Aufhebunga Bunga
patreon
/288/ Feudal Limpets (Bunga Goes Royal)
🕑 Added 2022-09-13 06:00:03 +0000 UTC[Patreon Exclusive]
On the death of Queen Elizabeth, a 20th century figure
To our own surprise, we are doing an episode on the Queen of England. How will her death impact the UK when she was basically the only institution that still retained popular trust? Will Britons be made to face up to the question of what kind of country they want?
We revisit the Nairn-Anderson theses about how and why Britain had so many seemingly feudal remnants, and ask whether there is still something to bourgeois modernisation. And we look globally at the response to the Queen's death and ask why so many people care?
Readings:
- The Revolutionary Monarchy of Elizabeth II, Adrian Wooldridge, Bloomberg
- The House of Windsor, Tom Nairn, NLR (pdf attached)
- 'London Bridge is down': the secret plan for the days after the Queen’s death, Sam Knight, The Guardian
Comments
Paul Brewer
I very much enjoyed this episode, with Phil in particular echoing some of the sentiments I felt on reading reacitions to the news. I drafted various comments that eventually were discarded. However, one thing that struck me about the 'New Elizabethan Era' was to wonder if we are looking in the wrong place for Neoliberalism, or at least neglecting its proto-history. I think it's generally acknowledged that the 1970 'Selsdon Man' manifesto of the Conservatives somehow foreshadowed Thatcherism, and gave the rise to the 'Lady's Not for Turning/U-Turn' Tory meme. But how does the 1966 manifesto fit into that development? (It might not at all. I'm just wondering aloud.) Is there room for a 'Archaic Neoliberalism' episode? (I know you chaps are more about PoliSci/IR and looking forward, but it's just an idea in case you are ever stuck for one.)
Alex McAuliffe
Occurred to me while listening to this (specifically George's comment about the monarchy as a reminder of social democracy) that Elizabeth was the Queen 'reigning' through all of England's Labor governments. I hadn't seen that remarked upon by any of the pundits sounding off about her ties to colonialism, empire, the bourgeoisie, etc., and it is probably significant in her status as a figure for all of England.
