift shared cultural understandings and depictions of historic events. Richard III has long lingered in cultural memory as the deformed, hunchbacked, and villainous king who killed his two young nephews, Edward V and his brother Richard, in order to claim the throne. They would become known as the Princes in the Tower, before they mysteriously vanishing in 1483. Richard III memes play on this perceived villainy, and he is one of the most ‘memed’ monarchs.</p> <p>Much of what is popularly known about Richard III is mediated through William Shakespeare’s titular play. Here, three memes demonstrate how knowledge of Richard is directly linked Shakespeare’s depiction of the King. <a href="https://twitter.com/lily_218/status/579762409621028865">Some memes humorously</a> make a play on the malapropisms, or the misuse or mishearing of similar sounding words. Here the famous line from Shakespeare’s play about the king, “now is the winter of our discontent”, is variously reimagined as a ‘disco tent’ or a ‘discount tent’. Other memes make use of the political machinations attributed by Shakespeare to Richard. For example, <a href="https://doctorfluff.tumblr.com/post/185904025494/shakespeare-according-to-gru?is_related_post=1">one meme</a> belongs to the ‘Gru’s plan’ category of memes. Gru is a character from the film series <em>Despicable Me</em>, featuring the hapless Gru explaining over four panels his plan before realising the fatal flaw in it. In the play, Richard III’s fatal flaw is his lack of horse at the Battle of Bosworth. The meme uses Gru as Richard III outlining the steps in his plan as 1) “murder people to get the crown”, 2) “murder more people to get the crown”, 3) “no horse available”, before Gru/Richard realises in the final panel that “no horse available” is the flaw. Shakespeare’s depiction of Richard III, however, has been critiqued as little more than Tudor propaganda. Written as an historical play by the playwright just over a hundred years after Richard's death, Shakespeare was influenced by the politics of the day and arguably wrote the play to suit a Tudor audience, with the resulting depiction of the Richard III a caricature. The ability of the Gru meme to distil this essence of Shakespeare’s political choices is instant and arguably relies on little actual knowledge of Tudor politics, relying instead on a broader knowledge of absolute monarchies of the mid-millennium.</p> <p>The negative image of Richard III has continually been culturally influenced by Shakespeare, as well as other forms of Tudor propaganda, a fact that is critiqued in a <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/shakespeare/comments/av8dr8/since_memes_are_becoming_popular_here_i_decided/">meme</a> which depicts the playwright’s choice between writing plays which depict “historical accuracy” or “pleasing the current monarch”. The meme utilises images of the Sesame Street character Elmo, facing the choice between healthy fruit (“historical accuracy”) and white powder (“pleasing the current monarch”), which could be sugar, but could also be intended as a drug reference by the memer. Elmo buries his face in the white powder. The implication here is that aligning himself with royal propaganda is a prudent move for the playwright.</p> <p>Richard also has his memer defenders. For example, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/AgneseRamazzottiReine/posts/830516847460202/?paipv=0&eav=Afat0C5Ff-lLf8zNfkmV_2eYhUln_lR5tUzS3RsChrwUixOhSr6kPC_QrHbOV29N2wE&_rdr">a meme created by Facebook user Roisoleil</a> (whose name means “sun king’ in French) utilises a still from the BBC’s <em>Horrible Histories </em>(2009-) to depict a softer portrait of Richard III, adorned with white roses and a feathered hat. The accompanying text reads “when you are Richard III, but also a good chap”. While memes such as this suggest that Richard III has been rehabilitated in the eyes of some members of the public, historians would be more careful when exonerating Richard as the politics of the 1400s was very different, and much knowledge has also been lost.</p> <p>Richard may have been an inhabitant of the fifteenth century; he was brought into the twenty-first by the seemingly incongruous finding of his remains under a carpark in Leicester. Highlighted incongruence is what Shifman claims to be one of the factors that can make memes work well. One example here is a meme that repurposes the James William Edmund Doyle’s painting <a href="https://www.heritage-images.com/preview/2653451"><em>Richard Orders the Arrest of Hastings</em></a> (1864). <a href="https://imgur.com/gallery/x1Rn67g">Here, a courtier is depicted asking</a> “your majesty, may we build a parking lot” to which Richard replies “over my dead body!” Another example reworks key lyrics from Joni Mitchell’s <a href="https://jonimitchell.com/music/song.cfm?id=13"><em>Big Yellow Taxi</em></a> (1970), stating <a href="https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/pinterest-in-2023--92605336080140606/">“Richard III: Pave Plantagenet and put up a parking lot”</a>. The use of a distinctive lyric here invites the reader to read the meme ‘songlike’ in their mind, leveraging mnemonic powers of music (Jakubowski). A third example takes a still from the first season of the BBC historical comedy <em>Blackadder</em> (1983), featuring the hapless Baldric with the (presumably) offscreen Blackadder chastising him <a href="https://johngushue.typepad.com/blog/2013/02/baldrick-and-the-car-park-.html">“Really, Baldric. Under a carpark? That was your cunning plan?”</a> This meme draws upon a reoccurring narrative device in <em>Blackadder</em> where Baldric introduces his solution to Blackadder’s current problem, prefaced with the line “I have a cunning plan…”, which the audience understood to be the precursor for an illogical absurdity. In the context of the meme, the illogical idea that anyone in the fifteenth century would conceive of hiding a body beneath a carpark, a structure not yet invented in its modern form, is drawn. While all three of these memes use different artefacts from popular culture to highlight the juxtaposition of a carpark with a royal tomb, they reveal how the social narrative of monarchy has been interrupted. Intertwining stories from popular culture help audiences to both understand and resolve this deviation from the norm.</p> <h1><strong>Conclusion</strong></h1> <p>Kings and Queens within memes are depicted more for their failings than their successes. As this history shows us, the crown was a ground of contestation for most of the past millennium, with monarchs from King Harold to Charles I, James II, and Edward VIII all having to relinquish their crowns. What this study reveals is that what is remembered in the popular consciousness is less aligned with the concept of the divine right of kings, and rather a history of poor behaviour, sexual proclivities, political disgrace, and the occasional support. David Mitchell, who recently published his own humorous history of British monarchs, <em>Unruly</em> (2023), commented in the Guardian:</p> <blockquote> <p>the medieval monarchy is a succession of brutes and fools, with the occasional foolish brute and one or two ruthlessly efficient tyrants. They fought, they fornicated, they murdered and they usually failed. Fundamentally that is the royal tradition. (Mitchell)</p> </blockquote> <p>The memes reviewed here reflect this. Rather than seeing our royal past as a dignified tradition, royalty have been remembered for their capriciousness, ruthlessness, and failings.</p> <h2><strong>References</strong></h2> <p>Adam. "Cousin Throckmorton." Know Your Meme 2020.</p> <p>Andriani, Ria. "Bird Box Challenge: Why Blindfolding Yourself and Walking into Walls Is Even More Stupid than It Sounds." <em>The Guardian </em>8 Jan. 2019.</p> <p>Borgerson, Janet, and Daniel Miller. "Scalable Sociality and 'How the World Changed Social Media': Conversation with Daniel Miller." <em>Consumption, Markets and Culture </em>19.6 (2016): 520-33.</p> <p>Dawkins, Richard. "Selfish Genes and Selfish Memes." <em>The Mind’s I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul</em>. 1981. 124-44. </p> <p>Di Legge, Matteo, Francesco Mantovani, and Iara Meloni. "What Does It Meme? Public History in the Internet Memes Era." <em>Handbook of Digital Public History</em>. 2022. 407.</p> <p>Göke, Julia. "The Selfish Meme – History of Memes, Memes on History." Blog Geschichte digital 2022.</p> <p>Holm, Cille Hvass. "What Do You Meme? The Sociolinguistic Potential of Internet Memes." <em>Leviathan: Interdisciplinary Journal in English </em>7 (2021): 1–20.</p> <p>Jakubowski, Kelly. "The Science of Why You Can Remember Song Lyrics from Years Ago." <em>The Conversation </em>15 Aug. 2023.</p> <p>Kalkina, Valeriya. "Between Humour and Public Commentary: Digital Re-Appropriation of the Soviet Propaganda Posters as Internet Memes." <em>Journal of Creative Communications </em>15.2 (2020): 131-46.</p> <p>Knobel, Michele, and Colin Lankshear. "Online Memes, Affinities, and Cultural Production." <em>A New Literacies Sampler </em>29 (2007): 199-227.</p> <p>Makhortykh, Mykola. "Everything for the Lulz: Historical Memes and World War II Memory on Lurkomor’e." <em>Digital Icons: Studies in Russian, Eurasian and Central European New Media </em>13 (2015): 63-90.</p> <p>Mitchell, David. "Let’s Hear It for England’s Royals – and Centuries of Incompetence, Criminality and Failure." <em>The Guardian </em>24 Sep. 2023.</p> <p>Pramesthi, Nadia Agatha. "The Implicature of Reddit Memes from r/HistoryMemes Sub-Reddit." <em>Research and Innovation in Language Learning </em>4.3 (2021): 211-30.</p> <p>Ramos, Alberto Venegas. "Memetic Images and the Use and Representation of the Past: The US War of Independence and Donald Trump's Presidency." <em>HISPANIA NOVA: Primera Revista de Historia Contemporánea On-Line en Castellano. Segunda Época </em>20 (2022): 635-59.</p> <p>Shifman, Limor. "An Anatomy of a Youtube Meme." <em>New Media & Society </em>14.2 (2012): 187-203.</p> <p>———. "Humor in the Age of Digital Reproduction: Continuity and Change in Internet-Based Comic Texts." <em>International Journal of Communication </em>1.1 (2007): 23.</p> <p>———. <em>Memes in Digital Culture</em>. MIT Press, 2013.</p> <p>Wiggins, Bradley E. "Crimea River: Directionality in Memes from the Russia-Ukraine Conflict." <em>International Journal of Communication </em>10 (2016): 35.</p>2024-03-12T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Lisa J. Hacketthttps://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/3020Consuming Royalty2024-02-06T04:36:33+00:00Dennis Olsendennis.olsen@uwl.ac.uk<h1><strong>Introduction</strong></h1> <p>The death of Queen Elizabeth II in summer 2022 heralded a new era for the British royal family. Under the Queen, the British royals became a branding powerhouse, estimated to have contributed tens of billions of pounds to the UK economy (Balmer; Hirwani). The British royal family is unique in its manifestation in consumer culture, both in the UK and around the world (Otnes and Maclaran). During Elizabeth II’s reign, royalty became a cultural commodity, penetrating the UK’s promotional landscape in almost all industries—from fashion, to automotive, to food and beverages. The Queen herself became a meticulously crafted personal brand with a worldwide appeal. Whether this consumer draw will continue following her passing is something that has seen widespread speculation by British and international media and academics.</p> <p>Balmer candidly remarks that with the death of Queen Elizabeth II, “the UK has not only lost a peerless constitutional monarch, but also one of the country’s greatest brand assets. The new King has significant shoes to fill” (para. 21). Undoubtedly, the new head of the British royal family is facing considerable challenges; not only in replacing one of the most revered royals in British history (Gander), but also in doing so in a period when the monarchy has come under increasing scrutiny. Ranking fifth in terms of popularity among the British royals in the second quarter of 2023—behind the late Queen, William, the Prince of Wales, Princess Anne, and Catherine, the Princess of Wales—there has been prevailing scepticism, particularly among the younger population, as to whether Charles will make a good king (YouGov "Most Popular", "Will Prince"). While support for the monarchy remains high in Britain overall, it is significantly lower than in earlier decades. This is particularly true for younger adults, whose enthusiasm for the monarchy has consistently fallen in recent years. In the UK, “the crown is still popular overall, but there are deep generational divides” (Smith para. 1). Compared to older generations, younger Britons are not convinced that the monarchy is good for the country or that the public taxes spent on the royal family constitute good value for money (Coughlan). Almost a third of young adults even express embarrassment by the British monarchy (Smith). This negative attitude is higher among younger ethnic minority Britons (Abraham).</p> <p>Considering these challenges, this article investigates the British royal family as part of the UK’s promotional culture <em>post</em>-Queen Elizabeth II. Interested particularly in the promotional narratives aimed at young adults, two research questions are guiding this investigation:</p> <blockquote> <p>(i) How do brands establish a royal connection as part of UK digital advertising? <br />(ii) What current promotional narratives are crafted around royalty in the UK?</p> </blockquote> <p>Advertising is a major cultural actor in societies, capturing the <em>Zeitgeist</em> and allowing inferences on collective ideals, social perceptions, and cultural patterns (Leiss et al.; Basbug; Olsen). The ideas, desires, and even fears that advertising undoubtedly plays upon are a major part of a society’s culture, or at least of the sub-culture formed by the target audience. The contents of adverts are an expression of what advertisers have found in search of the addressee. Advertising is a continuum, comprising evaluations in terms of what is currently perceived as important, desirable, or undesirable by members of society. It amplifies and affirms contemporary patterns of behaviour and reveals cultural standards (Goffman; Schmidt and Siems). Considering the effort and money devoted to exploring potential consumers, it seems very likely that advertising reflects the dominant values, norms, role expectations, prejudices, fears, dreams, and needs of their target group with considerable accuracy. Therefore, whilst advertising, like any other form of media, might not fully reflect all aspects of a society, it can be assumed that it largely picks up and conveys contemporary ideas and developments; or at least those relevant to the target group(s). It therefore provides insight into the mental image and expectations of its intended audience. As an investigation involving promotional social media content, advertising, in the context of this study, provides a snapshot of the current discussion surrounding royalty among young adults in the UK.</p> <h1>Study Design</h1> <p>A media content analysis of social media adverts was conducted, spanning from 30 April to 8 May 2023. This investigation period encompassed a full calendar week leading up to the coronation of King Charles III on 6 May, as well as the coronation bank holiday granted by the UK government, which encouraged Britons to host and attend celebratory street parties throughout the country (UK Government "Bank Holiday", "Culture Secretary"). Instagram was chosen due to its popularity with younger adults in the UK and its wide appeal to a broad spectrum of brands (Dixon; Dencheva).</p> <p>For the collection of the sample, undergraduate students were recruited. All 68 volunteers, aged between 20 and 25 years, were based in Greater London and regularly used Instagram for leisure purposes, interacting with the app on average at least once a day prior to the study. The group of volunteers was slightly more female (54%) and included almost exclusively British nationals from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. Instructions for data collection were kept intentionally vague, with students being asked to “use your Instagram as usual and monitor your account for promotional content that, in your opinion, references the British monarchy”. References could be part of the visual elements, captions, and/or hashtags of sponsored posts, stories, and reels. Students were asked to take screenshots of relevant adverts and upload these to a shared cloud folder, hosted by the University of West London.</p> <p>During the investigation period, the group of students were targeted by over one thousand sponsored advertisements perceived as relating to the British monarchy. After discounting duplications and variants—e.g., repurposed content in different media formats—171 unique advertisements from 89 brands were included in this study.</p> <h1><strong>How Brands Establish a Royal Connection</strong></h1> <p>Unsurprisingly, the upcoming coronation was the most frequently mentioned reference to the British monarchy during the investigation period. It featured prominently in the visuals of advertisements, often taking the form of the official coronation emblem. Additionally, captions and hashtags as part of the sponsored post and reels frequently alluded to the coronation. Symbols of royalty, including crowns, were commonly used, although they tended to be more stylised than photorealistic in nature. Particularly popular among brands was the incorporation of the crown emoji, both in the visual elements and captions of their posts.</p> <p><em><img src="https://journal.media-culture.org.au/public/site/images/lhackett/picture8.png" alt="References to the British monarchy within advertising and their frequency, clustered according to the nature of the reference—events (orange), insignia/symbols (yellow), royal and princely titles (blue), generic terminology/synonyms (purple), and specific person identifiers (green). Due to its nature, “royal cypher” can be clustered as both symbol and personal identifier." width="1375" height="962" />Figure 1: References to the British monarchy within advertising and their frequency, clustered according to the nature of the reference—events (orange), insignia/symbols (yellow), royal and princely titles (blue), generic terminology/synonyms (purple), and specific person identifiers (green). Due to its nature, “royal cypher” can be clustered as both symbol and personal identifier.</em></p> <p>Regarding named members of the current royal family, the mentions were primarily limited to King Charles III and Queen Camilla. In most cases, references remained abstract and impersonal, employing more generic terms associated with the monarchy, such as “royal”, “majestic”, or “regal”. Royal and princely titles were largely used without specific identifiers of whom they referred to. Although no other members of the current royal family were featured, historical references found their way into the advertisements, with mentions of Queen Victoria, Queen Charlotte, and Prince Albert.</p> <p><img src="https://journal.media-culture.org.au/public/site/images/lhackett/picture9.png" alt="Collage of example references to the British monarchy" width="1050" height="636" /></p> <p><em>Figure 2: Collage of example references to the British monarchy.</em></p> <h1><strong>Promotional Narratives Crafted around Royalty</strong></h1> <p>During the investigation period, four distinct promotional narratives were identified as targeting younger adults leading up to the coronation and throughout the coronation bank holiday weekend.</p> <h2><strong>King for a Day: Buying One’s Way into Royalty</strong></h2> <p>The most common narrative observed focussed on the concept of royalty as a marker of excellence and indulgence. This narrative was driven by two underlying principles: firstly, it centred on trustworthiness, with a strong emphasis on assuring consumers that the products and services being promoted are of superior quality, offer excellent value for their money, and will deliver an experience befitting royalty. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, the overarching message revolved around attainability. At its essence, it was implied that anyone can experience a taste of royalty, even if only for a day, and that the brands are there to assist in making this aspiration a reality.</p> <p>This narrative featured across a wide spectrum of industries, spanning from accommodation and food services to retail. Notably, these were not exclusively premium brands; this narrative was also very much embraced by more affordable high street and online brands. For instance, the upscale eatery chain <em>The Ivy</em> offered "an experience fit for a King" in the run-up to the coronation. As part of a multi-image campaign, they featured close-ups of lavishly decorated dining tables and bejewelled customers indulging in the restaurant's coronation-themed foods and drinks. Similarly, the high-end department store <em>Harvey Nichols</em>, with its historical ties to the British royal family, invited patrons in a sponsored reel to "toast [the] new monarch in true fitting style with the highest of afternoon tea". Meanwhile, even more affordable brands boldly touted their products with similar claims. London-based restaurant <em>The Avocado Show</em> announced in a sponsored reel a special menu for its customers to “feast like a King” during the coronation weekend, and premixed cocktails brand <em>Nio </em>proclaimed their Dry Martini, which they reveal is the King’s favourite cocktail, as "fit for a King, fit for you!" The framing of products and services as suitable for royalty is central to this narrative, suggesting that the rigid social class system of the UK might be temporarily porous, allowing everyone to access the lifestyle associated with royalty in the lead-up to the coronation.</p> <p><img src="https://journal.media-culture.org.au/public/site/images/lhackett/poc.png" alt="Examples of the first narrative, ‘King for a day’" width="912" height="404" /></p> <p><em>Figure 3: Examples of the first narrative, ‘King for a day’.</em></p> <h2><strong>Let the Commemoration Begin—the Right Way!</strong></h2> <p>In the promotional stories of this narrative, brands extended a helping hand to consumers to navigate the intricacies of celebrating a new monarch. After all, so the promotional consensus, a coronation is a rare event and guidance might be required as to how adequately to commemorate the special occasion. One way of doing this was by assisting in making the right choices regarding food and beverages when hosting or attending a coronation celebration party. Unsurprisingly, this exclusively involved showcasing what the brands behind the sponsored posts had to offer. English liqueur maker <em>Pimm’s</em>, for example, confidently asserted that “throwing a party fit for a king doesn’t need to be difficult”, if Pimm’s is on the menu. Similarly, British supermarket chain <em>Waitrose </em>encouraged their audiences to “throw a right Royal Party” with the help of their “royally delicious, limited-edition range” of traditional British baked goods.</p> <p>This narrative equated royalty with specific items that hold a special significance and should not be missed. Much like the first narrative, these items enable the purchase of royal status for a limited time and elevate an otherwise ordinary event to something more regal. However, in contrast to the previous narrative, this status is less self-centred in nature, with the primary focus being on how to appropriately celebrate the occasion in honour of the new King. Posts were also more inclusive of all ages, marking the monarchy as something that the whole family can enjoy and ought to celebrate. It is worth noting, however, that at times even brands appeared uncertain about how much royal celebration the youngest members of a family can genuinely appreciate. For instance, in a multi-image sponsored post, German discount supermarket <em>Aldi </em>suggested a selection of "coronation crafts" intended to spark activities throughout the coronation weekend, with the copy subtly implying the necessity to "keep the kids busy this long weekend".</p> <p>Some brands approached the narrative of commemoration from a retrospective angle, emphasising the historic significance. For example, the designer outlet shopping centre <em>Bicester Village</em> encouraged consumers in a short video to visit its location on London’s doorstep to shop and create “your own royal souvenir”—showcasing a variety of potential memorabilia, including printed postcards featuring a bear dressed in the new King’s royal cypher. Similarly, the British heritage fashion brand <em>Hackett </em>promoted a limited-edition pocket square adorned with the royal cypher as part of their coronation celebration, inviting audiences to “own a piece of history”. Instead of providing guidance on how to celebrate on the day, these branded posts stressed the cultural significance of the coronation—an extraordinary occasion worthy of remembrance and preservation of cherished memories.</p> <p><img src="https://journal.media-culture.org.au/public/site/images/lhackett/p-1.png" alt="Collage of example references to the British monarchy " width="540" height="464" /></p> <p><em>Figure 4: Examples of the second narrative, ‘Let the commemoration begin’.</em></p> <h2><strong>A Royal Takeover: Embracing the Monarchy</strong></h2> <p>Brands tend to keep a close eye on safeguarding their intellectual property, encompassing the use of their visual identity, brand name and product designs (Beverland). The third narrative somewhat breaks with this norm, allowing royalty to occupy the same space in promotional communications, or even temporarily taking over a brand identity. The incorporation of royalty occurs at various levels within the advertisements, including the modification of visual identities. By way of example, in a sponsored post by <em>Transport for London</em>, the local government body overseeing the UK capital’s public transport system, the iconic roundel symbol underwent several adaptions, allowing alterations to one of Britain’s most recognisable logos (Lawrence). Departing from its traditional colour scheme, the royal version featured a multicoloured design mirroring the different train lines on the network, with an addition of a golden crown to commemorate the “coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla”.</p> <p>More commonly, brands extended this royal presence to the product level, including packaging or even the product itself. For example, Swiss chocolatier <em>Läderach</em>, in a sponsored post, promoted a special edition of one of its chocolate taster boxes, the “King Coronation max”. This box featured a crown-shaped cutout designed to showcase the various chocolate flavours, promising an “unforgettable taste experience”. Beyond merely incorporating royalty into their product, many brands created special editions to commemorate the royal event. This was particularly prominent in the food sector, where both large and small brands showcased their creations in sponsored posts and reels. For example, major British retailer <em>Marks and Spencer</em> introduced a special edition of its iconic caterpillar cake, affectionately known as Colin, bedecked with a chocolate crown and jewels. <em>The London Taste Collective</em> encouraged audiences to “raise a royally good cocktail” in celebration of the bank holiday weekend, featuring a special cocktail adorned with the silhouette of the new King in cacao dust. Meanwhile, the online bakery <em>Biscuit Boutique </em>unveiled a series of biscuits and chocolates adorned with royal crowns, carriages, and the official coronation emblem.</p> <p>With brands big and small considering the upcoming event valuable enough to temporarily set aside established business rules and wholeheartedly embrace the monarchy, this narrative encourages consumers to also rejoice in the British royalty, if only for this special occasion.</p> <p><img src="https://journal.media-culture.org.au/public/site/images/lhackett/3.png" alt="Examples of the third narrative, ‘A royal takeover’" width="517" height="546" /></p> <p><em>Figure 5: Examples of the third narrative, ‘A royal takeover’.</em></p> <h2><strong>A New King? That’s Heir-larious</strong></h2> <p>Although less common than other narratives in the sample, some brands employed humour to engage the audience while weaving the British monarchy into their promotional storytelling. This narrative served to acknowledge the coronation without appearing overly to promote the monarchy itself, a distinction that sets it apart from all other narratives. Varying from the tame to the more irreverent, the narrative spanned various industries, including hospitality, food, and public transport, predominantly leaning towards the more affordable end of the spectrum.</p> <p>For instance, the American fast-food chain <em>Burger King</em>, operating under the name <em>Hungry Jack’s</em> in Australia and known for its tongue-in-cheek social media marketing, aimed to connect with younger adults in the lead-up to the coronation through a multi-ad campaign centred around the impeding royal event. In a sponsored video reel, <em>Burger King</em> showcased a time-lapse sequence of employees removing the word ‘Burger’ from their prominent Leicester Square branch signage in central London, leaving only the word ‘King’ between the burger bun slices of the logo. The caption humorously read “from one king to another”. Around the same time, <em>Burger King</em> also introduced a limited edition of its iconic paper crown in select branches, dedicated to the coronation of King Charles III. In a series of slice-of-life shots within a multi-image sponsored post, young adults were seen donning the crown with the caption casually stating: “think our crown looks better tbh [to be honest]”. Beyond the play on the brand name, the humour lies in the contrast between the opulence associated with royal banquets and courtly riches and the everyday nature of a fast-food chain. This tongue-in-cheek approach may be perceived as gently poking fun at the monarchy, positioning both the brand and its customers on an equal footing with the new King, playfully ribbing royal titles and insignias while elevating the consumer rather than focussing on the celebration of the new monarch.</p> <p>However, most brands took a less irreverent approach to their promotional narratives, infusing humour in connection with the monarchy primarily through minor wordplay. For instance, the UK’s train network service <em>National Rail </em>announced in a reel that customers can “get a King Charles III off rail travel with Railcard”, and Swiss coffee system brand <em>Nespresso</em> declared that “coffee has dethroned tea as the nation’s favourite drink”. In a similarly tame fashion, the Swiss confectionery brand <em>KitKat </em>shared a sponsored post featuring a rare three-finger version of its iconic chocolate treat. The caption read, "thanks for the extra break, Sir", alluding to both the additional bank holiday granted in the UK in celebration of the coronation and the brand's well-known slogan.</p> <p>At the heart of this narrative is the idea that brands do not feel the need to tread lightly when it comes to the royal family. Much like with other celebrities and public figures, the British royals are fair game for humour, albeit predominantly in a light-hearted manner that does not cross boundaries.</p> <p><img src="https://journal.media-culture.org.au/public/site/images/lhackett/4.png" alt="Examples of the fourth narrative, ‘A new king? That’s heir-larious'" width="875" height="640" /></p> <p><em>Figure 6: Examples of the fourth narrative, ‘A new king? That’s heir-larious'.</em></p> <h1><strong>Conclusion</strong></h1> <p>Despite anchoring the investigation around the coronation, which centres on the anointment of a king and queen, only little attention is given to the persons behind the titles—that is, Charles and Camilla. During the investigation period, there is a noticeable duality of royalty, different from previous decades. Compared to the meticulously crafted personal brand of the late Queen Elizabeth II, royalty, in the context of the promotional narratives, is more about the institution rather than the sovereign and the royal family. Along with this goes a marked shift in emphasis, away from royalty as part of the UK’s social class system and towards a lifestyle—one that can be attained by everyone, albeit only with the assistance of brands. This reflects in the different promotional narratives, where the focus often lies on decreasing the distance between royalty and the public, while still celebrating the monarchy.</p> <p>But not all has changed: the narratives identified as part of this study are all largely still positive in nature. Even in cases where humour is used to poke fun at the monarchy, lines are never crossed, and the tone remains light-hearted. The wide variety of brands from different industries also suggests an on-going appeal of royalty and the monarchy among younger adults, including younger ethnic minority Britons—at least during the extraordinary circumstances of the coronation. This study presents valuable original insight into an important event in British history. It remains to be seen how these narratives might change over time and unfold outside of special royal events.</p> <h2>References</h2> <p>Abraham, Tanya. "What Do Ethnic Minority Britons Think of the Monarchy and Royal Family?" <em>YouGov</em> 3 May 2023. 14 Oct. 2023 <<a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2023/05/03/what-do-ethnic-minority-britons-think-monarchy-and">https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2023/05/03/what-do-ethnic-minority-britons-think-monarchy-and</a>>.</p> <p>Balmer, John. “How Queen Elizabeth II Made the British Monarchy into a Global Brand.” <em>The Conversation</em>. 13 Sep. 2022 <<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-queen-elizabeth-ii-made-the-british-monarchy-into-a-global-brand-190394">https://theconversation.com/how-queen-elizabeth-ii-made-the-british-monarchy-into-a-global-brand-190394</a>>.</p> <p>Basbug, Bengü. “Ewige Jugend: Mythos in einer alternden Gesellschaft. Der Trend des ‘jungen Alterns’ in der Werbung.” <em>Screening Age: Medienbilder – Stereotype – Altersdiskriminierung</em>. Eds. Clemens Schwender, Dagmar Hoffmann, and Wolfgang Reissmann. Munich: Kopead, 2013. 97–113.</p> <p>Beverland, Michael. <em>Brand Management: Co-Creating Meaningful Brands</em>. London: Sage, 2021.</p> <p>Coughlan, Sean. “Generations Sharply Divided over Keeping Monarchy.” <em>BBC News </em>4 Sep. 2023. <<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66707923">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66707923</a>>.</p> <p>Dencheva, Valentina. "Instagram Advertising and Marketing – Statistics & Facts." <em>Statista</em>, 2023. 14 Oct. 2023 <<a href="https://www.statista.com/topics/5286/instagram-marketing/#topicOverview">https://www.statista.com/topics/5286/instagram-marketing/#topicOverview</a>>.</p> <p>Dixon, Stacy. "Distribution of Instagram Users in the United Kingdom (UK) as of June 2023, by Age Group." <em>Statista</em> 2023. 14 Oct. 2023 <<a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/1018012/instagram-users-united-kingdom/">https://www.statista.com/statistics/1018012/instagram-users-united-kingdom/</a>>.</p> <p>Gander, Kashmira. “Queen Elizabeth II Is Britain's Greatest Monarch, According to Poll.” <em>Independent </em>6 Sep. 2015. <<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/queen-elizabeth-ii-is-britain-s-greatest-monarch-according-to-poll-10488935.html">https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/queen-elizabeth-ii-is-britain-s-greatest-monarch-according-to-poll-10488935.html</a>>.</p> <p>Goffman, Erving. <em>Gender Advertisements</em>. New York City: HarperCollins, 1979.</p> <p>Hirwani, Peony. “How Much Money Does the Royal Family Bring in Tourism?” <em>Independent </em>6 May 2023. <<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/royal-family-cost-money-tourism-b2333999.html">https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/royal-family-cost-money-tourism-b2333999.html</a>>.</p> <p>Lawrence, David. <em>A Logo for London</em>. London: Laurence King, 2013.</p> <p>Leiss, William, Stephen Kline, Sut Jhally, and Jackie Botterill. <em>Social Communication in Advertising: Consumption in the Media Marketplace</em>. Oxon: Routledge, 2005.</p> <p>Olsen, Dennis. “The Promotional Window into Society: Advertising as Indicator and Influencer of Socio-Cultural Trends.” <em>New Vistas</em> 8.1 (2022): 47-52.</p> <p>Otnes, Cele, and Pauline Maclaran. “How the British Royal Family Became a Global Brand.” <em>The Atlantic</em> 21 Oct. 2015. <<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/british-royal-monarchy-queen-elizabeth/411388/">https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/british-royal-monarchy-queen-elizabeth/411388/</a>>.</p> <p>Schmidt, Christian, and Florian Siems. “Purpose Marketing als Basis der Kommunikation in einer sich verändernden Welt – Eine kritische Diskussion aus Sicht der Sprach- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften.” <em>New Generation Communication: Communication in a Changing World, 23rd Inter-Disciplinary Symposium of the European Cultures in Business and Corporate Communication (EUCO)</em>. Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Switzerland, 19-21 Oct. 2023.</p> <p>Smith, Matthew. "Where Does Public Opinion Stand on the Monarchy Ahead of the Coronation?" <em>YouGov</em> 3 May 2023. 14 Oct. 2023 <<a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2023/05/03/where-does-public-opinion-stand-monarchy-ahead-cor">https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2023/05/03/where-does-public-opinion-stand-monarchy-ahead-cor</a>>.</p> <p>UK Government. "Bank Holiday Proclaimed in Honour of the Coronation of His Majesty King Charles III." 2023. 14 Oct. 2023 <<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bank-holiday-proclaimed-in-honour-of-the-coronation-of-his-majesty-king-charles-iii">https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bank-holiday-proclaimed-in-honour-of-the-coronation-of-his-majesty-king-charles-iii</a>>.</p> <p>———. "Culture Secretary Encourages Public to Add Coronation Events to Digital Map." 2023. 14 Oct. 2023 <<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/culture-secretary-encourages-public-to-add-coronation-events-to-digital-map">https://www.gov.uk/government/news/culture-secretary-encourages-public-to-add-coronation-events-to-digital-map</a>>.</p> <p><em>YouGov</em>. "The Most Popular Royalty (Q2 2023)." 2023. 14 Oct. 2023 <<a href="https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all">https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all</a>>.</p> <p><em>YouGov</em>. "Will Prince Charles Make a Good King?" 2023. 14 Oct. 2023 <<a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/will-prince-charles-make-a-good-king?crossBreak=1824">https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/will-prince-charles-make-a-good-king?crossBreak=1824</a>>.</p>2024-03-12T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Dennis Olsenhttps://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/3023The Royal Treatment2024-02-05T01:12:45+00:00Bridget Kiesbkies@oakland.edu<h1><strong>Introduction </strong></h1> <p>Much of the popular scholarship surrounding the House of Windsor, the British royal family, draws on celebrity and star studies to examine how their public personae are manufactured. Red-carpet appearances reiterate the family’s elevated status through wealth and glamor. In <em>A Berry Royal Christmas</em> (BBC, 2019), television personality and chefs Mary Berry and Nadiya Hussain make holiday-themed desserts with Prince William and Princess Catherine (henceforth referred to as Kate Middleton). Such specials are intended to give the public the illusion of proximity and intimacy as we watch the royals flounder at baking.</p> <p>But the celebrity is only one side of the equation. Without fans to consume media like this, the Windsors would still be royalty, but their celebrity would have no real value. Royal fans remain understudied, yet as the British monarchy’s overt political influence has waned over the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the Windsors’ fans are what keep them central to popular culture, endowing them with symbolic importance as objects of adoration and economic importance as objects of consumption.</p> <p>In recent years, the Windsors have seen an uptick in scandals, revelations of criminality, and fractures between family members that is in many ways commensurate with a general increase in negative news and politics in the social media era. The general questions asked on social media and in the popular press following such moments are typically: <em>Will the people continue to support the monarchy under these conditions?</em> and <em>Which side of this internal royal controversy will people be taking? </em>Putting aside support for a continued constitutional monarchy (a political question), a fan studies approach shows us that affective interest in the royals as celebrities (a cultural question) will not decrease. Fan studies’ recent turn toward studying toxicity and “ugliness” shows how even controversy gives fans the opportunity for discussion and debate, which generates buzz that keeps the Windsors present in the pop culture <em>Zeitgeist</em>.</p> <p>This article will examine two key areas of royal fandom. First, I look at the relationship between fandom and consumption practices. The release of royal memorabilia is a standard practice during milestone events, with officially sanctioned merchandise benefitting the Royal Collection Trust and other charities. I argue, though, that the Windsors’ reach extends beyond these direct modes of consumption to television, film, and literature created by fans. Second, I examine gossip, scandal, and anti-royal sentiment through the lens of anti-fandom. Doing so shifts the question to how affective engagement with the Windsors, whether positive or negative, is part of a larger cultural project that provides ongoing mediated entertainment, encourages consumption, and keeps the royals culturally relevant when they may no longer be politically so.</p> <h1><strong>Eating the Rich: Fan Consumption and Production</strong></h1> <p>Royal fans can be found in multiple spheres, with a variety of fan practices. Fashion Websites like <em>Duchess on a Budget</em> chronicle how to shop and dress like Kate Middleton for significantly less money. In literature, loosely fictionalised versions of the Windsors pop up frequently. In Jasmine Guillory’s <em>The Royal Holiday</em> (2019), main character Vivian gets to stay at Sandringham House when her daughter is hired to style an unnamed duchess (intended to reference Meghan Markle) for the royal family’s public appearances at Christmas. Alongside fictionalised television like <em>The Crown</em>, nonfictional programming, including news interviews and television specials, gives fans more opportunities to watch and consume.</p> <p>Literal or figurative consumption is at the heart of fan practices. For Cornel Sandvoss, consumption is a “generally understood language through which one’s identity is communicated and assessed” (Sandvoss 3). Building on this premise, Mel Stanfill sees consumption as less about directly buying objects than watching the object of fandom, participating in activities supplemental to it, and interacting with it through transmedia (84). Licenced and unlicenced products of the royal family are easy enough to purchase online and at tourist shops across London. It is easy enough to see how these products contribute to the global economy. Perhaps less immediately evident are the forms of production and consumption that interest me: the creation of Websites, literature, film, and television inspired by the Windsors, but created by fans. These more indirect examples do not provide direct financial benefit to the Windsors. Instead, fan creators and producers profit while fan consumers benefit from the pleasure they get consuming these texts.</p> <p>S.J. Bennett’s novel <em>The Windsor Knot</em> (2020) is a murder mystery set at Windsor Castle. When a Russian man dies after a dinner party, palace officials are quick to declare it a freak accident to avoid scandal. The police believe the victim was murdered, but their lines of investigation are unsatisfying to Queen Elizabeth, who begins to investigate the murder with the help of a young woman who works in the security office. This fictionalisation of Elizabeth’s life and personality is an example of real-person fan fiction, a fictional story written about a real person, often without their authorisation. For this reason, real-person fan fiction remains “more contentious than stories about fictional characters for the ways it might violate privacy and cross the boundaries of appropriateness”, yet it remains “an incredibly popular form of writing that spans all forms of celebrities across time” (Kies).</p> <p>While it is tempting to think of <em>The Windsor Knot</em> and the series to which it belongs as mere fun, we should not be so quick to dismiss its relationship to the longstanding tradition of fan-created fiction. Henry Jenkins describes fan fiction as “reworking borrowed materials” more than “recovering the author’s meaning” (53). In fan-created works like <em>The Windsor Knot</em> and <em>The Crown</em>, fans are able to make their own meanings and personae separate from any image-making done by the Windsors and their communications teams.</p> <h1><strong>Anti-Royalists and Anti-Fans: Loving to Hate</strong></h1> <p>From 2020 to 2022, popular stories about the Windsors were overwhelmingly characterised by controversies and scandals. Harry and Meghan’s announcement that they were retiring as “senior” royals prompted a flurry of articles about whether the Queen approved this plan, sometimes claiming she had orchestrated it or she was completely surprised by it. Articles speculated on rifts between Charles and Harry, and William and Harry, and the Sussexes’ legal suits against various media outlets further mired them in controversy. Within those same years, Prince Andrew gave an interview about his connection to Jeffrey Epstein, who was arrested in 2019 for sex trafficking of minors (“Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal”), and subsequently also stepped down from his royal duties to protect the family from scandal by association. In 2021, Prince Philip died, and prior to his funeral, various media outlets speculated on whether Harry and Andrew would attend and, if they did, how they might be received by their family. The funeral was held at Westminster Abbey during the COVID-19 pandemic, a spartan affair in which the family members were segregated by household, leaving a very sad visual of Queen Elizabeth sitting alone.</p> <p>The years 2022-2023 was especially jammed with royal events. The queen’s funeral took place in September, an eight-hour television affair that was preceded by televisual displays of “the Queue”, a ten-mile-long line of mourners awaiting their turn to pay their respects to her coffin. Updates on the Queue’s length and wait times were covered across media outlets, and continuous coverage was even available in Parliament. On Twitter, the account @QE2Queue provided real-time updates to assist prospective mourners at finding its end and anticipating how long they might be in line. As of the time of writing, the account, which has not been active since the Queue formally ended on 18 September 2022, still has nearly 3,000 followers.</p> <p>In December 2022, Harry and Meghan’s self-titled six-part docuseries debuted on Netflix, shortly followed by the release of Harry’s memoir <em>Spare</em> in January. Though Harry’s memoir spends far more pages chronicling an unhappy childhood and the trauma he experienced over his mother’s death, the book, like the docuseries, touches upon how Harry and Meghan fell in love and began a courtship away from prying eyes. Both pieces of media frame them as star-crossed lovers whose romance was never fully accepted by the royal family, and whose harassment by the paparazzi was not only ignored but even perpetuated by the royal family.</p> <p>In May, the banner year came to its logical conclusion with the coronation of now King Charles, which, like Elizabeth’s funeral, received extensive television coverage. Her funeral was portrayed in the media as a sombre affair in which the entire world grieved the loss of Britain’s longest-reigning monarch (and the second longest in the entire world). Charles’s coronation coverage, by comparison, seemed more cynical, noting the pomp and circumstance did not seem to mesh with modern visions of the monarchy. As with the queen’s funeral, gossip sites and other media speculated on whether Harry would attend. He did—alone—and sat several rows behind William and the other senior royals, just a mere spectator.</p> <p>Such gossip and speculation help to foment further consumption of the royals and the sharing of that consumption through fan-to-fan gossip and buzz. As Graeme Turner notes, we might typically think of celebrity gossip as material for so-called “trashy” outlets like tabloids and gossip sites, part of the “tabloidization” of popular culture, but “the alignment of commercial interests of the magazine and celebrity is at its most seamless at the higher end of the market” (490). Studying the intersection between celebrity and fandom, Divya Garg argues that “affect operates as a collective force by which fan communities operate and are sustained”, in many ways “bridging the gap between the private and the public” (18)—the private fan emotion and practice of consuming the public image of the celebrity; the private life of the celebrity vs. the public display of affect by the fan. A fan’s relationship to any cultural text, whether it is television or a celebrity, “operates in the domain of affect”, which can be “defined qualitatively, by the infection of the particular investment, by the nature of the concern (caring, passion) in the investment, by the way in which the specific event is made to matter to us” (Grossberg 56-57). Affect is central to any fannish engagement.</p> <p>Following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1997, media sites, royal experts, and celebrity scholars expressed concern about the immense public outpouring of grief (McKibbin 15). While “it is often argued that there was a surplus of ‘fantasy’ in people’s relationships with her”, Richard Johnson notes that “fantasy accompanies all our relationships” (513). Johnson continues to investigate ways mourning for Diana was sometimes framed as grief among those who celebrated her “liberation from royal wifedom” (518)—that is, just after gaining back a life lost symbolically to the monarchy, she lost her life materially. At other times, mourning for Diana was a sign of being a “liberal royalist” who had hoped for her to change and modernise the monarchy, a hope that was lost upon her death and the “ceremonial trappings of war (gun-carriage, soldiers, pacing male mourners)” that “contrasted with her own disassociation from the royal culture” (520). My point here is not to dwell on the significance of Diana as princess or ex-wife, or on the media events that were her untimely death and subsequent funeral, as these have all been written extensively about. Rather, I use this example to demonstrate how such writings focus on the wrong tension. Public outpourings of grief at Diana’s death do not necessitate questions about the appropriateness of grieving a celebrity not personally known. The presumption that grief is only for those who had intimate knowledge of the deceased is a misunderstanding of how emotions and fandom work. </p> <p>The politics of mourners, whether for Diana or more recently for Queen Elizabeth, should not be presumed, nor should those of anyone on a particular side of the royal “feuds”. To support Harry’s move to California, for example, might not make a fan an anti-royalist. A fan’s relationship to the politics of the monarchy and its place in British (and global) political history and culture is likely too complex and nuanced to be captured by their affect for particular royals or by their enthusiasm for royal gossip and appearances.</p> <p>Thus, instead of thinking of public interest and consumption of the Windsors as an indication of royalist or anti-royalist sentiment, we are better off thinking in terms of fandom and anti-fandom. In addition, to be an affective relationship, often tied with consumption, fandom, for Jonathan Gray, Cornel Sandvoss, and C. Lee Harrington, is also a way in which “we interact with the mediated world” and “form emotional bonds with ourselves and others in a modern, mediated world” (10). In later work, Jonathan Gray examines anti-fans, “those who strongly dislike a given text or genre, considering it inane, stupid, morally bankrupt and/or aesthetic drivel” (“New Audiences”, 70). Using the example of the American television series <em>The Simpsons</em> (Fox, 1989-present), Gray observes a “near perfect correlation between loving and disliking <em>The Simpsons</em> and seeing it, respectively, as critical of America and American life, or as yet another symbol of crass American cultural chauvinism” (“New Audiences”, 71). In other words, given the emotional response that those who disliked the series had for it, and their willingness to participate in things like social communities to share that dislike, Gray finds that fandom and antifandom “exist on a Mobius strip, with many fan and antifan behaviours and performances resembling, if not replicating each other” (“Antifandom” 845). Likewise, royal fans and anti-fans both watch King Charles’s coronation, some to sneer, some to admire; fans and anti-fans might both read <em>Spare</em> over one weekend, eager to see what juicy gossip about the Windsors’ private lives Harry has shared. The consumption practices of fans and anti-fans are often the same, and while their affect moves in different directions, it often matches in quantity.</p> <h1><strong>Conclusion</strong></h1> <p>Space limitations have not permitted the presentation of more examples of royal fan affect, anti-fandom, and practices of consumption. Future research, for instance, might consider how “the Queue” functioned as a kind of fan convention, or how other celebrities publicly enact their fandom of the Windsors. By taking a fan studies approach, though, this article argues for a reframing of how we think about positive and negative responses to royals.</p> <p>At the time of Charles’s coronation, the <em>Independent</em> reported that while upkeep of the Windsors cost the British taxpayers an estimated ₤500 million per year, the “monarchy’s brand” contributed nearly ₤3 billion to the British economy (Hirwani). That figure is more than many brands, such as <em>The Hunger Games</em>, that we think of as having thriving fandoms (“List of Highest-Grossing Media Franchises”). It is therefore fitting to frame the royals as a brand and set of texts consumed by, and at times produced by, fans.</p> <h2><strong>References</strong></h2> <p>Bennett, S.J. <em>The Windsor Knot</em>. New York: William Morrow, 2021.</p> <p><em>A Berry Royal Christmas</em>. Dirs. Sarah Myland, Lana Salah. BBC, 2019.</p> <p>“Coronations and the Royal Archives.” 2023. 31 Dec. 2023 <<a href="https://www.royaluk/royal-archives-coronation">https://www.royaluk/royal-archives-coronation</a>>.</p> <p>Garg, Divya. “Diversifying Fan Methodologies and Inquiries: An Affective Decolonial Framework.” <em>Fame and Fandom</em>. Eds. Celia Lam, Jackie Raphael, Renee Middlemost, and Jessica Balanzategui. Iowa City: U of Iowa P, 2022. 13-29.</p> <p>Gray, Jonathan. “Antifandom and the Moral Text: Television without Pity and Textual Dislike.” <em>American Behavioral Scientist</em> 48.7 (2005): 840-858.</p> <p>———. “New Audiences, New Textualities: Anti-Fans and Non-Fans.” <em>International Journal of Cultural Studies</em> 6.1 (2003): 64-81.</p> <p>Gray, Jonathan, Cornel Sandvoss, and C. Lee Harrington. <em>Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World</em>. New York: NYU P, 2007.</p> <p>Grossberg, Larry. “Is There a Fan in the House? The Affective Sensibility of Fandom.” <em>The Adoring Audience</em>. Ed. Lisa A. Lewis. London: Routledge, 1992. 50-68.</p> <p>Guillory, Jasmine. <em>The Royal Holiday</em>. New York: Penguin Random House, 2019.</p> <p>Harry, Prince. <em>Spare</em>. New York: Random House, 2023.</p> <p><em>Harry & Meghan</em>. Dirs. Liz Garbus, Erica Sashin. Netflix, 2022.</p> <p>Hirwani, Peony. “How Much Money Does the Royal Family Bring in Tourism?” <em>Independent</em>, 6 May 2023. <<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/royal-family-cost-money-tourism-b2333999.html">https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/royal-family-cost-money-tourism-b2333999.html</a>>.</p> <p>Jenkins, Henry. <em>Textual Poachers</em>. New York: Routledge, 1992.</p> <p>Johnson, Richard. “Exemplary Differences: Mourning (and Not Mourning) a Princess.” <em>Celebrity Culture Reader</em>. Ed. P. David Marshall. New York: Routledge, 2006. 510-529.</p> <p>Kies, Bridget. “‘The Crown’ Is Just Really Expensive Fan Fiction — But That’s Not a Bad Thing.” <em>Screenology</em>, 24 Nov. 2020. <<a href="https://medium.com/screenology/the-crown-is-just-really-expensive-fan-fiction-but-that-s-not-a-bad-thing-50b6eec76884">https://medium.com/screenology/the-crown-is-just-really-expensive-fan-fiction-but-that-s-not-a-bad-thing-50b6eec76884</a>>.</p> <p>“List of Highest-Grossing Media Franchises.” <em>Wikipedia</em>. 1 Jan. 2024 <<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_media_franchises">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_media_franchises</a>>.</p> <p>McKibbin, Ross. “Mass Observation in the Mail.” <em>After Diana: Irreverent Elegies</em>. Ed. Mandy Merck. London: Verso, 1998.</p> <p>“Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal: The Newsnight Interview.” <em>Newsnight</em>, 16 Nov. 2019.</p> <p>Sandvoss, Cornel. <em>Fans: The Mirror of Consumption</em>. Polity, 2005.</p> <p>“Smoke and Mirrors.” <em>The Crown</em>. Dir. Philip Martin. 4 Nov. 2016.</p> <p>Stanfill, Mel. <em>Exploiting Fandom: How the Media Industry Seeks to Manipulate Fans</em>. Iowa City: U of Iowa P, 2019.</p> <p>Turner, Graeme. “Celebrity, the Tabloid, and the Democratic Public Sphere.” <em>Celebrity Culture Reader</em>. Ed. P. David Marshall. New York: Routledge, 2006. 487-500.</p>2024-03-12T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Bridget Kieshttps://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/3025The British Royals in Australia2024-01-13T21:18:14+00:00Jo Coghlanjo.coghlan@une.edu.au<p>This article examines how and why, from Australia’s colonial past to today, the British monarchy have “intruded” into our daily lives (Cannadine <em>Orientalism</em> 103). To ‘intrude’ suggests consciousness and agency in making sure they are constantly part of our social life. Public events, press releases, Websites, ceremonies, and the like do not occur randomly. Queen Elizabeth II was very aware that she ‘needed to be seen to be believed’. Is this enough of a reason for the British royals to appear on our currency or postage stamps, for their images to adorn tea towels and magazine covers, or for them to be subject of films, television shows, and book? Is the need to be seen the reason they visit our shores so frequently?</p> <p>If the British monarch rules with divine right, why does the royal family need to spend their time intruding into the lives of everyday people? Given Cannadine’s arguments that the royal family adopts traditions, symbols, and signifiers to reinforce and legitimate their power, it is possible to come to a view that the word ‘intrusion’ is not used by Cannadine by accident. The British royals need more than to be seen: they need to be seen in a particular light, with meanings that reinforce their positive role in national life – or at least posit that they do no harm and that they may indeed be good for the economy.</p> <p>It is not only their apparent public good that endlessly intrudes in our daily lives; so too do their transgressions. Regardless, they remain ever present. While representations of the British royals are not always positive, they are constant. Because they are constant, the public form views about them and their character. In this ‘social construction of reality’, as sociologists Berger and Luckman would put it, we think we know who and what the royals are, and for the most part we accept them as their preferred representation. If this is the case, the British royal family have successfully engaged in a hegemonic project – which explains why the royal family has survived, when so many other European royal families did not, and it also explains why they need to intrude into our daily lives.</p> <p>In her 2021 book <em>Running the Family Firm: How the Monarchy Manages</em> <em>Its Image and Our Money</em>, Laura Clancy argues that the British royals are very conscious of the need to present and continually represent a very particular, curated, and stage-managed version of themselves as a benign middle-upper class family, committed to public duty and sacrifice, who symbolise the nation and stability. This image, along with the public’s emotional investment in their daily lives, particularly when they marry and have children, seeks to render their capital accumulation, immense wealth, corporate and political power, and social and cultural privilege invisible. Clancy argues that this carefully curated public image of family and tradition not only conceals the power and wealth of the royals, but acts to counter criticisms and silence calls for their devolution.</p> <h1><strong>Invented Traditions</strong></h1> <p>What were the early expressions of empire and monarchy? For Australians, early expressions of empire and the British monarchy were evident in annual Empire Day activities and in royal visits. These expressions were accompanied by material expressions, including the British monarchy giving its names to our states, cities, streets, and parks as well as appearing on our postage stamps and currency. Monarchial kitsch including everyday items such as crockery, glassware, and tea towels aimed at family consumption were complemented with items aimed to be consumed by younger Australians, such as schoolbook covers. Overlaying this was the ubiquitous images of the monarch, hung in family homes and government offices, the flying of the Union Jack, and the daily singing of <em>God Save the Queen</em> at schools, its regular playing on the ABC, its playing at the start of theatrical productions, and sometimes at national sporting events, and its rendition at official events such as the opening of state and federal parliaments. </p> <p>The British empire was once vast and powerful, however its size and authority has always required its attention. Empire Day was first envisaged in 1897, when Queen Victoria ruled one quarter of the world. The early aim of Empire Day was to remind children what it “meant to be sons and daughters of such a glorious Empire” (Johnson). It was an invented tradition, largely a product of imperial Irishman Lord Meath (English 258). Meath believed that “from their earliest years the children of the Empire should grow up with the thought of its claim upon their remembrance and their service” (Johnson). Unsettled by British vulnerabilities experienced during the Boer War (1899-1902), Meath wanted to “nurture a sense of collective identity and imperial responsibility among young empire citizens” to ensure the future defence of the empire (English 248). Simultaneously, with the power of America and Germany rising, and with “public enthusiasm” for Britain’s “imperial enterprise” waning, efforts were needed to reconsolidate British authority in the realm (Thompson 152).</p> <p>Empire Day was first celebrated in Australia in 1905. Initially a day aimed at children, it included saluting the British Union Jack and singing <em>Jerusalem</em> and <em>God Save the Queen</em> (Johnson), but it quickly became a ritual celebration which captured the popular imagination of both children and adults (English). Whole communities participated in Empire Day spectacles including flag waving, fetes, galas, parades, and the like, which rapturously demonstrated “unembarrassed fervor for King and country” (English 253). One 1908 example is indicative of Australian Empire Day celebrations.</p> <blockquote> <p>At three o’clock a procession will be formed and the Cadet Corps with the band playing and colours flying will march to the reserve enclosure on the Common. Arriving at the Arena, the Cadet Corps will fall in line with the school children in alphabetical order from the right. At 3.30, the Cadet Corps will troop the colours at the saluting base, the school children and Cadet Corps will march past and give three cheers and sing ‘God Save the King’. (Beaven and Griffiths 384)</p> </blockquote> <p>The initial success of Empire Day was that it “incorporated the cultural elements of imperial nationalism” (English 258), and at least until World War I it provided “social cohesion” that “appeared to transcend class divisions”. More likely, the day “reinforced social relations” by performing a “socialising role that upheld a belief in the racial superiority and the righteousness of the British Empire” (English 275). Empire Day provided a potent vehicle to indoctrinate Australians with British virtues (Springhall 97). These virtues were clearly spelt out by the watchwords of the Empire Movement, “Responsibility, Sympathy, Duty, and Self-sacrifice”, realising its “hegemonic potential” (English 258). It proved to be a “useful and important index of imperial sentiment” especially during the wars. That said, the “hegemonic imperial ideology” was not “uncontested” (English 258).</p> <p>But reflecting the decline of the British empire in the post-war period, Empire Day was re-badged as British Commonwealth Day in 1958, and in 1966 it became known as Commonwealth Day. The date of Commonwealth Day was also changed to 10 June, the official birthday of Queen Elizabeth II. The date was again changed in 1977 to the second Monday in March, when each year the Queen sent a special message to the youth of the Commonwealth via a radio broadcast. Empire Day was a celebration of British imperialism situated in, and performed by, citizens of the Commonwealth, to maintain British legitimacy and relevance; however, with the demise of such imperial days, royal tours took on new meanings. This was especially the case with the newly coronated Queen Elizabeth II.</p> <h1><strong>Royal Tours </strong></h1> <p>Though a modern concept, the idea of royal tours has a much longer heritage, dating to the Tudor and Elizabethan eras. By the time of Queen Victoria, royal tours came to be seen as a “more immediate way in which the crown was made truly imperial and the empire authentically royal” (Cannadine <em>Orientalism</em> 115), because they were</p> <blockquote> <p>majestic journeys to the empire which reciprocated and paralleled the pilgrimages made by the potentates from the periphery to the imperial metropolis … . These grand progresses by land and sea, lasting many months and covering many miles, involving countless receptions, dinners, parades, and speeches, and all carried on before vast, delighted and admiring crowds. (Cannadine <em>Orientalism</em> 115)</p> </blockquote> <p>British imperialism, and its own sense of righteousness and racial superiority, meant that royal tours were appealing (Reed 2). While events such as royal tours may appear on the surface as unproblematic, royal visits are more than benign public relations exercises. Decades of curated royal tours have acted more akin to propaganda, as they arguably ensure ongoing social, cultural, and political support for the British monarchy. In considering the nature of royal tours and other royal-related events and ephemera, it is timely to consider how much of what is presented to us is born out of tradition and how much of it is a construct designed to maintain the royals’ relevance. With monarchies in decline, largely seen as a relic of a past now unimaginable to many, it is necessary for them to ensure they are seen as vibrant and relevant. Royal tours provide a controlled opportunity to put themselves before flag-waving crowds and give speeches that speak of their affection for the host country. Royal tours do several things, but largely they seek to reaffirm the current and future monarchy, and they act to resist histories of racism and colonisation.</p> <p>In grief following the death of her husband in 1861, Queen Victoria herself rarely appeared in public and did not leave the British Isles, but by the last decades of her reign she did re-emerge as a “public icon, a national symbol, and an imperial totem” (Cannadine <em>History</em> 43). Reluctant to conduct royal tours herself, Queen Victoria arranged for other royals to represent her overseas, and these tours took on a ceremonial feel which became standardised and considered (Reed 3). Hence, royal tours emblematised a “newfound <em>raison d’être</em>” and “ceremonially perform[ed] as a symbol of the British nation-empire” (Reed 4). This was necessary considering that by the start of the twentieth century the British Empire was an “astonishingly diverse dominion, a rag-bag of territorial bits and pieces, created and governed in a correspondingly disorganised and unsystematic way” (Cannadine <em>History</em> 145-146).</p> <p>On becoming Empress of India in 1876, and with Queen Victoria’s Golden (1887) and Diamond Jubilees (1897), this saw a “symbolic reinvention, during which the monarchy was celebrated in grand style in Britain and across the empire” (Reed 4). The years also saw the arrival of mass-produced consumer items, meaning the “face of the Queen went around the world on souvenir crockery, handkerchiefs and chocolate wrappers”, making her the most famous person on earth at the time of her death (Connors 4). The royal family has “always reproduced itself” in pictures: be it coins, statues, paintings, photographs, and later television, “reiterating its symbolic identification with the nation” (Roberts 38). Event such as royal Jubilees and early royal tours provided crowds in Britain and throughout the empire with “ripe occasions on which to celebrate their white supremacy” (Connors 4). The British monarchy then and now has sought to project itself not only as “ancient and timeless, and therefore indispensable to national identity, but also as modern and useful” (Reed 5). But it remained a “cornerstone of an Anglo-Saxon race imperialism, the racially based patriotism that cemented the success of empire” (Connors 4). As such,</p> <blockquote> <p>royalty has always been produced to reify not just power but an idealized racial image. The pale-skinned, white-haired, pearl-draped Queen Victoria, her image reproduced on stamps, money, biscuit tins, postcards, and her portrait hung in colonial offices all over the British Empire served to make white rule of the non-white seem normative. (Roberts 33)</p> </blockquote> <p>With colonial policy shifting from military administrations in some parts of the British empire to one which recognised the “distant sympathies” of the empire, the realm was increasingly seen as “a source of incalculable strength and happiness” for Britain (Connors 2). In this context, the “imperial fantasy” was appealing (Reed 2).</p> <p>Since 1867, there have been over 50 royal tours of Australia, but only six before 1954. Queen Elizabeth’s first royal tour as the monarch was a six-month tour of the British Commonwealth beginning in November 1953, including a two month visit to Australia. The tour was planned as an “opportunity to thank the Commonwealth for its support during the Second World War, and to introduce the new Queen to her subjects” (HM Queen Elizabeth II). Queen Elizabeth II is the only reigning monarch to visit Australia, and did so 16 times before her death in 2022. The Australian leg of her royal tour began in Sydney on 3 February 1954. She was 27 and had only been coronated in June of the previous year.</p> <p>Royal visits consist of official events, such as the opening of parliament or attending Anzac Day services, and they consist of a range of highly curated visits to iconic Australian locations, including Bondi Beach or Ulu<span style="text-decoration: underline;">r</span>u (Brien). Each event provides carefully managed photo opportunities of the royals. Enveloped in ceremony and pomp, such regular and ongoing events entrench the British royals into the daily lives of Australians. The aim of the visits is to represent the royals in ways which capture Australia’s imagination – hence the use of iconic locations.</p> <p>Modern societies often draw on “myth and ritual”, and the British royal family supply this with public ceremonies, including royal tours, that observers may have assumed have always existed and have been passed through the ages largely unchanged (Cannadine<em> Context</em> 102). Such ceremonies act to embody, reflect, uphold, and reinforce popular views about the royal family and their ongoing function and value. Ceremonies are therefore one example of how the royal family consolidates “its ideological dominance by exploiting pageantry as propaganda” (Cannadine <em>Context </em>104). The reasons for public engagement with royal tours and to participate in royal tourism are diverse. They often do so to “satisfy their desires for aesthetic pleasure, edification, elitism, and/or entertainment”. They may also “make explicit connection to their citizenship, ethnicity, genealogy, or gender” (Otnes and Maclaran 195).</p> <h1><strong>Royal Icons</strong></h1> <p>The British empire successfully imported itself throughout its realm in the building of monuments and statues which glorified British monarchs. Such physical intrusions ensured a “powerful and widespread sense of the royal presence throughout the empire” which was not just “cartographical, sculptural, architectural or cadastral”: it was also an intrusion on “individual and collective” lives and imaginations (Cannadine <em>Orientalism</em> 103). Queen Victoria especially became a “ubiquitous symbol of Britain and its empire, made real to people across the world through images, statues, and visits” (Reed 2), and she “covered her colonies with the mantle of her name” (Connors 6).</p> <blockquote> <p>There are perhaps more statues of Victoria on earth than of any other non-religious figure in history. She sits or stands among whizzing automobiles in Auckland, in front of neo-Gothic façades in Mumbai, and near the waterfront that bears her name in Cape Town – in bustling metropolises and provincial towns, near churches, mosques, and temples. (Reed 1)</p> </blockquote> <p>The royal soap opera of weddings, babies, divorces, transgressions, and celebrities provides entertainment, but it also provides insights into the lives of people who are rich, famous, separated from us, but part of our memories and experiences. The impact they have on our lives is not just in royal tours or royal scandals, they provide a barometer of national life and are a reminder of where we were at pivotal moments, like the death of Princess Diana or King Charles III’s coronation. Hence the royals have become a part of our national consciousness and continue to be a part of our nation as a constitutional monarchy. The royals also do so much more, most of it grounded in invented traditions and imagined rituals; in fact, “with the possible exception of the papacy, no head of state is surrounded by more popular ritual” than the modern British royal family (Cannadine <em>Context</em> 102).</p> <p>It was via the creation and performance of public ceremonies from Empire Day to royal tours, at which we lined the streets for glimpse of a famous royal, be they happy to be here or not, that the royals became part of our everyday life. When the royals are not here wandering about on our beaches or judging sheep at <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/13/a-picture-in-time-the-queens-woolly-welcome-to-wagga-wagga">agricultural shows</a>, we don’t forget them. They are constant images on the cover of women’s magazines; as we wait in the checkout we are constantly reminded of them. We consume images of them and their children in designer clothes, mixing with the rich and famous, living a life most will never know, and safe from worries about the cost of living or mortgage rates. They holiday in exotic places and are featured in films and television. They give a glimpse of their rarefied world. 'Royalty’ has in many ways always been a construction. Royalty is political, gendered, raced, sexualised, and embodied. Royalty is imagined, in that is it something</p> <blockquote> <p>sculpted monumentally as if they were giants, to Elizabeth I, whose portraits in dresses heavy with pearls and rubies, both erase her body and celebrate its virginity (always figured as white), depicting her at once as the Fairy Queen (a supernatural being) and a tough, worldly, almost genderless ruler. (Roberts 35)</p> </blockquote> <p>The iconography, for example, of Princess Diana is</p> <blockquote> <p>symptomatic of a deep nostalgia for a white class that had been based on royal birth and marriage … . Diana, Princess of Wales, is emblematic of the good-white female of class and nobility. Though her marriage to Prince Charles was a disaster, the media portrays her as the beneficent, long-suffering good-white mother, who seemingly gave up her party girl ways to make sure that her sons kept their whitened royal stature. (Foster 125)</p> </blockquote> <p>The royal tour to Australia seems an apt place to exhibit the young female royal bodies of just coronated Queen Elizabeth II, an even younger Princess <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/from-the-archives-1983-charles-and-diana-s-four-week-visit-to-australia-20200308-p5480g.html">Diana</a>, and the newly married Princess Catherine. But regardless of the popularity of <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-09/prince-harry-meghan-australia-trip-2018-oprah-royals-shift/13229760">Meghan</a> in Australia in 2018, her ‘princess’ status was slippery; she was a Duchess, she was also divorced, and her age (37 at the time of the 2018 Australian royal tour and older than Prince Harry) may have meant that she did not neatly fit into the category of ‘young’. Princess Diana was 22 at the 1983 royal tour, Queen Elizabeth was 27, and Princess Catherine was 32. More so, much like Sarah, Duchess of York, Meghan did not fit the stereotype of the white, English princess because of her non-white, non-blonde appearance, never mind that she is American and divorced.</p> <p>Popular culture is saturated with idealised images and adoration for the ‘princess’, whether she is real, constructed, or imagined. The ‘princess’ is a “commodity, created and sanctioned by those who buy her image, a fiction written to feed those who 'read' her … she is deeply satisfying to us archetypally [and] emotionally” (Roberts 36). She is unattainable, revered, and celebrated. The role and history of British female monarchs – princesses and queens – has been a staple of popular culture representations, and ‘she’ has been the theatre of how audiences engage with the British monarchy. It is in film, television, theatre, statues, songs, magazine covers, and all manner of imagery from Queen Elizabeth I to Catherine, Princess of Wales, that the public has experienced, and often romanticised princesses.</p> <p>It is in these everyday iterations of British monarchs that we are reminded of how they have entered our public imaginations. Considering how many everyday and exceptional moments of royal engagement we encounter in our life, when it comes to questions like Australia becoming a republic the hegemonic work of the royals in becoming a part of our everyday lives and memories has been a success. It is in this project, evident most noticeably since the end of World War II when the British monarch was possibly on the slippery slope to obscurity, that a conscious, curated, and mediated project of royal tours, celebrations, births, deaths, marriages, divorces, and even scandals and transgressions, has kept the royals in our everyday lives (Hackett and Coghlan).</p> <p>Some we love, some we hate; they fight, just as our families do, and they represent and embody things they want us to believe and things we want them to be. As Walter Bagehot argued in the middle of the nineteenth century, and as is often repeated, it is the “symbolic, psychological and theatrical role of the constitutional monarchy” that the British royals provide to Britain and the Commonwealth. It is in the symbolism, theatrics, iconography, and ceremony that they continue to make themselves part of our national consciousness. While they continue to do so, Australia may well remain a constitutional monarchy rather than become a republic. </p> <h2><strong>References</strong></h2> <p><em>ABC News</em>. “Harry and Meghan Told Oprah Their 2018 Australia Trip Changed Everything, Following in Charles and Diana's Footsteps.” 9 Mar. 2021. 12 Jan. 2024 <<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-09/prince-harry-meghan-australia-trip-2018-oprah-royals-shift/13229760">https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-09/prince-harry-meghan-australia-trip-2018-oprah-royals-shift/13229760</a>>.</p> <p>Bagehot, Walter. “The English Constitution 1873.” 10 Jan. 2024 <<a href="https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/bagehot/constitution.pdf">https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/bagehot/constitution.pdf</a>>.</p> <p>Barker, Geoffrey. “Charles and Diana's Four-Week Visit to Australia.” <em>The Age</em> 21 Mar. 1983. 17 May 2024 <<a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/from-the-archives-1983-charles-and-diana-s-four-week-visit-to-australia-20200308-p5480g.html">https://www.theage.com.au/national/from-the-archives-1983-charles-and-diana-s-four-week-visit-to-australia-20200308-p5480g.html</a>>.</p> <p>Beaven, Brad, and John Griffiths. “The City and Imperial Propaganda: A Comparative Study of Empire Day in England, Australia, and New Zealand c. 1903–1914.” <em>Journal of Urban History</em> 42.2 (2016): 377-395.</p> <p>Brien, Donna Lee. “Planning Queen Elizabeth II’s Visit to Bondi Beach in 1954: An Object-Inspired History”. <em>M/C Journal</em> 26.1 (2023). 12 Jan. 2024 <<a href="https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.2965">https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.2965</a>>.</p> <p>Cannadine, David. <em>History in Our Time</em>. London: Yale UP, 1998.</p> <p>———. <em>Ornamentalism: How the British Saw Their Empire</em>. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001.</p> <p>———. “The Context, Performance and Meaning of Ritual: The British Monarchy and the ‘Invention of Tradition’, c. 1820-1977”. <em>The Invention of Tradition. </em>Eds. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2012. 101-164</p> <p>Connors, Jane. <em>Royal Visits to Australia</em>. Canberra: National Library of Australia, 2015.</p> <p>English, Jim. “Empire Day in Britain, 1904-1958.” <em>The Historic Journal</em> 49.1 (2006): 247-276.</p> <p>Foster, Gwendolyn Audrey. <em>Performing Whiteness: Postmodern Re/constructions in the Cinema. </em>Albany: State U of New York P, 2003.</p> <p><em>Guardian, The</em>. “A Picture in Time: The Queen’s Woolly Welcome to Wagga Wagga.” 13 Feb. 2022. 12 May 2023 <<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/13/a-picture-in-time-the-queens-woolly-welcome-to-wagga-wagga">https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/13/a-picture-in-time-the-queens-woolly-welcome-to-wagga-wagga</a>>. </p> <p>Hackett, Lisa. J., and Jo Coghlan. “The Mad Kings of The Royals: Fashioning Transgressions in Royal Popular Culture Television.” <em>Film, Fashion & Consumption</em> 11 (2022): 139-153.</p> <p>Johnson, Ben. “Empire Day.” 8 May 2023 <<a href="https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Empire-Day/">https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Empire-Day/</a>>.</p> <p>Otnes, Cele C., and Pauline Maclaren. <em>Royal Fever: The British Monarchy in a Consumer Culture.</em> Oakland: U of California P, 2015.</p> <p>Reed, Charles V. <em>Royal Tourists, Colonial Subjects and the Making of a British World, 1860–1911. </em>Manchester: Manchester UP, 2016.</p> <p>Roberts, Diana. “The Body of the Princess.” In <em>Postcolonial Whiteness: A Critical Reader on Race and Empire</em>, ed. Alfred J. Lopez. Albany: State U of New York P, 2005: 31-52.</p> <p>Springhall, J.O. “Lord Meath, Youth, and Empire.” <em>Journal of Contemporary History</em> 5.4 (1970): 97-111.</p> <p>Thompson, Andrew S. “The Language of Imperialism and the Meaning of Empire: Imperial Discourse in British Politics, 1895-1914.” <em>Twentieth Century British Studies</em> 36.2 (1997): 147-177.</p>2024-03-12T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Jo Coghlanhttps://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/3026Violence and Power of the Modern British Monarch2024-02-05T00:45:11+00:00Anna Molkovamolkova@outlook.com<h1><strong>Introduction </strong></h1> <p>The British monarchy is one of the oldest institutions of power; its roots go back to 829 — to the time of King Egbert. It is older than the British Parliament, and only the institution of the papacy can compare with it in antique, even archaic nature, the level of ceremonial, and the importance of tradition (Polyakova 47). The monarchy of the United Kingdom in the twenty-first century is called parliamentary — the Parliament has a dominant position, the monarch acts as a guarantor of the stability of the internal political system of the state; he or she "reigns but does not rule" ("A Constitutional Monarchy").</p> <p>Some researchers consider the existence of the monarchy to this day even in this form a paradox — an ancient hereditary institution as a central part of democracy (Hazell and Morris 5) — and explore the "secrets" of its success and longevity. There is also an opinion that to perceive the monarchy in Britain as an anachronism means to consciously ignore its inherent power and influence (Clancy 1–2). Nevertheless, it is difficult not to agree that the British monarchy is one of the most popular and successful in its survivability and adaptability to existence in a democratic state. It is because of this, as well as the long history of the institution, that this article examines the modern British monarchy in the coverage of the last few decades of the reign of Elizabeth II.</p> <p>We can conclude that the monarch is not a figure that, as it seems at first sight, can come under influence, under power. That said, the monarch by birthright (and is it truly the right, not the burden?) obeys the protocol and commits to "serve" the people — "to reign but not to rule". Is violence possible against the monarch, the figure in charge of seemingly everything?</p> <h1><strong>The King’s Two Bodies </strong></h1> <p>The monarch can be understood directly as a mere mortal who has taken on political responsibilities by birthright and is forced to devote his or her entire life to the service of the people and the state. One conceptualisation of the monarch is the theory about the King’s two bodies. It defines the monarch as a mortal man or woman, and as a sacred political body, possessing the ability to rule because of his or her special status (Kantorowicz 378). In simple terms, the mortal body of the monarch is that of the ordinary man or woman who is born and takes the oath. The second body is political, in modernity more symbolic. It is an artificial entity, which cannot die. Demonstrative rituals are held to confirm its significance (Kantorowicz 83).</p> <p>The monarchy as a corporation was viewed by Kantorowicz from a legal perspective, but let us turn to more contemporary sources extrapolating this vision to all areas in which The Crown exists. Laura Clancy sees the monarchy as a corporation, a firm that is "oriented and historically rooted in processes of capital accumulation, profit-making and other forms of exploitation" (Clancy 15). The monarchy and the monarch here operate on the mechanisms of survival of firms in the market, which have to watch over their "face", reputation, image. Within the framework of my further discussion of the power of the people over the monarch, this aspect will be very important.</p> <p>Returning to the symbolic and sacred, Walter Bagehot viewed the monarchy as a religion. Even now the monarch is the head of the church. Bagehot's concept develops in two directions — the monarch as the head of the Church of England, its protector and guarantor, on the one hand; religion as "faith in something" and in this case "faith in politics", on the other hand (Polyakova 63). Despite the fact that all British politics is carried out without the monarch's intervention, it is carried out in the monarch's name. Therefore, the monarch would in any case have to be held responsible for certain governmental actions. This allows people to have faith in their queen or king. In addition, just as people are subject to God, they have an obligation to obey their monarch (Polyakova 63).</p> <p>From Bagehot's theory, we can move on to the people, the citizens. Is the phrase "faith in politics" all too familiar to us? "Civil religion can be understood as a mythological/historical definition of the state" (Reeh 79). The identity of British citizens is shaped by political and cultural events, rituals, monarchical ceremonies — coronations, weddings, and funerals play a major role in this.</p> <p>In terms of the structure of a parliamentary monarchy, citizens have no opportunity to influence the monarch — indeed, it seems unnecessary, since the monarch does not make significant political decisions. Nevertheless, going back to the definition of the monarch as "the head of the firm", we can note the dependence of the "success of the enterprise" on the opinion of the citizens. The monarchy is a social construct and is supported by people who recognise its importance (Hazell and Morris 101).</p> <p>Tradition, ceremonial, protocol (almost religious) will be understood by us as an institution, referring to Durkheim, whose collective rituals help to generate and maintain social solidarity (Gofman 60). They permeate the monarchy and the daily life of the monarch, making significant adjustments to the way he or she is obliged to behave even in the presence of a minimal number of people (Smith 389).</p> <p><img src="https://journal.media-culture.org.au/public/site/images/lhackett/picture6.png" alt="a supporting conceptual framework." width="940" height="529" /><br /> <em>Figure 1: A supporting conceptual framework.</em></p> <h1><strong>Traditions and the Public </strong></h1> <p>Now, forming a scheme (fig. 1) from the concepts described above, where the supremacy of one subject over another was mentioned, one can conclude that tradition imposes certain restrictions on the mortal body of the monarch, requiring total subordination from him or her. On the contrary, the sacral entity in this case is supported by traditions and rituals. The involvement of people in these traditions and rituals legitimises the monarch as an unattainable, symbolic, and religious figure who maintains stability and is responsible for what happens within the country.</p> <p>In the early days of television and the tabloids, the mystique and precisely the "inaccessibility" of the monarchy was particularly acute. On the one hand, if the "myth" melted away, citizens would not understand the reasons for the existence of a clearly privileged family. On the other, strong distancing also proved impossible in a democracy where "the people" wanted to know how and on what the symbols of their civil religion lived (Irving 53). The pressure of public opinion was felt more keenly than ever.</p> <p>Public pressure on democratic institutions (the modern parliamentary monarchy and the monarch as part of it can be related to them at a stretch) has changed and intensified in the era of digitalisation, and anyone can now become involved (Delaney 20). This is mainly carried out through lobby groups and the media, which correlates with the crisis of the Crown during the tabloid era described earlier. Delaney writes that the pressure of public opinion on democratic institutions, if one does not know how to assess and work with it, can evolve into violence (27).</p> <p>Finally, we get to the idea of violence. Let us turn to Žižek's theory of systemic violence — "the often catastrophic consequences of the quiet operation of our economic and political systems". The essence of systemic violence is the "destructive, repressive organisation of social space" (Žižek 6). Can we call social discontent, in the form in which it is expressed in relation to the monarchy, systemic violence? The exercise of systemic violence, Žižek writes, "cannot be attributed to specific individuals and their 'evil' intentions" (15) — and indeed, so far we cannot say who exactly, and with what malice, expresses discontent and exerts pressure on the monarch.</p> <p>Žižek's theory, and the application of subsequent theories to analysis rather than conceptualisation, will be examined in the case of the reaction to the death of Princess Diana. The lack of response from the Crown and the Queen in particular to the death of Diana Windsor-Spencer provoked a strong public reaction — the tabloids wrote "Show us you care", "Talk to us ma'am", "Where is our Queen? Where's her flag?" (Addley), citizens on duty outside Buckingham Palace told reporters that they thought the Queen's silence was wrong, and the monarchy's ratings plummeted instantly (Irving 287).</p> <p>Note that it seems that the public demanded a breach of protocol from the Queen's symbolic body and an expression of reaction from her mortal body, to put it in Kantorowicz’s terms. They were waiting for a "human reaction", for sympathy. In the end, under pressure from the public, advisers, Prime Minister Tony Blair and his press office, Elizabeth II, albeit belatedly, complied with the will of the people. On the one hand, we can call the natural mechanism of citizen pressure in a democracy systemic violence, according to Žižek. On the other hand, the monarchy occupies a special position in British democracy, and this case is considered exceptional in its history. Can we discern here a subjective violence beyond the systemic?</p> <p>Weber understood power as "any possibility, whatever it is based on, to exercise one's own will in a given social relation even against opposition" (53). His concept of power is suitable for analysing the interaction between institutions and the individual (Warren 19). One can see an "imposition of the will" of the people on the monarch in our case — the people have a certain power over the queen. Does it constitute violence here? In "Power: A Conceptual Analysis", Ledyaev provides many definitions. It seems to me that coercion fits our situation. "Coercion as a form of power takes place in the case of a clear mismatch of interests between the subject and the object. The source of obedience is the threat of negative sanctions if one refuses to obey a command" (191). Negative sanctions are the decline in the popularity of the monarch, and the threat of the monarchy’s destruction, because, as we remember, the monarchy is supported by the people's faith in its importance. At the same time, Ledyaev notes that a moral assessment associates coercion with violence (193). Thus, the question of whether citizens were violent towards the monarch in the case of Princess Diana's death becomes a moral question and is therefore subject to different responses.</p> <p>Protocol or tradition as a limitation of the monarch's behaviour has been mentioned in this case study, but we will consider its impact on the sovereign in a more generalised sense. On the one hand, devoting one's entire life to the service of the state can be seen as a sacrifice (Smith 43), which would be logical in the paradigm of monarchy as religion. The brutality of this sacrifice stands out especially against the background of the monarch's lack of power as he or she had it in an absolute monarchy. At the same time, contemporary critics of the monarchical system in Britain call for the royal family to stop being seen as birds in a golden cage, perhaps rightly arguing that members of the royal family gain more than they lose (Lewis). Recall also that they have the right to abdicate and step aside (although, not without consequences), as Edward VIII or Harry and Meghan did. It seems to me that restrictions, sometimes painful, resulting in health problems (George VI) or a damaged relationship with a son (Elizabeth II), related to royal duties, can be called the destructive influence of the institution of monarchical tradition, evidence for Žižek’s systemic violence.</p> <h1><strong>The Power of the Sovereign and Its Roots</strong></h1> <p>In the case of Princess Diana's death, in addition to the influence of the tabloids and people, which in this case are difficult to separate, there is another media-related aspect — the way the situation has affected the image of the monarch and the monarchy. There was a clear contradiction between the image created by the institution of tradition — the immortal body of the king or queen — and the image people wanted to see (probably something close to his or her mortal body).</p> <p>Maintaining the reputation of the monarch turns out to be critical if we go back to Weber and look at the power of the modern British monarch through the lens of his theory. The traditional type of political power, that is, the power of "mores and customs sanctified by an unimaginably ancient recognition and a habitual attitude to conformity" (Alexander 4), inherent in an absolute monarch, seems no longer available to the constitutional monarch. Indeed, at the legislative level the monarch’s power has been almost completely suppressed. At the same time, their power is legitimised through their charisma. Faith in the extraordinary personal gift can be present in a parliamentary monarchy.</p> <p>Political image is a mechanism consisting of qualities, traits, attributes, and attitudes presented to voters (in our case, citizens; Nimmo 34). The image of the monarch, the queen, is closely linked to the image of the political institution of the monarchy in Britain (Ter-Minasova 6). The reaction to Princess Diana's death did damage the Queen's image, and the speech that followed a public demand was an attempt to restore it (Benoit and Brinson 145). The image of Elizabeth II, it seems, is a source of soft power.</p> <p>Soft power is "the ability to obtain preferred outcomes through attraction" (Nye 160). "Attractiveness" is constructed precisely through the prism of four complementary factors: beauty, brightness, goodwill, and wealth (Cook and Searle 2). It is important to note that the sources of soft power are different from charisma in Weber's concept, although one does not exclude the other (Gallarotti 10). It seems to me that soft power theory and Weber's theory of political power types (hard power) complement each other in the case of Elizabeth II. The exclusivity, supernaturalness of the monarch in a parliamentary monarchy refer to sources of charismatic power, while "image" interwoven with the aforementioned beauty, brightness, goodwill, and wealth refer to sources of soft power.</p> <p>I have gone through this whole logical chain to determine whether the monarch does have power after all, and have arrived at a positive answer. How closely associated it is with violence seems to become apparent from the definition of soft power or power which does not involve violence or even sanctions. At the same time, talking about the charismatic type of power, it is to regard the monarch as the executor of God's will and, in a more down-to-earth sense, special, or exceptional (whether for religious reasons or because of what the institution of monarchy itself already gives him or her at birth). It follows that the element of charismatic power in the modern monarch remains to this day.</p> <p><em><img src="https://journal.media-culture.org.au/public/site/images/lhackett/picture7.png" alt="an updated supporting conceptual framework." width="940" height="529" />Figure 2: An updated supporting conceptual framework.</em></p> <p>Here, how "tradition as an institution" — "sovereign" — "citizens" — who "pressures" whom, who exercises power or violence over whom are contextualised. The restrictions imposed by "tradition, ceremony, and protocol" as an institution can be seen as systemic violence according to Žižek. The case has shown that people have the power to impose their will — this power in Weberian terms can be seen as systemic violence within a democratic institution, or as subjective violence, if one delves into the memoir and perceives the sovereign more as a mere mortal who is "forced". The sanction in this case is considered to be a decline in the popularity of the monarch and the monarchy, caused by the "staggering" of his or her image, the image that provoked the "coercion". The media are a separate actor — simultaneously working as a mouthpiece and amplifying the opinions of the public, they influence "the people", but at this stage are beyond the power of the crown (Irving 94).</p> <p>Turning to whether the monarch "rules", the image here is a source of soft power that the monarch sends out to attract attention, as an "invitation" to charity. The charismatic origins coming from the sacred body of the monarch and the very fact of being born into privilege can be a source of hard power. It is not reflected in the scheme, because in the twenty-first century, in its pure form, it is not exercised at all. One can assume that it is probably woven into soft power, giving the image of the monarch a certain "gloss", the "charm" of history and divinity, which was reflected in the reasoning of Cook and Shirl. However, in the scheme (fig. 2) there is traditional power — I have called it dormant and directed at parliament, implying that in the current British monarchy the sovereign has relatively few prescribed powers of authority left, none of which apply directly to citizens. Even their exercise would not be appropriate for a monarch who plans to still keep reigning, so it almost never happens.</p> <h1><strong>Conclusion</strong></h1> <p>Thus, the answer to the contradictory question, "is violence possible against the monarch, the figure in charge of seemingly everything?" seems to me to be in the affirmative. With a high degree of certainty, we can speak of systemic violence (from tradition and citizens); with a high degree of assumption, we can speak of subjective violence on the part of citizens. Regarding power relations, the range of powers and their sources at the sovereign seems not only broad, but also rather vague and hard to unambiguously conceptualise. Nevertheless, we have tried to outline them in terms of Weber's typology and soft power. Maintaining the image of the sovereign as a corporate mechanism or simply a feature of modern parliamentary monarchy has proved important and, dare I say, key to the existence of not only the monarch but the monarchy as well.</p> <h2><strong>References </strong></h2> <p>Addley, Esther. "Elizabeth's Detachment Preserved ‘the Firm’ — But Her Pragmatism Saved It." <em>The Guardian</em> 9 Sep. 2022. 25 Dec. 2022 <<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/09/queen-elizabeths-detachment-preserved-the-monarchy-but-her-pragmatism-saved-it">https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/09/queen-elizabeths-detachment-preserved-the-monarchy-but-her-pragmatism-saved-it</a>>.</p> <p>Alexander, Jeffrey C. "Power, Politics, and the Civil Sphere." <em>Handbook of Politics: State and Society in Global Perspective</em>. 2010. 111-126.</p> <p>Benoit, William L., and Susan L. Brinson. "Queen Elizabeth's Image Repair Discourse: Insensitive Royal or Compassionate Queen?" <em>Public Relations Review</em> 25.2 (1999): 145-156.</p> <p>Clancy, Laura. "The Corporate Power of the British Monarchy: Capital(ism), Wealth and Power in Contemporary Britain." <em>The Sociological Review</em> 69.2 (2021): 330-347.</p> <p>Cook, Richard J., and D.A. Searle. "Queen Elizabeth II's Soft Power and Britain's Place in a Post-Elizabethan Age." <em>e-International Relations</em> (2022). 25 Dec. 2022 <<a href="https://www.e-ir.info/2022/10/16/queen-elizabeth-iis-soft-power-and-britains-place-in-a-post-elizabethan-age/">https://www.e-ir.info/2022/10/16/queen-elizabeth-iis-soft-power-and-britains-place-in-a-post-elizabethan-age/</a>>.</p> <p>Delaney, Robert F. "Popular Pressures on Government." <em>Naval War College Review</em> (1970): 20-28.</p> <p>Gallarotti, Giulio M. "Soft Power: What It Is, Why It’s Important, and the Conditions for Its Effective Use." <em>Journal of Political Power</em> 4.1 (2011): 25-47.</p> <p>Gofman, Alexander. "Солидарность или правила, Дюркгейм или Хайек? О двух формах социальной интеграции [Solidarity or Rules, Durkheim or Hayek? Two Forms of Social Integration]." <em>Social Solidarity and Altruism: A Sociological Tradition and Modern Interdisciplinary Studies </em>(2014): 16-100.</p> <p>Hazell, Robert, and Bob Morris, eds. <em>The Role of Monarchy in Modern Democracy: European Monarchies Compared</em>. Bloomsbury, 2020.</p> <p>Irving, Clive. <em>The Last Queen: Elizabeth II's Seventy Year Battle to Save the House of Windsor</em>. Simon and Schuster, 2021.</p> <p>Kantorowicz, Ernst<em>. </em><em>Два</em> <em>Тела</em> <em>Короля</em><em>: </em><em>Исследование</em> <em>по</em> <em>Средневековой</em> <em>Политической</em> <em>Теологии</em><em> [The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology</em>]. Gaidar Institute Press, 2013.</p> <p>"Конституционная монархия [A Constitutional Monarchy]." <em>Lawyer Encyclopedia.</em> 25 Dec. 2022 <<a style="background-color: #ffffff;" href="https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_law/1032/КОНСТИТУЦИОННАЯ">https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_law/1032/КОНСТИТУЦИОННАЯ</a>>.</p> <p>Ledyaev, Valery. <em>Власть</em><em>: </em><em>Концептуальный</em> <em>Анализ</em><em> [Power: A Conceptual Analysis].</em> ROSSPEN, 2001.</p> <p>Lewis, Clive. "Idea of Monarchy as Symbol of Duty or Sacrifice ‘a Lie’, Says Labour’s Clive Lewis." <em>The Guardian</em> 16 Sep. 2022. 25 Dec. 2022 <<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/16/idea-of-monarchy-as-symbol-of-duty-or-sacrifice-a-lie-says-labours-clive-lewis">https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/16/idea-of-monarchy-as-symbol-of-duty-or-sacrifice-a-lie-says-labours-clive-lewis</a>>.</p> <p>Polyakova, Arina. <em>Роль</em> <em>Монархии</em> <em>во</em> <em>Внутренней</em> <em>и</em> <em>Внешней</em> <em>Политике</em> <em>Великобритании</em> <em>в</em> <em>конце</em><em> XX-</em><em>начале</em><em> XXI </em><em>века</em><em> [The Role of the Monarchy in British Domestic and Foreign Policy in the Late 20th and Early 21st Century]</em>. PhD thesis. MGIMO U, 2010. <<a style="background-color: #ffffff;" href="https://dissercat.com/content/rol-monarkhii-vo-vnutrennei-i-vneshnei-politike-velikobritanii-v-kontse-xx-nachale-xxi-veka">https://dissercat.com/content/rol-monarkhii-vo-vnutrennei-i-vneshnei-politike-velikobritanii-v-kontse-xx-nachale-xxi-veka</a>>.</p> <p>Smith, Matthew. "Britain May Look United in Grief — But Polling Shows a Growing Generational Divide." <em>The Guardian</em> 16 Sep. 2022. 25 Dec. 2022 <<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/16/britain-grief-polling-figures-monarchy-popularity">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/16/britain-grief-polling-figures-monarchy-popularity</a>>.</p> <p>Smith, Sally Bedell. <em>Elizabeth the Queen.</em> Rizzoli, 2020.</p> <p>Ter-Minasova, Daria. <em>Имидж</em> <em>Института</em> <em>Монархии</em> <em>Великобритании</em><em> [Image of the Institution of the British Monarchy]. </em>PhD thesis. MSU U, 2007. <<a href="https://dissercat.com/content/imidzh-instituta-monarkhii-velikobritanii">https://dissercat.com/content/imidzh-instituta-monarkhii-velikobritanii</a>>.</p> <p>Warren, Mark E. "Max Weber's Nietzschean Conception of Power." <em>History of the Human Sciences</em> 5.3 (1992): 19-37.</p> <p>Weber, Max. <em>Economy and Society. </em>New York, 1968.</p> <p>Žižek, Slavoj. <em>О</em> <em>Насилии</em><em> [On Violence].</em> 2010.</p>2024-03-12T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Anna Molkovahttps://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/3027‶Don’t Say Neigh, Say Yay”2024-02-19T00:27:20+00:00Huw Nolanhnolan3@une.edu.auAmy Taitamy.tait@une.edu.au<h1><strong>Introduction </strong></h1> <p>The television series <em>The Great</em> offers a sophisticated, satirical interpretation of Catherine the Great's rise to power in the Russian Empire. Set in the eighteenth-century aristocracy, it successfully blends historical facts with intentional anachronisms, showcasing Catherine’s evolution from a naïve outsider to a powerful, enlightened Empress. The series is notable for its sharp wit and deliberate anachronisms, transcending mere entertainment to provide a reflective commentary on societal and ethical themes.</p> <p>Crucially, <em>The Great</em> delves into the symbolic representation of animal treatment in the royal court, mirroring the era's hierarchical structures and ethical standards. It juxtaposes the archaic, often barbaric, practices against modern views on animal welfare, prompting audiences to reevaluate contemporary moral perspectives on human-animal relationships.</p> <p>This article aims to explore the complex interplay between ethical considerations and the human-animal relationship as depicted in <em>The Great</em>. It will examine the historical backdrop of animal treatment in the realm of eighteenth-century Russian nobility, contrasting with contemporary perspectives on animal treatment, and explore how the series utilises these contrasting viewpoints to stimulate viewers' introspection on our current societal ethics.</p> <h1><strong>“It is the way of things, a tradition for royalty”: <em>The Great</em>, and Eighteenth-Century Russia</strong></h1> <p><em>The Great</em>, a satirical, pseudo-historical series, depicts Catherine the Great's ascent in Russia. It blends historical facts with fiction, showcasing her transformation within the eighteenth-century Russian court (see for instance Greenleaf). Known for its sharp humour and anachronisms, the series thoughtfully examines themes of power, gender dynamics, and societal evolution. A notable aspect is the portrayal of animal treatment as a symbol of the era's values and power structures, challenging viewers to contrast historical and contemporary societal norms. This article focusses on the ethics of human-animal relationships, as depicted in the series.</p> <p>The eighteenth-century Russian aristocracy's use of animals as power symbols reflected more than cultural peculiarities; it was an ingrained societal norm (Klemun, Loskutova, and Fedotova; Renner; Slezkine). Authors such as Cavender and Cartmill have noted that human-animal relationships, and in particular hunting, can symbolise dominance and social hierarchy, going beyond recreation or subsistence to signify human dominion over nature and societal status (Knoll). This historical backdrop is vividly brought to life in <em>The Great</em>, where scenes of aristocratic hunting and animal symbolism reflect these deeply ingrained societal norms.</p> <h1><strong> </strong><strong>“As we hunt, we shall discuss whether or not to kill the empress”: ‘Normal’ Royal-Animal Interactions</strong></h1> <p><em>The Great</em> explores themes such as the abuse of power, the role of enlightenment in a traditional society, and the complexities of leadership and governance. The series uses character development to explore these themes, offering a satirical and insightful look at the societal and cultural dynamics of the time. The show often achieves this by playing with our expectations of how we believe monarchs should behave. For instance, in season one episode one, Peter is stalking through a forest followed by members of the court. Unlike typical royal hunts, Peter is hunting alone, not as part of a hunting party. Upon spotting a rabbit, he shoots, and misses (“The Great”, 1.1). We are used to royals hunting, and the hunt being analogous to the monarch's rule: a sign of strength, power, and dominion. But we are not used to them hunting poorly. A good monarch should be a good hunter. In this scene, we learn: one, Peter is alone with his alliances; and two, Peter is not a good emperor.</p> <p>While Peter and Catherine are walking through a forest hunting deer, Peter explains that “hunting is listening”, essentially saying that <em>ruling is listening</em>, to which Catherine retorts, “which is why you're so bad at it” (“The Bullet or the Bear”, 3.1). During the same scene, unbeknownst to both characters, Catherine’s longtime ally secretly hides in the bushes to assassinate Peter. Catherine, hearing a slight noise that Peter misses, fires into the bushes, inadvertently killing Orlo. Neither character realises what has occurred, and with Orlo later consumed by bears, the truth of the event is likely to remain unknown. As hunting is analogous with ruling, this scene is narratively important. For instance, Catherine is a better listener and therefore a better ruler, and merely listening does not always tell the full story.</p> <p>The connection between animals and ruling is extended to nature by Elizabeth, who explains to Peter on the cusp of a revolution: “I am going to the country for a week. I love to sit in nature and just watch it. It is beautiful, and sometimes harsh. But you realise, it is always right. That is what I know” ("The Beaver's Nose", 1.10).</p> <h1><strong>“If we had a philosophy, a criteria for action, I just wonder what a difference that would make”</strong>: <strong>Influences on Animal Perception in the Eighteenth Century </strong></h1> <p>In the eighteenth century, under the influence of thinkers like René Descartes, animals were perceived as mere automata, lacking consciousness or soul. This view, treating animals as emotionless machines, shaped the era's ethical attitudes towards animal welfare (Descartes). Contrastingly, modern perspectives show a significant shift, marked by an increased awareness of animal rights (Foster). Contemporary society has seen a rise in animal welfare advocacy, vegetarian and vegan lifestyles, and anti-cruelty legislation (Dawkins; Herzog <em>et al.</em>). The trend of recognising animals as sentient beings, especially pets as integral family members, reflects a major cultural and ethical transformation in human-animal relationships (Zuolo). This shift represents a departure from historical norms, highlighting a profound change in the way many people view animals. This change to recognising animals as sentient beings demonstrates an important difference between historical views and contemporary ethical perspectives. This transition in human-animal relationships sets the stage for exploring Allan G. Johnson's theories on societal systems and individual behaviours. Johnson's work delves into how societal structures shape personal actions and beliefs, offering a lens through which to examine the evolving societal attitudes towards animals and their treatment (Johnson <em>Privilege, Power</em>).</p> <h1><strong>“It's a barren wasteland of aloneness that you try to push us towards”: Johnson’s Societal Systems and Individual Behaviours</strong></h1> <p>This evolving attitude towards animals, characterised by increased empathy and ethical consideration, aligns with Allan G. Johnson's theories on the interplay between societal systems and individual behaviours (Johnson <em>Privilege</em>). Johnson's insights into how societal norms and structures influence personal actions and beliefs provide a framework for understanding the shift in how society views and treats animals.</p> <p>Allan G. Johnson's analogy of Monopoly and social systems offers an insight into the functioning of societal structures and individual behaviour (Johnson "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rxL3ik9sJA">People</a>"). In his analogy, Johnson compares the societal system to a game of Monopoly, a board game where players accumulate wealth and property, often at the expense of others. In his analogy, Johnson demonstrates how greed is needed to win Monopoly, but this does not necessarily make one greedy. This analogy serves to illustrate how individuals, even without explicit malicious intent, can perpetuate inequality and injustice simply by playing within the rules of the prevailing system.</p> <p>Johnson's concept of the "path of least resistance" (Johnson <em>Privilege</em>, 86) refers to the natural human tendency to follow the course of action that requires the least effort or causes the least conflict. In societal terms, this path often aligns with existing norms, values, and structures, irrespective of their fairness or justice. By following this path, individuals, often unconsciously, reinforce and perpetuate the status quo.</p> <p>This analogy is powerful in demonstrating the social systems' influence on individual behaviour. It suggests that tackling societal issues like inequality and injustice requires more than individual goodwill; systemic change is necessary. Johnson's perspective encourages us to look beyond our actions and consider the systems that we are a part of. Johnson points out that the game itself might be flawed and by simply participating, we may be inadvertently supporting these flaws.</p> <h1><strong>“... have any of you read the latest Rousseau, The Social Contract?” Contractarianism in <em>The Great,</em> Ethical Frameworks, and Power Dynamics</strong></h1> <p>Viewing the historical fiction through contemporary moral sensibilities is tempting. Indeed, the blend of modern and historic elements invites the audience to do just this. However, it is crucial to understand that the characters in <em>The Great</em> are bound by the rules of their world. It prompts the question: under what ethical frameworks can we judge the ‘moral rightness’ of the characters' actions?</p> <p>One option is that <em>The Great</em>’s narrative situates Russian morality within a state of contractarianism, an ethical theory proposing that governmental authority derives from a hypothetical social contract among individuals. This concept is reflected in the depiction of eighteenth-century Russian society, particularly through its royal family, hierarchy and power dynamics (Rousseau; Hobbes). For contractarian philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, there are no intrinsic ethical imperatives. What is ethical and moral is decided by society and enforced through a social contract.</p> <p>The series illustrates a society bound by enforced rules and implicit agreements, aligning with contractarian principles. These 'contracts' shape the roles, behaviours, and expectations within the court, from the monarch to the commoners, reinforcing the existing ruling system (Hobbes). To the viewer, these rules appear absurd and often immoral. However, to the characters they are unquestionable norms.</p> <blockquote> <p>Catherine: “We cannot just burn fathers, mothers, and children alive.”<br />Peter: “Yes, we can, they are serfs.” (“A Pox on Hope”, 1.7)</p> </blockquote> <p>Despite both representing contractarian views, Peter and Catherine represent two different approaches to contractarianism: firstly, as described by Hobbes, and secondly, by Rousseau.</p> <p>Peter leans towards Thomas Hobbes’s representation of the state of nature, a hypothetical scenario which illustrates the conditions of human existence without the constraints of social order or political authority. Hobbes, in his seminal work <em>Leviathan</em>, describes a state of nature as a state of war. “To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust” (79). Within this state, “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (78). As Catherine says,</p> <blockquote> <p>in a moment, this man's blood will gush and my husband will have blackened his soul and ours with it ... . And you will all be reassured that we are all alone and living at the whim of each other's pain and madness, that any moment could be your last, that there is no rhyme or reason to our lives. This is the Russia I try to leave behind. (“You the People”, 3.3)</p> </blockquote> <p>Jean-Jacques Rousseau's version of social contract theory, outlined in his work <em>The Social Contract</em>, is referenced by Catherine in the first episode. Rousseau posits that the social contract arises from the collective will of the people, emphasising the general will as the foundation of a just society. Rousseau envisions a state of nature as harmonious, asserting that social inequalities and corruption emerge through private property and societal structures. Rousseau's contractarianism underscores the importance of preserving individual freedoms while promoting a collective agreement for the common good, advocating for a society that aligns with the general will of its citizens. Although the rights of animals are never openly discussed, Catherine is trying to remake Russia into a more civilised place. When attempting to pass her anti-murder bill, she explains:</p> <blockquote> <p>We should live free of the state deciding our lives.<br />Or as Voltaire said, “don't be fucking animals anymore, is the point. Simple”. (“You the People”, 3.3)</p> </blockquote> <p>Catherine’s role in <em>The Great</em> is to fight against the path of least resistance. Recognising that the entrenched societal norms are part of a social contract and not intrinsic ethical imperatives, from the moment Catherine arrives in Russia she begins attempting to change the status quo.</p> <p>This portrayal in <em>The Great</em> underscores the anthropocentric contractarian nature of societal interactions and governance, suggesting that characters’ actions, including their interactions with animals and each other, are influenced by the social contract of their era, and that, importantly, these contracts are not immutable (Rousseau). The show thus critiques historical social contracts, encouraging viewers to consider how social contracts underpin current societal norms, behaviours, governance, and contemporary ethics. Now we understand the setting for <em>The Great</em> and its ethical framework, we can begin to see not only how the use of animals throughout the series highlights the actions of the aristocracy, but how these actions invite us to reflect on our own human-animal relationships.</p> <h1><strong>“Am I the Empress of Russia or a gamekeeper?” Truffle Dogs, Moose Lips and Trained Butterflies</strong></h1> <p>Domestic animals are animals that have in some way co-evolved with humans, generally through selective breeding and/or genetic modification (Serpell). This relationship is distinctly different from taming. Taming is an individual process, not a genetic one. A tamed animal is a wild animal that has been acclimated to human presence and may be trained to tolerate human interaction, perform tasks, or exhibit less fear of humans.</p> <p>The domestic animals in <em>The Great</em> are mostly dogs and horses. Horses remain a monarchic symbol of status. Monika Greenleaf wrote about the real Catherine the Great that “a ruler masters her steed as she does the nation, with finesse, not brutality” (417). In <em>The Great</em>, horses are regularly ridden and used to pull carriages. But they also serve to highlight the brutality of war:</p> <blockquote> <p>Catherine: what is that smell?<br />Velementov: Bodies, mud, horse shit, smoke of cannons. It is not a place for women. (“War and Vomit”, 1.5)</p> </blockquote> <p>The most famous use of a horse is in retelling the famous real-world rumour that Catherine the Great had sex with a horse (<a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-catherine-great-180974863/">Solly</a>). The incorporation of this rumour was used throughout the series to ridicule, demean, and frustrate Catherine as a leader. It simultaneously sets a taboo within the aristocracy and is used to shock the audience with our current societal laws and perception of bestiality. As a ruler, this act of bestiality is one of brutality and not finesse.</p> <p>Dogs are often used as familiar dual-purpose pets. Some of Peter’s dogs are working dogs, such as his truffle dog from Italy, while others appear to be mere companions. In season 1 episode 2 (“The Beard”), we are introduced to a form of raccoon-baiting, whereby a dog and raccoon enter a hollow log at opposite ends, fight through the centre, and to the delight of the court, only one animal exits. Peter’s dog Zeus is regularly seen around the breakfast table until his death in episode three of season one (“And You, Sir, Are No Peter the Great”).</p> <p>The court's interactions with wild animals strike a stark contrast to modern, Western sensibilities. Unique remedies and theories were utilised to show the prominence of the court in what society now sees as more modern-day personal or private matters, such as draping a dead mouse around Peter's neck to draw out toxins or placing a frog on Catherine's pregnant belly to determine when she will give birth. The court takes the opportunity during late pregnancy of the monarch to make some money, with different bets including the gender, whether the baby will be part horse (again ridiculing the leader), and if Catherine will die in childbirth. In addition to unconventional medicinal practices, the aristocracy indulges in peculiar culinary preferences, like raw pheasant or black bread with moose lips.</p> <blockquote> <p>Lady Svenska: Empress, you look radiant. We would love for you to join us. We have cakes in the shape of woodland animals, and it is a lark to dunk their faces in vodka and eat them.<br />Catherine: It sounds interminable, Lady Svenska, so I shall pass. (“The Beard”, 1.2)</p> </blockquote> <p>Wild and domestic animals also appear in folk tales and allegories. When a crocodile is loose in the palace, the members of the aristocracy believe it to be an omen. Spurred on by the crocodile, characters recant stories of other animal omens, such as donkeys that vomit blood and a dozen white doves before the birth of a child. </p> <p>There is an exotic relationship with tamed wild animals which represents the monarch’s dominion over beasts. Upon arriving in Russia, Peter gifts Catherine a bear, a gift Catherine had dreamed of receiving. However, Peter thoughtlessly shoots the bear mere moments later. Aunt Elizabeth has a mutual relationship between her animal companions. For instance, in an early episode we see Elizabeth training butterflies, the implication being that this is one of her absurd and childish quirks. However, in season three, we see that she has indeed trained a butterfly, subverting the audience’s perspectives on the natural world.</p> <h1><strong>“I feel bad, watching like this”: The Modern Audience's Response to Historical Animal Treatment</strong></h1> <p>The response of modern audiences to the portrayal of animals in <em>The Great</em> may involve discomfort and ethical scrutiny, as we are forced to simultaneously observe how animals are treated in the show through the lens of history and reflect on what is done now. Contemporary viewers, influenced by current norms and the animal rights movement, may find historical practices depicted in <em>The Great</em> to be morally troubling or unacceptable. Conversely, viewers might experience dissonance or a sense of exonerative comparison (<em>sensu </em>Bandura) watching the treatment of animals in the historical drama, believing we have come so far since the archaic on-screen period.</p> <p>Reflecting on personal and societal values through historical narratives and contemporary media, such as <em>The Great</em>, facilitates a critical reassessment of our moral compass and societal norms, in this instance the treatment of animals, and its broader ethical considerations. Contemporary media that contrast historical practices with modern ethics prompt introspection among viewers, encouraging them to evaluate the progression of our ethical standards and how these historical practices diverge from contemporary values (Frentzel-Beyme and Krämer). This introspection is vital for understanding the evolution of societal norms and aligning personal values with current ethical expectations.</p> <p>Furthermore, such introspection could transcend animal treatment, encompassing broader social justice, human rights, and environmental stewardship issues, advocating for a comprehensive perspective on progress towards a more compassionate and ethical society (Francione; Tamborini).</p> <p>The series' depiction of animal-related activities encourages viewers to question modern practices. It prompts us to explore our current societal contracts, examining why certain actions are acceptable and others are not. As viewers, we can ask what are the modern equivalences of Russia’s past behaviours. What is different about the royal hunting in the show, compared to royal hunting today? What makes duck liver or ox tail any less strange than moose lips? And, what leads us to believe that Elizabeth’s attempts to train butterflies are ridiculous?</p> <h1><strong>“The journey ends in the inescapable conclusion: Death”: Conclusion </strong></h1> <p><em>The Great</em> not only explores the relationship between animals and royalty in eighteenth-century Russia, but also reflects on broader themes of power, status, and emotional connections with animals in royal life. It juxtaposes the regal and animalistic, probing the complex roles animals played in asserting dominance and luxury, alongside being subjects of affection. Incorporating Allan G. Johnson's insights, the series encourages viewers to reflect on the historical treatment of animals within the framework of societal systems and social contracts. Catherine's story is one of struggle for progress against the <em>path of least resistance</em>. This narrative highlights the ongoing conflict between old and new ways of thinking, symbolising her efforts to redefine the social contract. <em>The Great</em> challenges modern audiences to consider how these historical perspectives and practices resonate with contemporary attitudes towards animal welfare, urging a deeper understanding of human-animal relationships and ethical standards across different eras and cultures. This reflection is crucial for understanding the dynamics of societal norms and the subsequent impact on our current ethical viewpoints.</p> <h2><strong>References </strong></h2> <p>"The Great." <em>The Great</em>. Dir. Colin Bucksey. 2020.</p> <p>"The Bullet or the Bear." <em>The Great</em>. Dir. Matthew Moore. 2023.</p> <p>"The Beaver's Nose." <em>The Great</em>. Dir. Geeta Patel. 2020.</p> <p>"A Pox on Hope." <em>The Great</em>. Dir. Colin Bucksey. 2020.</p> <p>"You the People." <em>The Great</em>. Dir. Sheree Folkson. 2023.</p> <p>"The Beard." <em>The Great</em>. Dir. Colin Bucksey. 2020.</p> <p>"And You, Sir, Are No Peter the Great." <em>The Great</em>. Dir. Bert & Bertie. 2020.</p> <p>Bandura, Albert. "Impeding Ecological Sustainability through Selective Moral Disengagement." <em>International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development </em>2.1 (2007): 8-35.</p> <p>Cartmill, Matt. <em>A View to a Death in the Morning: Hunting and Nature through History</em>. Harvard UP, 1996.</p> <p>Cavender, Mary W. "Hunting in Imperial Russia: State Policy and Social Order in L.P. Sabaneev's Writing." <em>The Russian Review </em>76.3 (2017): 484-501.</p> <p>Dawkins, Marian. <em>Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare</em>. Springer Science & Business, 2012.</p> <p>Descartes, René. <em>Discourse on Method</em>. Hackett, 2012.</p> <p>Francione, Gary L. "Animal Rights and Animal Welfare." <em>Rutgers Law Review </em>48 (1995): 397.</p> <p>Frentzel-Beyme, Lea, and Nicole C Krämer. "Historical Time Machines: Experimentally Investigating Potentials and Impacts of Immersion in Historical VR on History Education and Morality." <em>Technology, Mind, and Behavior</em> 4.1: (2023). 34.</p> <p>Greenleaf, Monika. "Performing Autobiography: The Multiple Memoirs of Catherine the Great (1756-96)." <em>The Russian Review </em>63.3 (2004): 407-26.</p> <p>Herzog, Harold, Stephanie Grayson, and David McCord. "Brief Measures of the Animal Attitude Scale." <em>Anthrozoös </em>28.1 (2015): 145-52.</p> <p>Hobbes, Thomas. <em>Leviathan or the Matter, Forme, & Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civill.</em> The Green Dragon in St. Pauls Church-yard: McMaster University, 1651.</p> <p>Johnson, Allan G. "People, Systems, and the Game of Monopoly." 2013. 30 Jan. 2024 <<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rxL3ik9sJA">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rxL3ik9sJA</a>>. </p> <p>———. <em>Privilege, Power, and Difference</em>. 2nd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006.</p> <p>Klemun, Marianne, Marina Loskutova, and Anastasia Fedotova. "Skulls and Blossoms: Collecting and the Meaning of Scientific Objects as Resources from the 18th to the 20th Centuries." <em>Centaurus </em>60.4 (2018): 231-37.</p> <p>Knoll, Martin. "Hunting in the Eighteenth Century: An Environmental History Perspective." <em>Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung </em>29.3 (109) (2004): 9-36.</p> <p>Renner, Andreas. "Progress through Power? Medical Practitioners in Eighteenth-Century Russia as an Imperial Elite." <em>Acta Slavica Iaponica</em> 27 (2009): 29-54.</p> <p>Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. <em>Rousseau: The Social Contract and Other Later Political Writings</em>. Cambridge UP, 2018.</p> <p>Serpell, James. "Pet-Keeping and Animal Domestication: A Reappraisal." <em>The Walking Larder </em>(2014): 10-21.</p> <p>Slezkine, Yuri. "Naturalists versus Nations: Eighteenth-Century Russian Scholars Confront Ethnic Diversity." <em>Representations</em> 47 (1994): 170-95.</p> <p>Solly, Meilan. "The Story of Catherine the Great." <em>Smithsonian Magazine</em> 2020. 30 Jan. 2024. <<a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-catherine-great-180974863/">https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-catherine-great-180974863/</a>>. </p> <p>Tamborini, Ron. "A Model of Intuitive Morality and Exemplars." <em>Media and the Moral Mind</em>. Routledge, 2012. 43-74.</p> <p>Zuolo, Federico. "Dignity and Animals: Does It Make Sense to Apply the Concept of Dignity to All Sentient Beings?" <em>Ethical Theory and Moral Practice </em>19 (2016): 1117-30.</p> <h2><strong>Acknowledgments</strong></h2> <p>We would like to thank three anonymous peer reviewers for their collegial and critical review of this article. Suggestions from reviewers have been incorporated into, and improved, the final version of this article. Huzzah!</p>2024-03-12T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Huw Nolan, Amy Taithttps://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/3043A Kingdom of Possibility 2024-02-27T02:49:06+00:00Simona Strungarusstrunga@myune.edu.au<h1><strong>Introduction </strong></h1> <p>The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the largest country in the Middle East. Lying within the heart of the Arabian Peninsula, it borders the Red Sea to the west; Jordan, Iraq, and Kuwait to the north; the Persian Gulf, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates to the east; and Oman and Yemen to the south.</p> <p>The foundation of Saudi Arabia may be largely credited to two main historical figures who lived in the first half of the eighteenth century. The first figure, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, was a devout Islamic scholar and religious activist who fervently condemned the increasing tendencies of local peoples toward idolatrous practices. He preached the need for a return to stricter adherence to the original principles of Islam, based on devotion to the doctrine of the ‘absolute unity of God’ as passed through, and enunciated by, the witness of God’s word, Prophet Muhammad (Rentz). In present-day Saudi Arabia, reverence to Prophet Muhammad’s divine revelations and divinely appointed role, as accentuated by al-Wahhab, remains inscribed on the national flag (fig. 1), which states: “there is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the messenger of God”.</p> <p><img src="https://journal.media-culture.org.au/public/site/images/lhackett/picture1.jpg" alt="The flag of Saudi Arabia" width="439" height="273" /></p> <p><em>Figure 1: The flag of Saudi Arabia</em></p> <p>Although initially met with opposition, al-Wahhab’s eventual encounter in 1744 with the ruler of the Najd town of Diriyah, Muhammad ibn Saud, led to “the drastic change in the course of Arabian history” (Rentz 16), after both men pledged an oath and alliance in pursuit of a successful religious, political, and military expansion campaign that saw Diriyah become the first Saudi state and original home to the Al-Saud dynasty (MoFA).</p> <p>It was not until 1932, however, that the nation-state of Saudi Arabia was officially formed, establishing Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman Al-Saud (often known as Ibn Saud) as the first officially recognised ruling monarch and patriarch of the modern House of Saud. In only a few short decades since the date of unification, the once poor desert landscape comprised of rivalling nomadic tribes has undergone astonishing transformations, making the present-day unified Kingdom a key strategic regional and international actor within world politics, and a major economical, technological, and military power and rival. In addition to being a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), for example, Saudi Arabia is also an active and founding member of international organisations such as the United Nations, the Arab League, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) (OAS). Notably, Saudi Arabia’s influence and eminence in the international arena specifically pertains to its leading role within OPEC, given that Saudi Arabia’s command economy is largely petroleum-based. Here, Saudi Arabia is the “largest generator of net oil export revenue” for OPEC, and the “largest OPEC crude oil exporter” (Statista); in 2022, Saudi Arabia’s oil export revenues totalled US$311 billion (Statista).</p> <p>Unsurprisingly, the House of Saud is the wealthiest royal family in the world, worth an estimated US$1.4 trillion (Hieu), a figure four times the combined wealth of billionaires Elon Musk (worth an estimated US$236.1 billion) and Bill Gates (worth an estimated US$119.7 billion). The combined wealth of the House of Saud also significantly surpasses the worth of the renowned British royal family, whose combined wealth pales in comparison at an estimated US$28 billion (Hieu; Srinivasan). Arguably, the net worth of the House of Saud not only financially ranks them among the top tier of elites, but also makes them one of the most powerful royal families in the world (Hieu). Presently, the nation remains an absolute monarchy under a <em>Sharia </em>legal system, in accordance with Islamic law as principally derived from the <em>Quran</em> (holy book) and <em>Sunnah</em> (the saying, traditions, and practices of Prophet Muhammad). Absolute monarchism denotes that no political parties or national elections are permitted, and that the reigning monarch executes predominant control over legislative and internal civil affairs. Comparatively, a constitutional monarchy such as that of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland denotes that the powers held by the reigning monarch in their position as head of state are more symbolic and ceremonial. As such, the House of Windsor often rely significantly on consumerist culture as a means for maintaining their monarchical legitimacy, and relevance and ‘celebrity’, particularly within its Commonwealth settler nations (Randell-Moon).</p> <p>The rule of the House of Saud has often been controversially labelled by critics as totalitarian (Bandow), particularly for the limited freedoms of expression and association afforded to its citizens, where “controversy is discouraged, and conformity is encouraged” (Faksh & Hendrickson 1171); as Faksh and Hendrickson (1171) surmise, “the system offers little scope for the expression of competing views, much less for acting on them”. Nonetheless, the prevailing system of government in Saudi Arabia, currently under the patronage of King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, led to the creation of one of the most uniquely curated sovereign powers, whose rise and affluence is, in part, largely testament to the loyalty of its citizenry to its monarchy. The Saudi government provides its citizens with a range of benefits, including exemption from personal income tax, free education (including tertiary) and healthcare, as well as government-subsidised handouts. In 2018, for example, King Salman ordered the government to pay around 1.18 million Saudis working in the public sector 1,000 Saudi Riyals (SAR) (approximately US$266) per month to “offset increasing costs of living” (Perper); for Alawwad (cited in Perper), “the allocation of 50 billion Riyals (approximately US$13 billion) for this decree indicates the leadership’s concern for the people’s comfort and quality of living.</p> <p>The modern-day rule of Saudi royalty may be seen as reminiscent of the foundational traditions and customs on which the nation was formed, “much like a <em>sheikh</em> of a tribe who is in close touch with the concerns of his tribesmen and keeps those concerns in balance” (Faksh & Hendrickson 1171). The Saudi monarchy that has thus emerged may be seen to radically differ from Western concepts of the institution: “no Sun King, no pomp elevating the monarch far above the common breed, not even a crown or a throne” (Rentz 15). This article discusses the growth of the House of Saud – from nomadic warriors principally guided by the foundations of Islam to entrepreneurs determined to bridge the gap in the Kingdom between tradition and modernity, conservatism and social liberalism, nationalism and internationalism.</p> <h1><strong>The Founding Monarchs, Black Gold, and Foreign Relations</strong></h1> <p>Prior to the official unification of Saudi Arabia in 1932, the House of Saud considered the UK a close ally, particularly with regard to British support received in relation to the defeat of the Ottoman conquest in the Arabia Peninsula (Nonneman). During World War I, for example, Ibn Saud (then ruler of Najd and al-Ahsa, and later founder of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) signed the 1915 Treaty of Darin (or ‘Anglo-Saudi’ Treaty) with the British government, granting the regions under Ibn Saud’s rule the status of a British protectorate (Wilkinson; Dahlan). In the years that followed the signing of the treaty, Britain also granted Ibn Saud “a loan of [₤]20,000 and a shipment of arms”, as well as a monthly stipend of ₤5,000 from 1917 to 1924 (Nonneman 640). This stipend was granted as a token for the “consolidation of the new Saudi polity, through military means and acts of patronage and generosity towards both [Ibn Saud’s] supporters and many of his vanquished foes” (Nonneman 640). In 1927, the Treaty of Darin was supplanted by the Treaty of Jeddah, which affirmed the British government’s recognition of absolute independence of Ibn Saud’s rulership as King of Najd and Hejaz and its dependencies – the ‘dual Kingdom’ later unified and renamed to Saudi Arabia (Nonneman).</p> <p>Undoubtedly, the discovery of ‘black gold’ in Saudi Arabia had, and continues to have, significant influence on the nation’s identify formation, the extent of its socioeconomic growth, and the Saudi monarchy’s political prowess. Given the strength of the alliance between the state under Ibn Saud and the UK in the early twentieth century, Ibn Saud awarded a UK-based company its first petroleum concession in 1923; after four years, however, the company was unable to strike any oil and the contract was not renewed. A second sixty-year concession that was awarded to the US-based Standard Oil Company of California (now known as the Arabian American Oil Company, or ARAMCO) in 1933 would, however, not only mark a significant turning-point for the Saudi economy, but also for Saudi foreign relations thereafter (Al-Farsy). According to Al-Farsy (45), Ibn Saud’s “concession to the American firm at that time represented a major break with what was virtually a British monopoly of petroleum concession in that part of the world”. Notably, the House of Saud also received ‘advantageous’ offers from both Japan and Germany for oil ‘diplomacy’ in the late 1930s (Al-Farsy). Ibn Saud believed, however, that the Axis Powers were instead “motivated by political considerations” (Al-Farsy 47) and were “aware of the strategic value of the Middle East, situated as it was on the lines of communication with her new European partners” (Katakura 263). As such, Ibn Saud “preferred to continue his association with the Americans” as it had “the advantage of assuring the economic development of the country without incurring political liabilities” (Al-Farsy 47). World War II, thus, markedly represented a unique epoch for the House of Saud, characterised by an expansion of diplomatic missions beyond Europe to America (Beling).</p> <h1>From Warrior to Diplomat</h1> <p>Ibn Saud was considered a warrior of “towering achievements” (Almana 295) – a “truly remarkable man” of discipline and faith, both values which were “essential for success in his harsh desert land” (296). In his biographical text of the late monarch, Almana (296-7) intimately describes how the successes of Ibn Saud’s feats demanded his observance of a rigid daily routine which</p> <blockquote> <p>began at 4.30 a.m. before the morning prayer. The activities of the day revolved around the other prayer times, culminating in the evening prayer before His Majesty went to his bed. In fact, the King made it a rule never to sleep more than six hours out of every twenty-four… This discipline coupled with his natural physical strength enabled His Majesty to maintain a punishing schedule, both in the Court and in the desert, which would have been beyond men who lacked his faith.</p> </blockquote> <p>Ibn Saud was also a highly regarded ruler for his people who was said to have “derived simple joy from giving” (Almana 300). For Almana (303), Ibn Saud’s generous character “allied to a natural compassion and mercy” that he demonstrated even towards his enemies and those who plotted violence against him. While virtuous in their own right, Ibn Saud’s resolute and just nature often translated into an uncompromising policy of ‘utter integrity’ and ‘straightforward candour’ which foreign dignitaries found ‘disconcerting’, particularly ‘glad-handed’ politicians (Almana). While a close relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US steadily developed in the coming decades, following a diplomatic call between Ibn Saud and US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1945, the initial encounter between the leaders, for example, is emblematic of Ibn Saud’s confronting rhetoric in political contexts:</p> <blockquote> <p>Roosevelt thrust out his hand in greeting, but His Majesty refused to take it, saying, 'How can I shake hands with you when you are assisting the Zionists against us?' Roosevelt was greatly taken aback, but he managed to carry on a conversation with the King during which he promised never to do anything which would prejudice Arab interests. (Almana 308)</p> </blockquote> <p>It was Ibn Saud’s son, King Faisal, however, who inherited and exhibited greater diplomatic expertise – a skill that arguably propelled Saudi Arabia’s international allure, and strengthened the Kingdom’s competence for critical dialogue in the international arena. Interestingly, of Ibn Saud’s 45 sons, Faisal was the only direct descendant of Saudi Arabia’s two founding figures, as discussed earlier – Muhammad ibn Saud from his father’s side, and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab from his mother’s side (Beling). As Rentz (17) wonderfully observes, Faisal personified a commemoration of the “alliance formed more than a century and a half before his birth”.</p> <p>Since young age, Faisal was largely entrusted with the duty of representing his father overseas with matters relating to diplomatic affairs of the state. As loosely depicted in the 2019 historical film, <em>Born a King</em>, a then 13-year-old Faisal was instructed by his father to lead a delegation to London in 1919 for cooperation and discussions following the Allied victory in World War I (fig. 2). This event provided Prince Faisal significant working knowledge of other languages and exposure to political protocols and forums (Beling). Throughout the 1930s and 1940s Faisal assumed the roles of Foreign Minister and Minister of the Interior, where he led national military campaigns, such as the 1934 Saudi-Yemen War, and performed diplomatic services across Europe and the US. During these decades, Faisal also played a significant role in the foundational developmental planning of agricultural and irrigation projects, oil installations, and universities within Saudi Arabia, which were greatly influenced by those he visited in his tours of the US (Beling). The passing of Ibn Saud in 1953 arguably “marked the end of traditional Bedouin-style Arabia” and welcomed a new period of transition into modernisation (Beling 10). Although often criticised for being “too ambitious” and progressive, particularly by religious clergy, Faisal nonetheless remains a revered monarch of modern Saudi history who led the House of Saud away from ultra-conservatism after his father’s death, into a territory characterised by both pioneering programs and institutions of high technology and capital intensity, and social reform initiatives such as the introduction of national television, female inclusion in education, and the abolition of slavery (Beling).</p> <p><img src="https://journal.media-culture.org.au/public/site/images/lhackett/picture2.jpg" alt="Prince Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud’s visit to London in 1919" width="524" height="394" /></p> <p><em>Figure 2: Prince Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud’s visit to London in 1919.</em></p> <h1><strong>The Crown Prince, Reinvigorated Nationalism, and the Future of Saudi Arabia</strong></h1> <p>The pioneering feats and precedent established by the founding monarchs of Saudi Arabia ultimately led to an unprecedented era of power and affluence for the House of Saud, chiefly evidenced by the monarchy’s entrepreneurial renown since the 2010s. Unlike any other period of modern Saudi history, entrepreneurship has ‘pushed the enveloped’ amongst Saudi communities and youth, “defying old conjectures regarding risk aversion and value creation in the Arab world” (Yusuf & Albanawi 2). Presently, the Saudi government’s effort towards entrepreneurial motivation is one of the key factors that has contributed to a rapid economic growth of the nation, particularly through national self-sufficiency and food independence, and the creation of employment opportunities, including private business ownership (Yusuf & Albanawi). ‘Saudisation’ or ‘Nitaqat’, for example, is an ongoing initiative that aims to increase the level of employment opportunities for Saudi nationals in the private sector, as well as to reduce the government’s reliance on expatriate workers. In 2021, expatriate workers comprised approximately 76.4 percent of the private sector workforce in Saudi Arabia (Puri-Mirza).</p> <p>Notably, initiatives such as Saudisation represent the monarchy’s efforts toward an invigorated nationalist transformation – for Saudis, by Saudis. Spearheading Saudi Arabia’s ‘new nationalism’ is the current reigning monarch, King Salman, alongside his favourite son and protégée, and perhaps one of the most controversial figures of the twenty-first century, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (known colloquially as MBS) (Haykel; Hoffman; Davidson; fig. 3). MBS became a household name and started appearing more frequently within the public eye in 2015 when, at only 29 years of age, he was appointed by his father King Salman as Defence Minister and Secretary-General of the Royal Court. He quickly advanced in rank and position a few short years thereafter – as Crown Prince in 2017 and Prime Minister in 2022 – becoming what most commentators appropriately consider the de facto ruler of present-day Saudi Arabia.</p> <p><img src="https://journal.media-culture.org.au/public/site/images/lhackett/picture3.jpg" alt="Photograph taken of a billboard with MBS (left) and King Salman (right) in the capital city, Riyadh, seen in front of the new financial district currently undergoing construction. " width="1363" height="895" /></p> <p><em>Figure 3: Photograph taken of a billboard with MBS (left) and King Salman (right) in the capital city, Riyadh, seen in front of the new financial district currently undergoing construction.</em></p> <p>The controversy surrounding MBS primarily concerns the ethos of his governance. In both internal and external political affairs of the state, MBS has a reputation for being uncompromising, and “highly motivated and hardworking, if a little combative” (Davidson 320). Holding “concentrated power to an unprecedented degree” not seen before in Saudi history, MBS’s rule has “torn up the old rules of royal family governance … imposed by the collective leadership model that characterised the Saudi regime in the past”, and “side-lined other members of the ruling family” (Davidson 320). This was particularly seen following the unanticipated removal of King Salman’s nephew, Muhammad bin Nayef (‘MBN’), and his subsequent replacement by MBS as Crown Prince in 2017. The event prompted the power father-son duo to dramatically instigate a sweeping ‘anti-corruption purge’ within the Saudi government (Kinninmont). During the crackdown, several hundred members of the House of Saud were arrested and detained within the luxurious five-star Ritz Carlton hotel in Riyadh. Those arrested included major government officials, such as the Minister of Economy and Planning and the prominent son of former King Abdullah and head of the National Guard, Prince Miteb bin Abdullah, who ultimately agreed to pay an out-of-court settlement of around US$1 billion (Kinninmont). Major businesspeople including Prince Waleed bin Talal (the country’s richest man and one of <em>TIME Magazine</em>’s top 100 most influential people of 2008) were also arrested, as well as the head of the MBC media company, Waleed al-Ibrahim, who had previously resisted MBS’s offer to purchase the company (Kinninmont).</p> <p>Certainly, both the motives for the anti-corruption purge and reactions within the extended royal family – including the possibility of mobilisation or retaliation against the current leadership – remain disputed within scholarship, given that politics within the House of Saud is largely hidden to outsiders (Kinninmont). Kinninmont (248) argues that while many of the individuals who were arrested were widely reputed for their involvement in ‘systemic’ corruption (including contractual bribery and nepotism), the charges utilised may also have been, on the other hand, ‘politically selective’, particularly towards opponents of MBS. In any respect, the corruption crackdown was both a political risk and “a populist move at a time of austerity” that enabled MBS to “send certain messages to the country’s traditional elites”. The reconfiguration of power was not limited to the royal family. Rather, King Salman and MBS also boldly confronted the draconian Islamic institution, ‘the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice’, with structural changes which thereby reconfigured the role of the religious clerics and drastically reduced the authority of the notorious ‘religious police’ or <em>mutawa</em><em>. </em>The <em>mutawa </em>(fig. 4) were assigned the duty of patrolling public spaces and enforcing (or punishing the violation of) strict adherence to Islamic lifestyle and moral conduct (Arab News; Kinninmont; Davidson). Observance of norms and social behaviours under the scrutiny of the <em>mutawa </em>included, but were not limited to, conservative dress code (such as mandating women’s head covering, the <em>hijab</em>), prayer and mosque attendance (including the mandated closure of shops), gender segregation in public spaces, and prohibiting engagement with, or promotion of, ‘Western’ products, activities or customs, such as popular culture texts (music and film), Barbie dolls, celebration of holidays (Christmas, Valentine’s Day), and even the selling of dogs and cats as pets (<em>Sydney Morning Herald</em>; Associated Press).</p> <p><img src="https://journal.media-culture.org.au/public/site/images/lhackett/picture4.jpg" alt="A group of mutawa (usually accompanied by a police officer) patrolling public spaces in Saudi Arabia, who are identified by their shorter thobes (Arab male dress) and lack of agal (black ring) atop their headdress (‘shemagh’). " width="590" height="391" /></p> <p><em>Figure 4: A group of </em>mutawa<em>(usually accompanied by a police officer) patrolling public spaces in Saudi Arabia, identified by their shorter </em>thobes <em>(Arab male dress) and lack of </em>agal<em> (black ring) atop their headdress (</em>shemagh<em>).</em></p> <p>The sharp curtailment of the powers and privileges of the religious police by King Salman and MBS particularly “came as a major relief for more liberal Saudis unhappy with such restrictions”, not only representing a significant aspect of social and cultural change in the Kingdom but also arguably symbolising the Saudi government’s dedication to renewed nationalism in parallel with the growing momentum of globalisation, modernity, and human rights and social liberalisation trends and movements around the world (Habibi 7). In line with MBS’s championing of Saudi youth and his father’s ‘Vision 2030’ goals, the end of the 2010s was characterised by the introduction of landmark reforms including lifting the prohibition on women driving, introducing cinemas, and allowing women to access government services without the permission of a male ‘guardian’ (Kinninmont). To the surprise of many, tourism, sports, and entertainment events have also been heavily endorsed by the Saudi government, who have sought to diversify Saudi Arabia’s income sources, increase investment and talent, and reduce its dependency on oil in recent years. Many of these events, such as the 2018 Arab Fashion Week, represented a first for Saudi Arabia; other events, such as the debut of the 2018 ‘Diriyah ePrix’, represented the first ever Formula E race in the Middle East – a single-seater motorsport championship involving ‘next generation’ electric cars (Arab News). The 2018 Diriyah ePrix was also accompanied by a three-day complimentary festival headlined by some of the world’s biggest artist including David Guetta, Enrique Iglesias, The Black Eyed Peas, and One Republic (Arab News).</p> <p>In 2024, the entertainment industry remains a key investment for the House of Saud, with the specific aim of persuading its nationals to “do their leisure spending domestically” (Hope). In a recent article published by <em>Vanity Fair</em>, a blossoming ‘bromance’ between MBS and Hollywood actor Johnny Depp has also reportedly culminated in a “seven-figure annual contract” for Depp “to promote Saudi Arabia’s cultural renaissance” (Hope). As Hope accurately conveys, MBS continues to demonstrate that ‘deciphering’ his “increasingly consequential moods, methods, and moves” is no easy feat. What is certain, however, is that the “the traditional pillars of Al-Saud rule” characterised by an archaic system of distribution of power among members of the large royal family, together with an “informal pact with religious clerics and oil wealth”, continue to be weakened by the current leadership (Kinninmont 247). These changes intend to “preserve the power of the monarchy while transforming it dramatically from within” (Kinninmont 247). As such, with the ‘Vision 2030’ development plan successfully underway, government-led actions and policies of the House of Saud demonstrate ambitions for “new authoritarian populism, centring on a discourse of security, technological advancement, youth, social and economic liberalisation, and nationalism” (247). The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, thus, remarkably exemplifies the short-term development achievements and continuing potential of a state under a regime of absolute monarchy; as MBS (fig. 5) asserts in a public statement, “we are confident about the future of Saudi Arabia … . Our people will amaze the world again” (Al-Saud).</p> <p><strong><img src="https://journal.media-culture.org.au/public/site/images/lhackett/picture5.jpg" alt="MBS introducing the launch of the Vision 2030 at a press conference, 2016 " width="602" height="414" /></strong></p> <p><em>Figure 5: MBS introducing the launch of the Vision 2030 at a press conference, 2016</em></p> <h2><strong>References </strong></h2> <p>Al-Farsy, Fouad. <em>Saudi Arabia: A Case Study in Development. </em>Routledge, 2023.</p> <p>Al-Saud, Mohammad Bin Salman. “Leadership Message.” <em>Vision 2030</em>, 2023. <<a href="https://www.vision2030.gov.sa/en/vision-2030/leadership-message/">https://www.vision2030.gov.sa/en/vision-2030/leadership-message/</a>>. </p> <p>Arab News. “David Guetta, Black Eyed Peas and Amr Diab among Headlining Acts at Saudi Arabia’s E-Prix.” 29 Nov. 2018. <<a href="https://www.arabnews.com/node/1413006/saudi-arabia">https://www.arabnews.com/node/1413006/saudi-arabia</a>>.</p> <p>Associated Press, The. “Cats and Dogs Banned by Saudi Religious Police.” <em>NBC News, </em>9 Sep. 2006. <<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna14738358">https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna14738358</a>>.</p> <p>Bandow, Doug. “Time to Cut Off Saudi Arabia.” <em>The American Spectator, </em>19 May 2020. <<a href="https://spectator.org/time-to-cut-off-saudi-arabia/">https://spectator.org/time-to-cut-off-saudi-arabia/</a>>.</p> <p>Beling, Willard A., ed. <em>King Faisal and the Modernisation of Saudi Arabia</em>. Routledge, 1980.</p> <p>Dahlan, Malik. <em>The Hijaz: The First Islamic State</em>. Hurst, 2018</p> <p>Davidson, Christopher M. “Mohammed Bin Salman Al Saud (a.k.a. “MBS”): King in All But Name (Born 1985).” <em>Dictators and Autocrats: Securing Power across Global Politics</em>. Ed. Klaus Larres. Routledge, 2022. 319-345.</p> <p>Faksh, Mahmud A., and Mary Hendrickson. “Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.<em>” World Encyclopedia </em><em>of Political Systems and Parties. </em>Eds. Neil Schlager and Jayne Weisblatt. 4th ed. Infobase Publishing, 1983. 1166-1174.</p> <p>Haykel, Bernard. “Saudi Arabia’s New Nationalism.” <em>Project Syndicate,</em> 29 Sep. 2023. <<a href="https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/mbs-behind-saudi-nationalist-surge-by-bernard-haykel-2023-09?barrier=accesspaylog">https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/mbs-behind-saudi-nationalist-surge-by-bernard-haykel-2023-09?barrier=accesspaylog</a>>.</p> <p>Hieu, Minh. “Saudi Royals’ Net Worth Quadruple Musk, Gates Combined.” <em>VnExpress International, </em>12 Jan. 2024. <<a href="https://e.vnexpress.net/news/business/companies/saudi-royals-net-worth-quadruple-musk-gates-combined-4699589.html">https://e.vnexpress.net/news/business/companies/saudi-royals-net-worth-quadruple-musk-gates-combined-4699589.html</a>>.</p> <p>Hoffman, Jon. “The Arab Gulf’s New Nationalism.” <em>Foreign Policy, </em>7 Aug. 2023. <<a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/08/07/saudi-arabia-uae-emirates-nationalism-mbs-mbz/">https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/08/07/saudi-arabia-uae-emirates-nationalism-mbs-mbz/</a>>.</p> <p>Hope, Bradley. “Inside Johnny Depp’s Epic Bromance with Saudi Crown Prince MBS.” <em>Vanity Fair, </em>14 Feb. 2024. <<a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/johnny-depp-mbs-saudi-arabia">https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/johnny-depp-mbs-saudi-arabia</a>>. <em> </em></p> <p>Katakura, Kunio. “The Yokoyama Mission: Japanese Diplomacy for Oil, 1939.” <em>The International History Review</em> 8.2 (1986): 263–69. <<a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40105597">http://www.jstor.org/stable/40105597</a>>.</p> <p>Kinninmont, Jane. “Political Change in Saudi Arabia.” <em>IEMed Mediterranean Yearbook 2018. </em>Ed. Senén Florensa. IEMed, 2018. 247-250.</p> <p>Ministry of Foreign Affairs [MoFA]. “KSA History.” <<a href="https://www.mofa.gov.sa/en/ksa/Pages/history.aspx#:~:text=The%20first%20Saudi%20State%20was,in%20all%20aspects%20of%20life">https://www.mofa.gov.sa/en/ksa/Pages/history.aspx#:~:text=The%20first%20Saudi%20State%20was,in%20all%20aspects%20of%20life</a>>.</p> <p>Nonneman, Gerd. “Saudi-European Relations 1902-2001: A Pragmatic Quest for Relative Autonomy.” <em>International Affairs</em> 77.3 (2001): 631–61. <<a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3095442">http://www.jstor.org/stable/3095442</a>>.</p> <p>Organization of American States [OAS]. “Saudi Arabia.” 2020. <<a href="https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oas.org%2Fen%2Fser%2Fdia%2Fperm_observers%2Fdocuments%2Fprofiles%2Fprofile%2520saudi%2520arabia.doc&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK">https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oas.org%2Fen%2Fser%2Fdia%2Fperm_observers%2F documents%2Fprofiles%2Fprofile%2520saudi%2520arabia.doc&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK</a>>.</p> <p>Perper, Rosie. “Saudi Arabia Is Paying Some Citizens to Help Them Deal with the Increasing Cost of Living.” <em>World Economic Forum</em>, 10 Jan. 2018. <<a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/saudi-arabia-is-paying-some-citizens-to-help-them-deal-with-the-increasing-cost-of-living/">https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/saudi-arabia-is-paying-some-citizens-to-help-them-deal-with-the-increasing-cost-of-living/</a>>.</p> <p>Puri-Mirza, Amna. “Number of Non-National Employed Workers in the Private Sector Saudi Arabia 2015-2021.” <em>Statista, </em>14 Sep. 2023. <<a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/1325038/saudi-arabia-total-number-of-non-national-employed-workers-in-the-private-sector/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20total%20number,sector%20workforce%20in%20Saudi%20Arabia">https://www.statista.com/statistics/1325038/saudi-arabia-total-number-of-non-national-employed-workers-in-the-private-sector/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20total%20number,sector%20workforce%20in%20Saudi%20Arabia</a>>.</p> <p>Randell-Moon, Holly. “Thieves like Us: The British Monarchy, Celebrity, and Settler Colonialism.” <em>Celebrity Studies </em>8.3 (2017): 393-408. <<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2017.1299019">https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2017.1299019</a>>.</p> <p>Rentz, George. “The Saudi Monarchy.” <em>King Faisal and the Modernisation of Saudi Arabia</em>. Ed. Willard A. Beling. Routledge, 1980. 15-34.</p> <p>Srinivasan, Hiranmayi. “As Charles Becomes King, Here’s the British Royal Family’s Net Worth.” <em>Investopedia, </em>7 May 2023. <<a href="https://www.investopedia.com/ahead-of-king-charles-coronation-here-is-the-british-royal-family-s-net-worth-7486580">https://www.investopedia.com/ahead-of-king-charles-coronation-here-is-the-british-royal-family-s-net-worth-7486580</a>>.</p> <p><em>Statista</em>. “Estimated OPEC Net Oil Export Revenue Streams in 2022, by Member Country (in Billion U.S. Dollars).” 2023. <<a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/223231/opec-net-oil-export-revenue-streams-by-country/">https://www.statista.com/statistics/223231/opec-net-oil-export-revenue-streams-by-country/</a>>.</p> <p><em>Sydney Morning Herald, The</em>. “Saudi Religious Police See Red over Valentine's Day.” 12 Feb. 2010. <<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140125003928/http:/www.smh.com.au/world/saudi-religious-police-see-red-over-valentines-day-20100212-nvik.html">https://web.archive.org/web/20140125003928/http:/www.smh.com.au/world/saudi-religious-police-see-red-over-valentines-day-20100212-nvik.html</a>>.</p> <p>Wilkinson, John Craven. <em>Arabia's Frontiers: The Story of Britain's Boundary Drawing in the Desert</em>. I.B. Tauris, 1991.</p>2024-03-12T00:00:00+00:00Copyright (c) 2024 Simona Strungaru