David Starkey on the Windsors

Features

David Starkey on the Windsors

The historian's Boxing Day programme (8.30pm, Channel 4) brings the story of the monarchy right up to date. Here he tells RT about the radical Windsors, the impact of Princess Diana and what kind of King he thinks Charles will make.

Was it difficult to tackle a living breathing Queen, rather than another dead monarch?

I try to use exactly the same tone of voice about Queen Elizabeth II as I do about Queen Elizabeth I. The programme isn't emotional and doesn't take sides. It's simply trying to put things in a historical context.

Is there a recent monarch that you'd rate above the others?

George V comes across as a man of extraordinary shrewdness. He's no royal Einstein, unlike his grandfather, Prince Albert, but he knew what to do in the key year of 1917. That year looks as important in British history as it does in Russia. It's when the monarchy re-invents itself. The monarchy we know today really is a creation of 1917.

Tell us about the monarchy in 1917.

At that time our monarchy is really German. They change their surname to Windsor from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. George V is the first king recently to speak English as his first language. Even Edward VII learns to speak German before English and always speaks English with a slight German accent.

So our German monarchs became fluent in English. What else happened?

They altered the rules so royalty can start marrying English men and women which they hadn't been able to do before. Suddenly royal marriages start looking like real marriages based on romantic love, rather than a German prince or princess arriving in the post.

Has it changed enough since then?

The real problem is that during the reign of the Queen and her father, George VI, the monarchy rested on its laurels. They had done such a good job in 1917, they felt no need to do anything new. Hence, the drift and the sticking with the tried-and-tested formula which gets increasingly out-of-step with the world post the 1960s.

And the crisis surrounding Princess Diana…

What Diana did is kill the sort of monarchy that had been created in 1917. A monarchy based on notions of public decency, self restraint, commitment in marriage and so on. And that all goes out of the window with Diana.

What's the future for Charles?

Charles has shown himself to be extraordinarily radical over the handling of his marriage to Camilla, throwing over tradition, daring to marry in a Register Office. Saying she was to be called Duchess of Cornwall and then eventually Princes Consort. This is just as radical as the changes in 1917.

And Camilla?

Charles is safely into his second marriage and Camilla is increasingly being accepted and indeed rather liked. She's sensible, robust, level-headed, no-nonsense and clearly good for him.

But she will never be Princess of Wales…

The idea that Camilla is not Princess of Wales is absurd. Of course she's Princess of Wales. And, similarly, of course she will be queen. But the sense of hedging bets over titles is sensible.

Will Charles be a different monarch than his mother?

I think Charles will continue to be much more outspoken as King than the Queen. The extraordinary vow of silence that the Queen has taken is wholly exceptional in royal history. Earlier monarchs weren't like that - not George V, nor Edward VII, nor, above all, was Victoria. The Queen's decision to, as it were, put up and shut up, is very much to do with her character. Provided Charles doesn't slip into party political territory, people will welcome that.

He can come across as a bit barmy sometimes…

Oddly enough, the man they called "the potty prince" has been proved right on virtually every question he's touched. If you look at the big issues - and I am no Green - at ecology, organic farming climate change, global responsibility, even in the need for inter-faith dialogue, Charles has been extraordinarily far-seeing. Or, at least, his advisors have been.

It sounds like you're predicting a strong future for the monarchy.

At least it has someone who recognises you can't just sit on your hands. The parallels with the death of Queen Victoria are fascinating. The queen had been on the throne for 60-odd years. Her son was himself already 60. He'd got on badly with both his parents. He's determined to put through a broad raft of changes - he starts by chucking out all his mother's possessions, then he changes his royal name.

Really?

Very few kings choose the name by which their families know them as their titular name. Queen Victoria's son Bertie decided he was going to be called Edward VII. Again, George V's son David briefly became Edward VIII. His second son, again called Bertie, becomes George VI. In the same way, our next king is just as likely to be George VII as Charles III, perhaps more so. Charles can call himself by any of his names. He's teased us before about which name he will pick.

Advertiser link