It's strange how we're encouraged to rally around our Royal Families in times of crisis, as if they embody the spirit of the nation, when they are invariable rather unrepresentative of the nation in so many ways.
Royal marriages used to be made to foster political alliances with other countries and this would invariably result in the dilution of the native blood within that Royal Family.
You have only to look at King Harold of 1066 fame - he is portrayed as a Saxon, his father being the Saxon Earl Godwinson, whereas his mother was Gytha Thorkelsdóttir, a Dane and a niece of King Knut and, therefore, Harold was himself half Viking.
Predating Harold, Edward the Confessor's mother was Emma of Normandy, who herself was of Viking/French stock and descended from Rollo, the Viking who was given land in Normandy as a bribe to stop him raiding France. Seems the Vikings were everywhere at the time.
It continued unabated with marriages into most European dynasties, to the extent that the English bloodline is quite diluted, until we reach Diana, were marginally more than 50% is English and vastly more than 50% in the case of William's kids.
Throughout our history, we've been rallying around foreigners, if you count blood as a marker of patriotism, which many do. Perversely, and paradoxically, those who espouse the blood and soil mantra are the most vociferous Royalists.
In England, however, a monarch has never married a partner of a different race and I wonder what would happen if one did? I'm certain some would have a big issue with it.
It brings into question the entire construct of nationality. Is it fixed at birth by location, does it depend on bloodline or can it be selected at will? Take me, for example - by birth I'm Dutch, by bloodline I'm Anglo-Dutch, by choice I'm British.
No comments:
Post a Comment