tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/prince-william-6462/articlesPrince William – The Conversation2024-03-25T05:53:04Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2264902024-03-25T05:53:04Z2024-03-25T05:53:04ZAnnouncing Kate Middleton’s cancer diagnosis should have been simple. But the palace let it get out of hand<p>The British royal family is famous for its carefully curated media image. That’s why it was a surprise to see them lose control of the narrative in the wake of what we now know is a serious health crisis befalling Catherine, Princess of Wales (or Kate Middleton as she’s popularly known).</p>
<p>It is clear the nearly 1,000-year-old institution of the monarchy and its tradition of “<a href="https://news.northeastern.edu/2024/03/14/kate-middleton-photo-pr-crisis/">never complain, never explain</a>” is being tested by social media and its power to spread rumours and misinformation. The palace’s public relations team has underestimated how difficult it is to manage relationships with social media audiences. Their reactive attempts to rein in speculation has turned Catherine’s health challenge into a PR disaster.</p>
<p>Social media, with its lax regulations and freer environment, offers a more
open forum for users to say whatever they like about the royals. It’s served as a hotbed for Catherine conspiracies, particularly on TikTok. These theories are as wild as they are ridiculous, from Catherine being a prisoner in the palace to her hiding in <a href="https://www.prdaily.com/kate-middleton-stanley-alabama-retail/">Taylor Swift’s London home</a>.</p>
<p>What should have been a simple announcement to a sympathetic public about a popular royal having cancer turned into a spider’s web of competing conspiracy theories across social media. How did it all go so terribly wrong?</p>
<h2>I’ve lost track, what happened?</h2>
<p>All was well with the Prince and Princess of Wales when they were filmed attending church on Christmas Day. As usual when royals are out in public, the scene was picture perfect with everyone dutifully smiling for the cameras in “<a href="https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a46227698/kate-middleton-royal-blue-christmas-day-church-service-prince-william-kids/">co-ordinated</a>” outfits.</p>
<p>Two weeks later, Kensington Palace announced Catherine had undergone planned abdominal surgery, with <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/princess-kate-hospitalized-after-planned-abdominal-surgery-palace/story?id=106441561">palace sources</a> telling media the surgery had been “successful” and she would need two weeks to recover. </p>
<p>On January 29, the palace announced Catherine had returned home to recuperate. <a href="https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a46569739/king-charles-discharged-from-hospital/">Unlike King Charles</a> when he released news of his cancer diagnosis on February 5, Catherine was not photographed leaving hospital. This was the first PR misstep. She had appeared outside hospital soon after giving birth to her three children, but this time she remained uncharacteristically out of the public eye.</p>
<p>Almost a month later, when Prince William <a href="https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/prince-william-pulls-memorial-godfather-211406977.html?amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAG6tOzuXsqZXP6G2nLLd-lnWzZhYKHVJ5TJ-w5XCCfgMjerRrR8v1R8unjtcoQTbvPDsVt3mtTcZ_g0os6zwOuEFfMKCh0kfEExvz-dB2FG0uqcy6-GoryjvG99TEhMli66hNZLjLENmMhq1mwoV7GmM0AYezMDsZtZVtONH9C1b&guccounter=2">unexpectedly withdrew</a> from his godfather’s memorial citing “personal reasons”, social media users started asking “Where is Princess Kate?”. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/kate-middleton-is-having-preventive-chemotherapy-for-cancer-what-does-this-mean-226461">Kate Middleton is having 'preventive chemotherapy' for cancer. What does this mean?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Used to a steady stream of content about the royal family, the public were unsurprisingly questioning if there was more to Catherine’s abdominal surgery than they were being told.</p>
<p>In a rare reactive move, the palace tried to quell questions about Catherine’s whereabouts by releasing a <a href="https://people.com/palace-responds-kate-middleton-conspiracy-theories-online-surgery-recovery-rare-statement-8602191">statement</a> reiterating that she would not be returning to public duties until Easter. </p>
<p>On March 4, US outlet <a href="https://www.tmz.com/2024/03/04/kate-middleton-seen-spotted-public-first-time-mystery-hospitalization/">TMZ published</a> a paparazzi photo of Catherine driving with her mother. Social media audiences asked if it really was Catherine.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="InstagramEmbed" data-react-props="{"url":"https://www.instagram.com/p/C4U_IqTNaqU","accessToken":"127105130696839|b4b75090c9688d81dfd245afe6052f20"}"></div></p>
<p>Over the next week, conspiracy theories about Catherine’s absence reached frenzied levels. To show everything was fine, Kensington Palace released a <a href="https://twitter.com/KensingtonRoyal/status/1766750995445387393?s=20">Mother’s Day photo</a> of Catherine and her children on their social media accounts. Social media users spotted apparently edited flaws and global news agencies announced “<a href="https://apnews.com/article/kate-princess-photo-surgery-ca91acf667c87c6c70a7838347d6d4fb">kill orders</a>”, saying the image had been manipulated. The next day, Catherine <a href="https://twitter.com/KensingtonRoyal/status/1767135566645092616">apologised</a> on social media for editing the photo.</p>
<p>Although royals have been <a href="https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a60191061/royal-photoshop-history/">editing their pictures</a> for centuries, it seems particularly digitally naive of the palace’s PR team to release such an obviously edited image into an already cynical social media environment, creating fodder for more conspiracy theories. </p>
<p>Mainstream news outlets then joined social media users in asking questions about Catherine’s absence. Although this media attention did not legitimise wild conspiracies, in some ways it fuelled them. </p>
<p>Days later, TMZ <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erWJNmbrECs">published footage</a> of Catherine and William shopping. At this point in the media chaos, many social media users claimed it was fake.</p>
<p>This intense public speculation finally ended on March 23, when Catherine <a href="https://twitter.com/KensingtonRoyal/status/1771235267837321694?s=20">released a video</a> explaining her extended absence after abdominal surgery was caused by the surgeons discovering cancer.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1771235267837321694"}"></div></p>
<p>During a crisis, the public crave transparency, authenticity, honesty and reassurance. These elements were missing in the royal PR team’s carefully worded statements made directly to mainstream media along with reactive, overly curated social media posts.</p>
<p>By providing scant details, the palace seemed to believe they could control public perception. But public image is increasingly difficult to control.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/wheres-kate-speculation-about-the-missing-princess-is-proof-the-palaces-media-playbook-needs-a-re-write-225562">Where’s Kate? Speculation about the 'missing' princess is proof the Palace’s media playbook needs a re-write</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The double-edged sword of social media</h2>
<p>After Princess Diana’s death in a paparazzi-chase car accident, privacy laws and <a href="https://time.com/4914324/princess-diana-anniversary-paparazzi-tabloid-media/">media regulations</a> forbade the most invasive breaches of the royal family’s privacy, particularly for her children, princes William and Harry. However, tabloid appetite for uncontrolled access soon returned once the princes became adults. </p>
<p>Recently, Harry and his wife Meghan have been involved in <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/prince-harry-his-many-lawsuits-against-press-2023-12-15/">several lawsuits</a> against media companies over breaches of privacy, including phone hacking.</p>
<p>The rise of social media has typically been viewed as a tool that gives royals more control over their image through the curation of their own personal content. Previously, the fact Catherine was the one <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/kate-middleton-cutest-family-photos-2018-5">taking photos</a> of her children was seen as a sign of authenticity and being down to earth (as much as a princess could be). </p>
<p>Yet, social media is both a blessing and a curse for the management of public reputations. </p>
<p>The perpetuation of contested facts and theories on social media in the wake of Princess Catherine’s unexplained absence shows how difficult it is to curate a controlled image using social media. Lack of verified information in mainstream media helps fuel speculative flames.</p>
<p>While <a href="https://www.thedrum.com/news/2024/03/22/where-the-palace-lost-the-plot-and-what-we-can-learn-about-pr-and-empathy-kategate">PR experts</a> believe it is understandable and appropriate for Catherine and her family to have privacy during this time, more timely, direct and honest communication would have gone a long way
to prevent relentless gossip. </p>
<p>Once rumours and conspiracies gained momentum, the palace perhaps thought the less information provided, the better. However, silence during a crisis just fuels more speculation because the lack of information makes it look like there is something to hide. </p>
<p>Catherine’s personal video announcing her cancer diagnosis helped end the social media frenzy. This shows a simple, clear statement posted by Kensington Palace to social media weeks ago would likely have avoided the PR disaster and provided Catherine the privacy she so clearly needs.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-kate-middleton-photo-scandal-when-does-editing-become-manipulation-225647">The Kate Middleton photo scandal: When does editing become manipulation?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The palace is now <a href="https://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/2986509/kate-middleton-cancer-pr-disaster/">being criticised</a> for complicating a situation that was relatively simple in retrospect. Many social media users are also upset Catherine took public blame for the photoshopping incident.</p>
<p>Any organisation that deals with the media to maintain positive reputations, including the British monarchy, has no choice but to adapt to all kinds of media, including social media. The long-time practice of keeping calm and carrying on amid controversy and the 24-hour gossip cycle doesn’t work in the era of TikTok, X and YouTube. </p>
<p>In the absence of trusted information, social media will do what it does best: take mostly innocuous online chatter and amplify it until it goes viral.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/226490/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>What should have been a simple announcement to a sympathetic public turned into a spider’s web of conspiracy theories across social media. How did it all go so terribly wrong?Victoria Fielding, Lecturer, University of AdelaideSaira Ali, Senior Lecturer in Media, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2256472024-03-14T19:11:39Z2024-03-14T19:11:39ZThe Kate Middleton photo scandal: When does editing become manipulation?<p>On March 10, in celebration of Mother’s Day in the United Kingdom, Kensington Palace <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/C4U_IqTNaqU/?hl=en">shared a photo</a> of Kate Middleton, the Princess of Wales, with her three children. It was the first photograph shared of Kate since December and was <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/10/uk/kate-princess-wales-photo-released-intl/index.html">widely reported on by news outlets</a>.</p>
<p>Public interest and discussion about Kate’s well-being have reached a tipping point in recent months. She had not been seen at a public event since Christmas Day, and in mid-January, it was announced that she had undergone a <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/C2NDoYrN-9r/?hl=en">planned surgery</a>. </p>
<p>There is <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/prince-philip-queen-elizabeth-husband-released-from-hospital-london-heart-surgery/">considerable visual precedent</a> of photographs and video taken of royal family members after <a href="https://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/health-and-fitness/20210925122524/kate-middleton-duchess-of-cambridge-children-pregnancy-birth-post-baby-body/">medical procedures or events</a>. However, the distinct lack of photos in this case has left the media and public to fill in the information gaps with their own <a href="https://graziadaily.co.uk/celebrity/news/tiktok-sleuthers-royal-scandal/">commentary and conspiracy theories</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-pr-silence-around-princess-kates-well-being-fuels-frenzy-about-photo-mishap-225642">The PR silence around Princess Kate's well-being fuels frenzy about photo mishap</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The timing of the photograph suggested that it was taken to quell all the discussion about Kate. Very quickly, however, social media users began to perform <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/digital-image-forensics/">digital forensics</a> on the photograph, questioning everything from the <a href="https://x.com/oldenoughtosay/status/1766911094281359553?s=46&t=9A3pHGNi5TAYuffaoqvktQ">foliage pictured</a>, to the <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@allynaston/video/7344921409816251678">clothing</a>, to the <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/24098724/kate-middleton-editing-photo-explained">obvious and amateur photo-editing</a>. The controversy was only fueled further by Kensington Palace’s <a href="https://pagesix.com/2024/03/11/royal-family/kensington-palace-refuses-to-release-original-kate-middleton-photo-after-botched-editing-job/">refusal to release the unedited version of the photo</a>.</p>
<p>The careful, detailed and obsessively close reading of the photo was, in part, due to the context into which it was published: the internet was looking for the “proof of life” this photo was intended to provide. The internet was not convinced.</p>
<p>Mere hours later, the Associated Press released a <a href="https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1766944328847364201?s=20">“kill order,”</a> stating “it appears that the source has manipulated the image. No replacement photo will be sent.” Many other news organizations and photo agencies quickly followed, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/princess-wales-kate-surgery-photo-manipulated-3863e9ac78aec420a91e4f315297c348">retracting and removing the image</a>.</p>
<p>In response to the incident, <a href="https://twitter.com/KensingtonRoyal/status/1767135566645092616">a statement attributed to Kate</a> was issued the following day where she admitted “I do occasionally experiment with editing” and apologized for any confusion the photography may have caused.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1767135566645092616"}"></div></p>
<h2>What we expect of photographs</h2>
<p>Photographs have always held an uneasy position between evidence and art, or truth and fiction. <a href="https://www.metmuseum.org/press/exhibitions/2012/faking-it">Since the technology was invented</a>, photographs have been <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXe9WCeccOw">staged or “faked,”</a> edited and manipulated. While the advent of digital photography has brought with it tools and techniques that makes altering photographs much quicker and easier, the malleability of the photographic form is part of the story of photography.</p>
<p>The ability to record what is in front of the camera lens is central to how and why photography has developed as something society considered a source of truth or evidence. In journalism, science and public administration, photographs are used as proof in a variety of contexts where identification is a central, significant and necessary outcome. </p>
<p>However, because photographs can be altered, the institutions and individuals that produce them are often used to verify the extent to which they were edited, or <a href="https://twitter.com/misanharriman/status/1767883350184796447?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet">vouch for their veracity</a>. Institutions have <a href="https://www.worldpressphoto.org/contest/2024/verification-process/what-counts-as-manipulation">imposed standards, practices and policies</a> to make photography legible as a credible format that can be used as actionable information. </p>
<p>For people to believe and trust photographs, then, there needs to be a level of trust in institutions that produce them. This is far from the first instance of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/06/donald-trump-inauguration-crowd-size-photos-edited">a political institution losing public trust by editing photographs</a>. As the controversy continues, the public becomes less likely to believe the images Kensington Palace releases. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1767197442838073680"}"></div></p>
<p>This is evidenced by the negative public reaction to the photograph published the next day of <a href="https://www.eonline.com/ca/news/1397155/agency-behind-kate-middleton-and-prince-william-car-photo-addresses-photoshop-claims">Prince William, allegedly with Kate</a>, carpooling on their way to their respective appointments. </p>
<p>Institutional response has been similarly critical, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/11/uk/kate-royal-photograph-edited-intl-gbr/index.html">CNN announced</a> they were “now reviewing all handout photos previously provided by Kensington Palace,” and <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2024/03/14/kensington-palace-compared-to-north-korea-by-news-boss/">Agence France-Presse (AFP) stating</a> Kensington Palace is “no longer a trusted source.”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1768304152407351591"}"></div></p>
<h2>Editing: A fine line</h2>
<p>How much editing is too much? The <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/truth-or-fake/20240311-kate-gate-how-might-have-the-princess-of-wales-photo-been-edited">#KateGate controversy</a> has pushed this conversation front and centre. When does a photograph tip from edited or enhanced to manipulated and deceptive? </p>
<p>When it comes to contemporary celebrity culture, there is an expectation that most, if not all, photographs circulated are retouched. Some smartphones even have a “<a href="https://www.samsung.com/za/support/mobile-devices/galaxy-camera-how-do-i-use-the-beauty-face-mode/">Beauty Face</a>” filter that can “automatically adjust the photo to create a more visually pleasing photo.” Celebrities, <a href="https://www.allure.com/story/zendaya-posts-unretouched-photo">like Zendaya</a>, who take a stand against retouching, are touted as inspiring for doing so. </p>
<p>In photojournalism, the colour balance and exposure of photographs are <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/11/uk/kate-royal-photograph-edited-intl-gbr/index.html">regularly adjusted</a>. This is seen as justifiable if the changes mean the photograph is a more accurate representation of the scene but does not change the composition or contents of the photograph. </p>
<p>However, other editing practices, like creating a composite image from many photographs of the same event, are seen as taking it too far. During the Great Depression, Arthur Rothstein’s photograph of a bleached steer skull caused significant controversy because he had moved the skull to a section of cracked dirt in direct sunlight which made the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2001.11951665">photograph more dramatic</a>.</p>
<p>Rothstein was criticized for manipulating the scene, and thus, interfered with the integrity required for a documentary photograph. His response was that by moving the skull he had created a photograph that was a more accurate reflection of the crisis.</p>
<p>Despite photography’s shaky claim to an authentic truth or evidence as an impartial record of reality, it is expected to function as such. Institutions confer <a href="https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/the-burden-of-representation">credibility to photographs</a>, and photographs are put to use by institutions as “truthful evidence” as a result. </p>
<p>A central issue is that the photograph at the centre of this controversy was implied to provide evidence of Kate’s well-being. As the photograph was likely taken months before, heavily edited, and where the original unedited files were not produced for reference, the palace’s response was not sufficient to provide justification for the level of editing — whatever the reason for it might have been.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225647/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bethany Berard does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>What can we learn when a picture inspires ten thousand Tweets and TikToks.Bethany Berard, PhD Candidate & Instructor, Communication and Media, Carleton UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2255532024-03-12T03:25:40Z2024-03-12T03:25:40ZYes, Kate Middleton’s photo was doctored. But so are a lot of images we see today<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/581154/original/file-20240312-26-tb4sa3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=425%2C221%2C2598%2C1694&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation/Instagram/X</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Rumours and conspiracies have been <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/style/princess-kate-middleton-health.html">swirling</a> following the abdominal surgery and long recovery period of Catherine, Princess of Wales, earlier this year. They intensified on Monday when Kensington Palace released a photo of the princess with her three children.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="InstagramEmbed" data-react-props="{"url":"https://www.instagram.com/p/C4U_IqTNaqU","accessToken":"127105130696839|b4b75090c9688d81dfd245afe6052f20"}"></div></p>
<p>The photo had clear signs of tampering, and international wire services <a href="https://apnews.com/article/kate-princess-photo-surgery-ca91acf667c87c6c70a7838347d6d4fb">withdrew the image</a> amid concerns around manipulation. The princess later <a href="https://twitter.com/KensingtonRoyal/status/1767135566645092616">apologised for any confusion</a> and said she had “experimented with editing” as many amateur photographers do.</p>
<p>Image editing is extremely common these days, and not all of it is for nefarious purposes. However, in an age of rampant misinformation, how can we stay vigilant around suspicious images?</p>
<h2>What happened with the royal photo?</h2>
<p>A close look reveals at least eight inconsistencies with the image. </p>
<p>Two of these relate to unnatural blur. Catherine’s right hand is unnaturally blurred, even though her left hand is sharp and at the same distance from the camera. The left side of Catherine’s hair is also unnaturally blurred, while the right side of her hair is sharp.</p>
<p>These types of edits are usually made with a blur tool that softens pixels. It is often used to make the background of an image less distracting or to smooth rough patches of texture.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/581145/original/file-20240312-26-rhmkk1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/581145/original/file-20240312-26-rhmkk1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/581145/original/file-20240312-26-rhmkk1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/581145/original/file-20240312-26-rhmkk1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/581145/original/file-20240312-26-rhmkk1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/581145/original/file-20240312-26-rhmkk1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/581145/original/file-20240312-26-rhmkk1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/581145/original/file-20240312-26-rhmkk1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">At least eight logical inconsistencies exist in the doctored image the Prince and Princess of Wales posted on social media.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/C4U_IqTNaqU/">Photo by the Prince of Wales/Chart by T.J. Thomson</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Five of the edits appear to use the “clone stamp” tool. This is a Photoshop tool that takes part of the same or a different image and “stamps” it onto another part.</p>
<p>You can see this with the repeated pattern on Louis’s (on the left) sweater and the tile on the ground. You can also see it with the step behind Louis’s legs and on Charlotte’s hair and sleeve. The zipper on Catherine’s jacket also doesn’t line up.</p>
<p>The most charitable interpretation is that the princess was trying to remove distracting or unflattering elements. But the artefacts could also point to multiple images being blended together. This could either be to try to show the best version of each person (for example, with a smiling face and open eyes), or for another purpose.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1767135566645092616"}"></div></p>
<h2>How common are image edits?</h2>
<p>Image editing is increasingly common as both photography and editing are increasingly becoming more automated.</p>
<p>This sometimes happens without you even knowing.</p>
<p>Take HDR (high dynamic range) images, for example. Point your iPhone or equivalent at a beautiful sunset and watch it capture the scene from the brightest highlights to the darkest shadows. What happens here is your camera makes multiple images and automatically stitches them together to make an image <a href="https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/what-is-hdr-photography.html">with a wider range of contrast</a>.</p>
<p>While face-smoothing or teeth-whitening filters are nothing new, some smartphone camera apps apply them without being prompted. Newer technology like Google’s “Best Take” <a href="https://blog.google/products/photos/how-google-photos-best-take-works/">feature</a> can even combine the best attributes of multiple images to ensure everyone’s eyes are open and faces are smiling in group shots.</p>
<p>On social media, it seems everyone tries to show themselves in their best light, which is partially why so few of the photos on our <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15551393.2020.1862663">camera rolls</a> make it onto our social media feeds. It is also why we often edit our photos to show our best sides.</p>
<p>But in other contexts, such as press photography, the <a href="https://www.ap.org/about/news-values-and-principles/telling-the-story/visuals">rules are much stricter</a>. The Associated Press, for example, bans all edits beyond simple crops, colour adjustments, and “minor adjustments” that “restore the authentic nature of the photograph”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/three-images-that-show-wartime-photographs-can-have-greater-impact-than-the-written-word-216508">Three images that show wartime photographs can have greater impact than the written word</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Professional photojournalists haven’t always gotten it right, though. While the majority of lens-based news workers adhere to ethical guidelines like those published by the <a href="https://nppa.org/resources/code-ethics">National Press Photographers Association</a>, others have let deadline pressures, competition and the desire for exceptional imagery cloud their judgement.</p>
<p>One such example was in 2017, when British photojournalist Souvid Datta admitted to <a href="https://time.com/4766312/souvid-datta/">visually plagiarising</a> another photographer’s work within his own composition. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"859824132258537472"}"></div></p>
<p>Concerns around false or misleading visual information are at an all-time high, given advances in <a href="https://theconversation.com/nine-was-slammed-for-ai-editing-a-victorian-mps-dress-how-can-news-media-use-ai-responsibly-222382">generative artificial intelligence (AI)</a>. In fact, this year the World Economic Forum named the risk of misinformation and disinformation as the world’s greatest <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/01/ai-disinformation-global-risks/">short-term threat</a>. It placed this above armed conflict and natural disasters.</p>
<h2>What to do if you’re unsure about an image you’ve found online</h2>
<p>It can be hard to keep up with the more than <a href="https://theconversation.com/3-2-billion-images-and-720-000-hours-of-video-are-shared-online-daily-can-you-sort-real-from-fake-148630">3 billion photos</a> that are shared each day.</p>
<p>But, for the ones that matter, we owe it to ourselves to slow down, zoom in and ask ourselves a few simple <a href="https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck-resources/how-we-check-the-facts/">questions</a>:</p>
<p>1. Who made or shared the image? This can give clues about reliability and the purpose of making or sharing the image.</p>
<p>2. What’s the evidence? Can you find another version of the image, for example, using a <a href="https://tineye.com/">reverse-image search engine</a>?</p>
<p>3. What do trusted sources say? Consult resources like <a href="https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/">AAP FactCheck</a> or <a href="https://factcheck.afp.com/">AFP Fact Check</a> to see if authoritative sources have already weighed in.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/deepfakes-how-to-empower-youth-to-fight-the-threat-of-misinformation-and-disinformation-221171">Deepfakes: How to empower youth to fight the threat of misinformation and disinformation</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225553/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>T.J. Thomson receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is an affiliate with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society. Thomson collaborated with the Australian Associated Press in 2021 to produce fact-checking resources for its "Check the Facts" campaign.</span></em></p>The Princess of Wales is caught in a social media storm after the release of a clearly edited photo. But image editing is increasingly common, and your phone can even do it without you knowing.T.J. Thomson, Senior Lecturer in Visual Communication & Digital Media, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2189742023-12-01T14:06:47Z2023-12-01T14:06:47ZWhy some people from the north of England end up leaving everything to King Charles when they die<p>What connects an ex-miner and lifelong republican, who once manned the protest lines at Orgreave, with King Charles III? The surprising answer, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/23/turn-in-his-grave-the-dead-whose-assets-went-to-king-charles-estate">the Guardian reported</a>, is that the ex-miner’s estate now forms part of a fund which generates private income for the monarch. </p>
<p>The reason is the legal principle of <em><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/bona-vacantia">bona vacantia</a></em>. This is loosely translated as “ownerless goods” and refers to a process through which the estates of people who die without heirs in England and Wales are claimed by the crown. </p>
<p>The principle of <em>bona vacantia</em> operates when a person dies in England and Wales without leaving a valid will disposing of all of their assets and there is no heir to their estate under the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/inherits-someone-dies-without-will">intestacy rules</a>. These rules, set out in the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/23/contents">Administration of Estates Act 1925</a>, set out the classes of people who can inherit the property of an intestate (or partially intestate) person. </p>
<p>These classes are ranked and then gone through in order to see if an heir can be found. In broad terms, no surviving relative further away from the deceased than a first cousin can inherit. Remoter family members are generally excluded. When no one closer than a cousin can be found, the unclaimed part of the estate (the <em>bona vacantia</em>) passes to, and is collected by, the crown. </p>
<p>Most of these estates are claimed by the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/people/susanna-mcgibbon">Treasury solicitor</a>, the government legal department which handles the administration of the estate and then passes the surplus to the government for its general expenditure. </p>
<p>However, the estates of people who died resident in the historic County Palatine of Lancaster (including greater Manchester, Merseyside, Lancashire and the Furness area of Cumbria) pass under the <em>bona vacantia</em> rules to the Duke of Lancaster. That is, the current reigning monarch, King Charles. </p>
<p>The estates collected by the Duchy of Lancaster are incorporated into its private estate of land, property and assets, with the function of providing private income for the monarch. </p>
<p>This is an extremely ancient power, dating back to a 1377 grant made by Edward III to John of Gaunt when he was Duke of Lancaster. Today, it is part of the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/23/contents">Administration of Estates Act 1925</a>. </p>
<p>A similar rule applies to the estates of those dying within the county of Cornwall. These estates pass to the Duke of Cornwall, who is also the Prince of Wales, Charles’s son, William.</p>
<p>Although many of these unclaimed estates are not large, the aggregate sums received by the duchies are considerable. The Guardian reports that over the past ten years, the Duchy of Lancaster alone <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/24/kings-estate-facing-questions-over-14m-in-bona-vacantia-not-donated-to-charity">has collected around £61.8 million</a>. </p>
<p>The Treasury solicitor and the two duchies will advertise for any entitled relatives to come forward, and will make transfers to those entitled under the heirship rules. All three also have a discretion to make payments from the estate to those who may have a legitimate claim on it otherwise than through heirship, particularly under the provisions of the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/63">Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975</a>. </p>
<p>These include carers for the deceased person, or cohabitants. Some of the remainder is used for investment and to maintain duchy assets, and the surplus given to charity. </p>
<h2>A controversial change apparently benefits King Charles</h2>
<p>Many people are broadly aware, and broadly satisfied, that if they die without heirs, their property will go to the state in the form of the crown. However, when the Law Commission last consulted on the principles of intestacy and <em>bona vacantia</em> in 2011, some public unease about the point was detected. </p>
<p>A significant minority thought that the rule was anachronistic and that unclaimed assets should be given <a href="https://lawcom.gov.uk/document/intestacy-and-family-provision-claims-on-death-report/">directly to charity</a>. The Law Commission did not take this up, in part because the latest available reports and accounts at that time showed that the net proceeds of <em>bona vacantia</em> in both duchies passed entirely to charity.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A row of houses in a northern English village next to a bridge." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/562968/original/file-20231201-25-gxjwhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/562968/original/file-20231201-25-gxjwhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562968/original/file-20231201-25-gxjwhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562968/original/file-20231201-25-gxjwhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562968/original/file-20231201-25-gxjwhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562968/original/file-20231201-25-gxjwhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/562968/original/file-20231201-25-gxjwhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Property in an area of the Duchy of Lancaster.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/Fencewood Studio</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Guardian’s reporting has now revealed that there was an apparent significant shift in the administration of the Duchy of Lancaster’s funds in 2020. One particularly controversial change has been the alleged use of money to improve historic property within the Duchy’s portfolio, which is then rented out for profit. </p>
<p>The paper has also raised questions about how much of the duchy’s income is currently being paid to charitable causes, as this appears to have dropped. </p>
<p>There is the further question of whether it is fair, or relevant, that the estates of those who happen to die resident in Lancashire or Cornwall should become private assets of the monarch or his heir, while those who die resident elsewhere have their estates passed to the British state more generally. </p>
<p>Whatever the resolution of these issues may be, there is a clear message for those who strongly wish their estates to go to charity and not to the crown: make a will. </p>
<p>All wills can be drafted so that if there are no living heirs left, the estate can be given to a charity of the deceased’s choice as a fallback. Many charities offer will writing services which can help. When it comes to legacies, it’s essential to plan ahead.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/218974/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sheila Hamilton Macdonald does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Legal expert on the obscure law that makes King Charles and Prince Williams the heirs of people who die without wills or close relatives in Lancashire and Cornwall.Sheila Hamilton Macdonald, Senior Lecturer, specialising in Probate, Wills and Land, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2091822023-07-10T15:54:26Z2023-07-10T15:54:26ZHow to recognise a temperate rainforest in Britain and Ireland when you see one<p>The term “temperate rainforest”, or “Celtic rainforest”, has rapidly gained public attention in the UK recently. </p>
<p>In February 2023, British insurance company, Aviva, awarded <a href="https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/news/new-fund-help-wildlife-trusts-restore-rainforests-britain">£38 million of funding</a> for the restoration of these rainforests. These restoration efforts have even caught the interest of Prince William, who has announced plans to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/03/prince-william-to-expand-duchy-of-cornwalls-temperate-rainforest-wistmans-wood">double the size of Wistman’s Wood</a>, an iconic fragment of ancient woodland on his Dartmoor estate. </p>
<p>Britain was once covered with trees. But over thousands of years, ancient woodland in wetter areas of the country’s west were cleared and converted into pasture for sheep and cattle. By the start of the 20th century, Britain and Ireland had become the <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2018.00253/full">least-wooded region</a> in Europe, with only small fragments remaining in both countries’ western coastal rainforest zones.</p>
<p>But how much of this woodland actually counts as rainforest? The complex variation among different types of woodland makes it difficult to classify them as either rainforests or non-rainforests. And while the climate in Britain and Ireland is wet relative to the south and east of Europe, the question remains: how wet is wet enough to support a rainforest? </p>
<p>To understand if an area can support a rainforest, it’s important to consider not just the mean annual rainfall, but also that it rains across the seasons. Some areas in the Mediterranean basin receive the same amount of annual rainfall as parts of Great Britain. But this rain is concentrated in the winter, and prolonged periods of drought during the summer prevent the formation of a recognisable rainforest. </p>
<p>In Britain and Ireland, the climate is characterised by lower seasonality in rainfall, with dry summers being the exception rather than the rule. However, <a href="https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/approach/collaboration/ukcp/index">most climate models</a> predict that this will change in the future, meaning that fewer areas of these islands will be able to support rainforests.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A view of what remains of Wistman's Wood." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/536535/original/file-20230710-23-z8k8mq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/536535/original/file-20230710-23-z8k8mq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536535/original/file-20230710-23-z8k8mq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536535/original/file-20230710-23-z8k8mq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536535/original/file-20230710-23-z8k8mq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536535/original/file-20230710-23-z8k8mq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536535/original/file-20230710-23-z8k8mq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Prince William plans to double the size of Wistman’s Wood.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/view-wistmans-wood-dartmore-devon-england-2283975363">Bourne for nature/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But rainfall alone does not determine the presence of rainforests. The availability of water in the soil, which is influenced by factors such as soil depth, texture and organic matter content, plays a crucial role in supporting rainforest trees. Even in areas with high rainfall, thin soils can lead to conditions prone to drought. </p>
<p>So, this leaves us with a dilemma: how can you spot a rainforest in Britain and Ireland?</p>
<h2>1. Characteristic types of plant</h2>
<p>The most iconic plant types characteristic of temperate rainforests are the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/plant/epiphyte">epiphytes</a>. These are plants that grow above the ground and attach themselves to the stems of trees or shrubs. </p>
<p>Epiphytes, including <a href="https://www.britannica.com/plant/orchid">orchids</a>, are an important component of biodiversity in tropical rainforests. By contrast, most of the epiphytes in temperate rainforests are “lower plants”, such as ferns and plants lacking a vascular system to move water within them, like <a href="https://www.britannica.com/plant/moss-plant">mosses</a>, <a href="https://www.britannica.com/plant/liverwort">liverworts</a> and <a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/lichen">lichens</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A close-up shot of moss growing on a tree branch." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/536526/original/file-20230710-25-xsvb1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/536526/original/file-20230710-25-xsvb1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536526/original/file-20230710-25-xsvb1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536526/original/file-20230710-25-xsvb1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536526/original/file-20230710-25-xsvb1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536526/original/file-20230710-25-xsvb1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536526/original/file-20230710-25-xsvb1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Plants such as moss are characteristic of temperate rainforests.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/green-moss-grows-on-old-trees-2301179671">Alexandr Macovetchi/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>2. Horizontal precipitation</h2>
<p>Epiphytes gain some of their moisture from water that trickles down the trunks of trees during heavy rainfall (a process called “stem flow”). But these plants do not solely rely on rain. </p>
<p>In upland or coastal environments, where ground-level cloud or mist is common, another important source of moisture for epiphytes is horizontal precipitation (droplets of water that are suspended in the cloud). This moisture source is particularly important for the epiphytes that are most susceptible to drought, such as <a href="https://www.britannica.com/plant/Hymenophyllaceae">filmy ferns</a> and some mosses and lichens.</p>
<h2>3. Woody climbers</h2>
<p>The UK’s temperate rainforests have several other features that are reminiscent of their tropical counterparts. One such feature is woody climbers (or <a href="https://www.britannica.com/plant/liana">liana</a>) that use trees to ascend to the forest canopy. Classic examples of these plants in Britain and Ireland are <a href="https://www.britannica.com/plant/ivy-plant">ivy</a>, <a href="https://www.britannica.com/plant/Clematis">clematis</a> and <a href="https://www.britannica.com/plant/honeysuckle">honeysuckle</a>. </p>
<p>However, the presence of woody climbers alone is not indicative of a temperate rainforest. While ivy, for example, is most abundant in wetter forests, these three liana species can be found across a range of woodland types in Britain and Ireland, even in the drier eastern regions.</p>
<h2>4. Tree structure</h2>
<p>The species of tree found in rainforests in Britain and Ireland are not good indicators of their rainforest status. The dominant canopy tree in many is <a href="https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/british-trees/a-z-of-british-trees/sessile-oak/">sessile oak</a>, which is the same species that dominates many forests producing straight stems of high-quality oak timber in northern France.</p>
<p>What better distinguishes a rainforest in Britain or Ireland is the structural characteristics of the trees. In rainforests near the west coast, such as on Dartmoor, the trees tend to be short, with leaning trunks and low branches. </p>
<p>However, this small tree structure is unlikely to be a direct result of high rainfall. The canopy trees of temperate rainforests in even wetter areas of coastal Oregon, Washington State and British Columbia in North America reach at least twice the height (40 metres or more). The distinctive short stature of trees in Britain’s rainforests is instead probably influenced by a combination of factors, including exposure to high winds and infertile thin soils, both of which are characteristic of the Atlantic coastal and upland environments of western Britain and Ireland.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Small and twisted oak trees growing among rocks in a mossy wood." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/536537/original/file-20230710-25-x4od63.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/536537/original/file-20230710-25-x4od63.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536537/original/file-20230710-25-x4od63.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536537/original/file-20230710-25-x4od63.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536537/original/file-20230710-25-x4od63.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536537/original/file-20230710-25-x4od63.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536537/original/file-20230710-25-x4od63.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rainforest trees in Britain and Ireland tend to be short, with leaning trunks and low branches.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/twisted-gnarled-dwarf-oak-trees-growing-1817854715">Chris JG White/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The temperate rainforests of Britain and Ireland are rapidly assuming an iconic status, conjuring up a vivid image of mist, moss and convoluted trees. </p>
<p>But these woodlands are more than just visually captivating – they are rare habitats that are crucial for many endangered species, especially epiphytes. Unfortunately, they are also vulnerable to the effects of climate change. This makes them a fitting focus for new initiatives targeting their restoration.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Imagine weekly climate newsletter" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong><em>Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?</em></strong>
<br><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/imagine-57?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Imagine&utm_content=DontHaveTimeTop">Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead.</a> Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/imagine-57?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Imagine&utm_content=DontHaveTimeBottom">Join the 20,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.</a></em></p>
<hr><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209182/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Healey receives funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK Government, Welsh Government, Woodknowledge Wales. </span></em></p>Only fragments of Britain’s “temperate rainforest” remain – here’s some tips to help you identify one when you come across it.John Healey, Professor of Forest Sciences, Bangor UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1975792023-01-12T17:18:03Z2023-01-12T17:18:03ZLike Prince Harry a quarter of British people have consulted a psychic – here’s the science on why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504013/original/file-20230111-25-ebea6f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=98%2C53%2C5892%2C3314&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/magical-luminous-swirling-glowing-ball-palm-1658385709">Shutterstock/goffkein.pro</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Extracts from Prince Harry’s recently published memoir, Spare, reveal that he used <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11603541/Prince-Harry-contacted-psychic-reach-late-mother-Diana.html">a person with supposed psychic abilities</a> to contact his deceased mother, Diana, Princess of Wales. Diana was tragically killed in a car crash in Paris in 1997 when Harry was 12 years old. </p>
<p>The woman with undisclosed powers was recommended by a trusted friend. While Harry “recognised there was a high-percentage chance of humbuggery” associated with paranormal claims, when he met the women he reported “<a href="https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/culture/a42414998/prince-harry-woman-powers-message-princess-diana/">feeling an energy</a>”. Subsequently she relayed messages from Diana to him. </p>
<p>She told him that <a href="https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/culture/a42414998/prince-harry-woman-powers-message-princess-diana/">Diana was currently with him</a> and aware that he was confused and seeking clarity. Additionally, she knew he had several questions and that answers would emerge over time. Harry was also told that his mother had witnessed and was amused by his son, Archie, breaking a Christmas tree ornament in the shape of his grandmother, the Queen. </p>
<p>People with supposed paranormal powers such as those described by Prince Harry are typically referred to as psychics, mediums, or clairvoyants. Although the terms are often used synonymously, they have <a href="https://apnews.com/article/archive-9390228c3292452da78fd0f67aba261b">different meanings</a>. </p>
<p>Psychics are said to obtain information about people or events by connecting with “souls”. Mediums believe they can transmit and receive information from the deceased. Clairvoyants say they can see and sense things using their minds. Hence, all mediums are psychics but not all psychics are mediums. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, psychic claims have a <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-science-of-why-so-many-people-believe-in-psychic-powers-102088">dreadful reputation</a> and are typically denounced by wider society. This is due to infamous instances of fakery and the lack of support from <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/magazine/psychics-skeptics-facebook.html">objective science</a>.</p>
<p>Despite this, many people still continue to use them and a large proportion of the public – <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/16915/three-four-americans-believe-paranormal.aspx">over a quarter</a> according to a Gallup survey in the US – believe that humans have psychic abilities. </p>
<p>Indeed, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20145664">research</a> estimates that around 10% of the UK adult population regularly visits a medium. <a href="http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/2011-10-05/YG-Archives-Psychics-051011.pdf">A 2011 poll from YouGov</a> found around a quarter of British people have consulted a psychic, and well over half of these people believed they were truthful.</p>
<h2>Famous fakes?</h2>
<p>Notable historical cases of proven fraud include <a href="https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/53424/houdinis-greatest-trick-debunking-medium-mina-crandon">Mina Crandon</a>, (1888 to 1941) a psychic medium who claimed to channel her dead brother, Walter Stinson. Investigations revealed she had no paranormal powers and engaged in deception. She even tried to trick famed magician Harry Houdini but didn’t get away with it as Houdini foiled her plans. </p>
<p>Henry Slade was another notable fraudulent medium. He was repeatedly caught faking spirit messages in seances. He would place a small slate with a piece of chalk under the table and claimed spirits would use it to write messages. He produced his phenomena through a variety of magic tricks and by <a href="https://archive.org/details/behindsceneswit04abbogoog/page/n203/mode/2up?view=theater&q=slade">writing with his toes</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504007/original/file-20230111-26-pkf525.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="The funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales in black and white." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504007/original/file-20230111-26-pkf525.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504007/original/file-20230111-26-pkf525.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504007/original/file-20230111-26-pkf525.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504007/original/file-20230111-26-pkf525.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504007/original/file-20230111-26-pkf525.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504007/original/file-20230111-26-pkf525.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504007/original/file-20230111-26-pkf525.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales. Walking behind the coffin are Prince Charles, Princes William and Harry and Earl Charles Spencer.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-uk-6th-september-1997-editorial-357011507">Shutterstock/John Gomez</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But not all mediums and psychics deliberately set out to deceive people. An illustration of this is <a href="https://derekogilvie.com/">Derek Ogilvie</a>, who appears to genuinely believe he can <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/jun/19/familyandrelationships.tvandradio">telepathically communicate</a> with young infants. </p>
<p>In the 2007 Channel 5 TV documentary, <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13326918/">Extraordinary People: The Million Dollar Mind Reader</a>, Ogilvie <a href="https://cosmolearning.org/documentaries/extraordinary-people-the-million-dollar-mind-reader-1674/">failed to demonstrate</a> his abilities to the satisfaction of scientific experts. But the programme concluded that he was misguided rather than insincere. Ogilvie argued that he could only report what the baby was telepathically projecting and could not offer information on the parents, as one of the experiments requested.</p>
<p>The failure to <a href="https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/about-us/news/features/debunking-psychic-abilities">demonstrate paranormal abilities</a> in stringent, controlled conditions is well documented. For instance, <a href="https://web.randi.org/">James Randi</a>, an investigator and demystifier of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims, offered a prize of US$1 million (£820,000) to anyone, who could demonstrate a supernatural or paranormal ability under predetermined scientific testing criteria. Although the challenge ran between 1964 and 2015, no one was able to claim the money. </p>
<h2>Why people visit mediums</h2>
<p>Given such cases and the lack of scientific support, why then do people such as Prince Harry turn to people with <a href="https://www.vogue.com/article/why-do-people-become-addicted-to-psychics">supposed paranormal powers</a>?</p>
<p>Bereavement, also known as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-the-point-of-grief-137665">grief response</a>, is a life crisis that can negatively affect individual physical and psychological well-being. In this context, attempting after-death communication provides a continued bond between the living and the departed. Regardless of whether it is imagined, this can afford comfort and prove beneficial. </p>
<p><a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-35813-001">Research suggests</a> that people with stronger levels of belief in life after death will place greater faith and emphasis on the communications they receive from psychics.</p>
<p>Specifically, psychic contact enables the griever to work through and resolve issues or conflicts with the deceased. This allows relationships to transcend death and sustain the living.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504008/original/file-20230111-14-pkf525.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504008/original/file-20230111-14-pkf525.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504008/original/file-20230111-14-pkf525.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504008/original/file-20230111-14-pkf525.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504008/original/file-20230111-14-pkf525.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504008/original/file-20230111-14-pkf525.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504008/original/file-20230111-14-pkf525.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504008/original/file-20230111-14-pkf525.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Many psychics use tarot cards for readings.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/healthy-fashion-man-love-6944688/">Pexels/Mikhail Nilov</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The notion of communicating with a deceased loved one for many people also affords hope. It’s more palatable than the definite, perception of the end of life. It also allows the individual to re-frame their experiences and move on. </p>
<p>However, there are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4394851/">reports</a> of some people <a href="https://www.vogue.com/article/why-do-people-become-addicted-to-psychics">getting addicted</a> to psychic readings.</p>
<p>Attempts to contact departed loved ones fulfils the need to attempt to comprehend the unknown and make sense of our own existence. Explicitly, it can help to address anxieties arising from awareness of one’s own mortality. Visiting a medium also allows individuals to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/mishagajewski/2021/01/17/heres-why-some-people-say-they-hear-dead-people/?sh=14e90321439a">explore and experience wider aspects</a> of human existence. </p>
<p>Whatever the reasons, psychics, mediums and clairvoyants have been around for thousands of years and continue to be popular despite the lack of scientific evidence. Given the psychological need they appear to fulfil, it’s possible people will still be visiting them in another thousand years.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/197579/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How Prince Harry using a psychic to contact his dead mother, Princess Diana, isn’t that unusual.Ken Drinkwater, Senior Lecturer and Researcher in Cognitive and Parapsychology, Manchester Metropolitan UniversityNeil Dagnall, Reader in Applied Cognitive Psychology, Manchester Metropolitan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1906092022-09-16T15:19:08Z2022-09-16T15:19:08ZWilliam and Harry reunite to mourn the Queen — here’s why the death of a family member can bring siblings together<p>Much has been made of supposed tensions between princes William and Harry over the last few years. But in the wake of the Queen’s death we have seen the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62866247">brothers come together</a> with their family, uniting to pay tribute to their grandmother and take part in official mourning activities.</p>
<p>Regardless of speculation about their relationship, it is typical for sibling bonds to be bolstered or rekindled at critical moments such as the death of a family member. Often our longest lasting relationships, sibling relationships are far from static. </p>
<p>Being one in a series of siblings is significant to who we are, though this role evolves throughout our lives. Hierarchies associated with birth order and age gaps can shift or <a href="https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-981-287-026-1_7">even flip entirely</a> as siblings weather illnesses, bereavements, parenthood, marriages, divorces, redundancies and so on.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9781526142177/">my new research</a>, I’ve analysed over 100 adults’ written reflections about their sibling relationships, commissioned and archived as part of the UK’s <a href="http://www.massobs.org.uk/about/mass-observation-project">Mass Observation Project</a>. My findings reveal how critical life moments, such as the death of a family member, often led to these relationships intensifying and improving. This was true even between siblings who had not been in regular contact or whose relationship had become strained.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Quarter life, a series by The Conversation" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/quarter-life-117947?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=UK+YP2022&utm_content=InArticleTop">This article is part of Quarter Life</a></strong>, a series about issues affecting those of us in our twenties and thirties. From the challenges of beginning a career and taking care of our mental health, to the excitement of starting a family, adopting a pet or just making friends as an adult. The articles in this series explore the questions and bring answers as we navigate this turbulent period of life.</em></p>
<p><em>You may be interested in:</em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/hope-from-despair-how-young-people-are-taking-action-to-make-things-better-184859?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=UK+YP2022&utm_content=InArticleTop">Hope from despair: how young people are taking action to make things better</a></em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-how-careful-do-i-still-need-to-be-around-older-and-vulnerable-family-members-187556?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=UK+YP2022&utm_content=InArticleTop">COVID: how careful do I still need to be around older and vulnerable family members?</a></em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-gentle-parenting-an-expert-explains-184282?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=UK+YP2022&utm_content=InArticleTop">What is gentle parenting? An expert explains</a></em></p>
<hr>
<p>Many participants described coming together to care for ill parents and to sort out administrative logistics following their death. They were grateful that they did not have to bear these burdens alone. While William and Harry’s responsibilities certainly look quite different, the sight of them performing the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62864876">public face of mourning together</a> is a familiar one to many siblings.</p>
<p>It is not just the sharing of practical tasks that bring the significance of sibling relationships into sharp relief following a family death. Many participants wrote about reminiscing on shared childhood memories at this time, and a feeling of privileged knowledge about their family shared only with their sibling. </p>
<p>Siblings can be something of an “anchor” in these situations. They help one another feel grounded, and facilitate a sense of belonging in time as they age and their families change. </p>
<p>One 58-year-old man described how his relationship with his older brother and sister improved following the death of their parents. As children, his sister (ten years his senior) had irritated him by trying to “mother” him. He argued regularly with his brother as they struggled to share a cramped bedroom. Contact with his siblings decreased once they moved out of the family home but resumed as they supported their mother and made arrangements following the death of their father.</p>
<p>The writer had also recently lost his mother. With both his parents gone, his bond with his siblings, formed through shared childhood experiences of poverty, took on a renewed significance in his life. </p>
<p>Of course, William and Harry’s childhood experiences and adversities will have been quite different, and we have seen them come together to publicly mourn the death of their mother as children. The importance of shared childhood memories, whether happy or difficult, are often heightened following the death of a close family member. </p>
<h2>Coping without siblings</h2>
<p>Of course, siblings do not always come together at moments like this. Respondents who remained estranged from their sibling or who did not have siblings often felt the absence of this relationship more strongly following a family bereavement or illness. Many “only children” in their 20s, 30s and 40s described feelings of trepidation about future caring responsibilities, which they worried about shouldering alone. </p>
<p>One 48-year-old man wrote poignantly about his sister’s terminal cancer diagnosis, and the strangeness of realising that they would not grow old together. He would have to face the responsibilities and challenges of caring for ageing parents alone.</p>
<p>One writer in her 40s described the ways her relationship with her sister, who is five years younger, improved in adulthood. The irritations and injustices of their childhood faded and their age gap felt less significant, allowing them to become friends. </p>
<p>However, this writer expressed worries about the future of her relationship with her sister. She envisioned a “nightmare” time trying to negotiate caring responsibilities for their mother in her old age.</p>
<p>William and Harry are living their family bereavement on the world stage. In many ways, their caring responsibilities bear little resemblance to the financial and time pressures that many families experience at times of loss. However, sibling bonds are special. </p>
<p>Even where relationships are turbulent, having siblings can feel something like travelling through life with a convoy. They anchor us to our past, and the background sense of “being there for us” can be revived at key moments in life, like the death of a parent or grandparent.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190609/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katherine Davies does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Sharing administrative tasks and reminiscing on family moments can bring siblings together during tough times.Katherine Davies, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1708542022-09-08T17:40:28Z2022-09-08T17:40:28ZThe death of Queen Elizabeth: Canada became less British during her reign<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483523/original/file-20220908-13-3li9h2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C35%2C4754%2C3134&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Queen in Manitoba during a 1970 royal tour. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Peter Bregg</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" allow="clipboard-read; clipboard-write" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/the-death-of-queen-elizabeth--canada-became-less-british-during-her-reign" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>The death of Queen Elizabeth, the longest reigning monarch in British history, marks the end of an era for Canada. </p>
<p>Elizabeth witnessed the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959, the expansion of Canada’s social programs in the 1960s, the Québec referendums <a href="https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/quebec-referendum-1980">in 1980</a> and <a href="https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/quebec-referendum-1995">in 1995</a>, <a href="https://www.trade.gov/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta">free-trade agreements</a> with the United States and <a href="https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/if-he-invokes-emergencies-act-justin-trudeau-will-be-following-his-fathers-lead">father-and-son prime ministers</a>. In 1982, <a href="https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/politics-government/proclamation-constitution-act-1982/Pages/proclamation-constitution-act-1982.aspx">she signed the proclamation that repatriated the Constitution</a>, ending the role of the British Parliament in Canada’s affairs. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A black and white photo shows a woman in a pale-coloured suit with a man in a suit and a fedora." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447416/original/file-20220220-42352-nar9l4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447416/original/file-20220220-42352-nar9l4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447416/original/file-20220220-42352-nar9l4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447416/original/file-20220220-42352-nar9l4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447416/original/file-20220220-42352-nar9l4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447416/original/file-20220220-42352-nar9l4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447416/original/file-20220220-42352-nar9l4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Queen Elizabeth and U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower at the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in June 1959.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(National Archives of Canada)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>During her long reign, Canada became dramatically less anglophone and anglophile. Nearly half of Canadians were of British ancestry when she assumed the throne in 1952, but that <a href="https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016016/98-200-x2016016-eng.cfm">decreased to one-third in 2016</a> and continues to decline.</p>
<p>In the 1950s, high-school students across English Canada waved the Union Jack, sang the royal anthem (<em>God Save the Queen</em>), said the Lord’s Prayer and cheered cadet corps dressed in British khaki. Elizabeth saw the replacement of the Union Flag by the Maple Leaf in 1965, and the royal anthem <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/O-Canada">by <em>O Canada</em> in 1980</a>. </p>
<p>Over seven decades, Elizabeth successfully transitioned from embodying the key traditions and beliefs of many, to a warmly regarded, but not particularly significant, figure in the lives of Canadians. She remained personally popular in Canada, although <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/past-royal-tours.html">she spent relatively little time (about 200 days)</a> in the country over visits that averaged one every three years. </p>
<p>Her dedication to the job as monarch was viewed favourably, as was the absence of scandal in her personal life. She harnessed goodwill from Canadians mostly as an individual, rather than as the hereditary head of an institution while acting as a living link to Canada’s days as a colony in the British Empire.</p>
<h2>Charles lacks popularity</h2>
<p>A poll on her performance, conducted in 2020, found <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-polls/Amid-Royal-Rifts-The-Queens-Approval-Rating-Remains-High-But-Slim-Majority-Skeptical-Of-Monarchs-Future">eight in 10 Canadians believed that the Queen has done a good job in her role as monarch</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447412/original/file-20220220-42890-m6bt19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A grey-haired man in a blue suit stands next to a woman in a beige coat and hat." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447412/original/file-20220220-42890-m6bt19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447412/original/file-20220220-42890-m6bt19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447412/original/file-20220220-42890-m6bt19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447412/original/file-20220220-42890-m6bt19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447412/original/file-20220220-42890-m6bt19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=975&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447412/original/file-20220220-42890-m6bt19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=975&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447412/original/file-20220220-42890-m6bt19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=975&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Prince Charles and Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall stand, in London in October 2015.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Chris Jackson/Pool Photo via AP)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But the poll also found that half of Canadians agree that the country should terminate formal ties to the monarchy after the end of Elizabeth’s reign. </p>
<p>And a more recent poll in 2021 found that only <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/lifestyle/canadians-desire-to-drop-monarchy-reaches-historic-level-poll-1.5330650">one in five Canadians want to see Prince Charles become king</a>, while only one in three would like Prince William to ascend to the throne.</p>
<p>Elizabeth’s successors — Charles, whose time as king given his age (73) will be relatively short, and William, who will follow — assume the job at a different time in Canada’s history.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="The Duke and Duchess wave as the Duchess holds her daughter and the Duke holds the hand of his son." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483524/original/file-20220908-9292-wgegdj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483524/original/file-20220908-9292-wgegdj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483524/original/file-20220908-9292-wgegdj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483524/original/file-20220908-9292-wgegdj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483524/original/file-20220908-9292-wgegdj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483524/original/file-20220908-9292-wgegdj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483524/original/file-20220908-9292-wgegdj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and their children Prince George and Princess Charlotte get on a float plane as they prepare to leave Victoria, B.C., during a royal tour in 2016.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Charles takes on the job as head of state for a Canada almost unrecognizable from what the country was in 1952 in terms of the role of religion in the lives of its citizens, the diversity of its inhabitants and its geo-political relations. </p>
<p>Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been carefully non-committal on the future of the monarchy. <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-monarchy-meghan-harry-interview-1.5942549">In March 2021, he said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“If people want to later talk about constitutional change and shifting our system of government, that’s fine. They can have those conversations.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>With a minority government, he may be hesitant to spend political capital on constitutional reform. </p>
<h2>Gauging the mood</h2>
<p>On the other hand, prime ministers are opportunists. The transition to a new monarch — an event that has not occurred in the lifetime of the vast majority of Canadians – is an occasion to gauge the mood of the populace and review existing arrangements. </p>
<p>The constitutional file has a special appeal for politicians looking to create or cement a legacy. Pierre Trudeau’s defining triumph was repatriating the Constitution, a few years after his <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/photographer-reflects-on-pierre-trudeau-s-iconic-pirouette-photo-1.2673598">iconic pirouette behind the Queen’s back</a> in 1977 during a G7 summit. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A man pirouettes behind a woman and two men in an ornate setting." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447413/original/file-20220220-42352-xcjk14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447413/original/file-20220220-42352-xcjk14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447413/original/file-20220220-42352-xcjk14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447413/original/file-20220220-42352-xcjk14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447413/original/file-20220220-42352-xcjk14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447413/original/file-20220220-42352-xcjk14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447413/original/file-20220220-42352-xcjk14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pierre Trudeau pirouettes behind Queen Elizabeth II during a May 1977 photo session at Buckingham Palace in London.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Doug Ball</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Elizabeth’s great accomplishment, aided by genes that allowed an extraordinarily long and healthy life, was to keep at bay discussions of the future of the monarchy in Australia, New Zealand and the <a href="https://www.royal.uk/commonwealth-and-overseas">other former British colonies of which she was the head of state</a>. Her death will permit debate and deliberation to start. </p>
<p>As Canadians mourn the passing of the Queen, they should also reflect on the continued relevance and meaning of the monarchy in a nation reconciling with its colonial past and seeking its place on a complex global stage.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/170854/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thomas Klassen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Queen Elizabeth harnessed goodwill from Canadians mostly as an individual, rather than as the hereditary head of an institution. But her death will lead to debate about the relevance of the monarchy.Thomas Klassen, Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, York University, CanadaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1640342021-07-06T15:56:27Z2021-07-06T15:56:27ZDiana statue and the tension between the public and private British monarchy<p>One statue went up, another came down. As the sons of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, came together at Kensington Palace last week for the unveiling of the statue they had commissioned to commemorate their mother’s 60th birthday, a crowd in Canada gathered to <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57693683">overturn a statue of their grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II</a>. </p>
<p>The Canadian protest was against post-colonial ties with Britain, after the <a href="https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2021/07/03/more-graves-are-found-at-canadian-schools-for-the-indigenous">recent discovery</a> of the bones of children who died in schools dedicated to the eradication of indigenous language and culture, the last of which closed as late as the 1990s. The Diana statue unveiling, by contrast, was a private affair, with only Spencer family members present.</p>
<p>But nothing about Diana has been private since her name was first linked to Prince Charles’ back in 1980. No sooner was the statue revealed than the fans started arriving, some old enough to remember their own encounters with the princess, others who knew her only as a memory. </p>
<p>They surely didn’t come to admire the aesthetics – the statue has been described as “<a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/art/what-to-see/kitsch-archaic-princess-diana-statue-people-pleasing-dud/">kitsch</a>” and “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/jul/01/the-diana-statue-ian-rank-broadley-sculpture">an awkward, lifeless shrine</a>”. People were there to reflect on Diana herself, “a powerful woman”, “a beautiful person”, “a wonderful mother”, as the interviewees for Sky News <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/princess-diana-statue-royal-fans-offer-their-reviews-after-being-allowed-to-visit-for-first-time-12347519">described her</a>, one of them inevitably quoting Diana’s description of herself as, “the queen of people’s hearts”. </p>
<p>It is 40 years since her wedding and 24 since her death, yet still she attracts both crowds and headlines. Why?</p>
<h2>Woman of many roles</h2>
<p>Part of the reason lies in the ever-changing narrative that is woven around her. First the fairy tale romance, then the popular princess, the lonely victim, the wronged wife (or the media-savvy manipulator if you prefer – alternative narratives were always available). And finally the martyred saint – an image given a new lease of life by the recent revelations about the way she was tricked into her famous 1995 BBC <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/panorama.html">Panorama interview</a> by the journalist Martin Bashir. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/diana-statue-what-it-reveals-about-the-challenges-of-sculpting-famous-people-163849">Diana statue: What it reveals about the challenges of sculpting famous people</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But the real significance of her memory cult lies in her relationship with that other royal woman, whom she learned to call “mama” and whose statue was toppled even as Diana’s was unveiled: Elizabeth II. At Diana’s funeral, the Queen did something whose full significance might not have been apparent to the millions who witnessed it: she bowed her head to a subject.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5w0U_igM_hE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Monarchs do not bow to their subjects – even dead ones. To do so is to erase the very basis of monarchy, the “divinity that doth hedge a king”, as <a href="https://www.yorknotes.com/alevel/english-literature/hamlet-advanced/study/the-text/01150100_act-iv-scene-5">Shakespeare put it</a>. It might almost have seemed a form of abdication, except that the Queen was not really bowing to Diana herself, but to what she had become – a powerful focus of public faith, evoking the sort of emotional outburst usually associated with evangelical rallies.</p>
<h2>Symbols of power</h2>
<p>With monarchy, symbols are everything: they are about authority and power or they are nothing, which, of course, is why overturning royal statues can be so satisfying. In her statue, Diana is shown surrounded by children, in a pose strangely reminiscent of the <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/15310845/princess-diana-nursery-school-teacher/">pre-marriage photos of her as a nursery assistant</a>. There are no crowns or tiaras, no cloaks, not even a handbag. </p>
<p>It is a symbol of empathy, of feeling and of love. It’s hard to imagine this Madonna-like statue being overturned (though, on aesthetic grounds alone, some might think that a good idea). Nevertheless, even among the admirers, there were occasional notes of concern. As one visitor put it, instead of three anonymous children around her, it would have been nice to see her sons there. </p>
<p>Diana’s posthumous impact on the monarchy has been huge, but the legacy she leaves lies in the <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9720813/Prince-Charles-reportedly-shellshocked-William-Harrys-rift.html">strained relations between her sons</a>. Those who see Diana primarily as a victim will inevitably be drawn to Harry, the troubled prince who finally found happiness in an unexpected marriage, but one which led to his separation from the royal family. </p>
<p>Those who see Diana primarily as one who, in her own way, sought to serve others will see those characteristics in William, duty-bound and a fiercely loyal member of the royal family. Their mother’s statue brought them together but not for long: Harry jetted back to the US the following day.</p>
<p>Diana wanted to be loved – and being loved can certainly come with the crown, but public affection can be fickle, as the Queen knows only too well – and it is certainly not what monarchy is there for. </p>
<p>Monarchs’ statues can be toppled and their <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jun/09/president-of-oxford-college-defends-students-right-to-remove-photo-of-queen">photos taken down from university common room walls</a>. This comes with the territory and is – perhaps perversely – a sign that the symbolism of monarchy still matters. </p>
<p>Diana’s cult, as carried on by Harry and Meghan, will doubtless continue to rule in people’s hearts. But monarchy, as represented by William and his family, will still rule in their heads – even at the cost of the occasional toppled statue.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/164034/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sean Lang does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The late Princess of Wales has become a vehicle for others to reflect their own feelings.Sean Lang, Senior Lecturer in History, Anglia Ruskin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1638492021-07-06T10:27:45Z2021-07-06T10:27:45ZDiana statue: What it reveals about the challenges of sculpting famous people<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/409613/original/file-20210705-27-1q3abs0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1920%2C1080&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sculptor Ian Rank-Broadley photographs his sculpture of Princess Diana</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV8-BBBLJ04">YouTube/BBC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The excitement around the uncloaking of a statue of Diana, Princess of Wales, at Kensington Palace on what would have been her 60th birthday seemed to spread around the world last week. But it wasn’t just the prospect of the reunion of Prince William and Prince Harry that sent the press and the public wild with anticipation. </p>
<p>In fact, like many tributes made in the images of the public figures we revere, it was also the appearance of the sculpture itself. Here was a memorial to a woman with one of the most recognisable faces in the world - but did it actually look like her? According to many critics, not quite. These reactions reveal the danger of sculpting a modern media star in bronze.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57684597">The sculpture</a> of Diana with three children is by Ian Rank-Broadley. You might not know the name, but you will know his work. His <a href="https://www.royalmint.com/royalty/queen-elizabeth/">1998 profile of Queen Elizabeth II</a> circulates on UK and Commonwealth coins. He has made relief portraits of Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. <a href="https://www.ianrank-broadley.co.uk/work/michael-sandle-ra/">His medals are outstanding</a>, and he has made several public memorial sculptures. This sort of work demands a conservatism on the sculptor’s part, and there are few British sculptors with the practised ability – or inclination, perhaps – to work in this way.</p>
<p>Critics have been <a href="https://hyperallergic.com/660933/newly-unveiled-princess-diana-sculpture-prompts-criticism/">harsh</a> about Rank-Broadley’s sculpture. The Guardian’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/jul/01/the-diana-statue-ian-rank-broadley-sculpture">Jonathan Jones</a>, for example, writes that it was “modelled apparently with thickly gloved hands and no photo to consult”. He gets it wrong. The surface of the sculpture is uncomfortably smooth – over rather than under controlled. And there are far too many photos of Diana for any one person to contend with.</p>
<p>The basic problem is put in simple terms by <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9753181/PATRICK-JEPHSON-says-Diana-statue-isnt-going-shake-rafters-sculptor-impossible-task.html">Diana’s former private secretary</a>: Diana “was the most photographed woman in history and everybody has their own idea of what she should look like”. </p>
<h2>The decline of figurative sculptures</h2>
<p>The challenge of photography to sculpture is bigger than just this example. We see so many photographs each day that their conventions <a href="https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/196/196428/how-to-see-the-world/9780141977409.html">shape the way we think about and see the world</a>. To get a sense of what I mean by this, imagine a photograph of an athlete crossing the finishing line. Such an image may well impress the viewer, but it doesn’t seem strange. Take the same image into drawing, or even more so into sculpture and it looks contrived, like <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXrwWnu7agk">Han Solo frozen in carbonite</a>. </p>
<p>Figurative sculpture has been in crisis for a century. From 1850, across Europe and the US, there was a <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/40988487?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=statuomanie&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dstatuomanie&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A9a689c2088b1478cb6885bff4738bc57">mania for statues</a>. But by around 1910 the public had already had enough. The need for memorials following the two world wars provided an unfortunate, brief stimulus but in western democracies, the very idea of a public language for sculpture was tainted by the revival of figuration in both fascist and communist dictatorships. </p>
<p>Consequently, sculpture followed the movement of paintings from the academy to the studio, from public conversation to private innovation. Today, there are few art schools in the UK where a student can learn how to model in clay. It’s as though this skill is no longer needed. To cap it all, our public sculptures seem to increasingly be on the wrong <a href="https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/statues-of-victoria-and-elizabeth-ii-toppled-in-winnipeg-by-protestors-angry-at-deaths-of-indigenous-children?utm_source=The+Art+Newspaper+Newsletters&utm_campaign=4a496d55f4-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2021_07_01_09_27&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c459f924d0-4a496d55f4-62204362">side of history</a>. There is now no commonly accepted style for public figurative sculpture on which the sculptor might rely.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/edward-colston-museum-display-what-happens-next-for-the-fallen-statue-162376">Edward Colston museum display: what happens next for the fallen statue</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Analysing the Diana sculpture</h2>
<p>This does not mean that the artist has free reign. The most important person is the sculptor’s subject, not the sculptor. The result for Rank-Broadley’s Diana is an impersonal and awkward smoothness. The sculptor has stepped back too far from the work. It’s an oddly airbrushed image. Compare this sculpture with Oscar Nemon’s rugged <a href="https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw236307/Oscar-Nemon-the-Queen-Mother-and-Baron-Harding-of-Petherton-with-Nemons-statue-of-Viscount-Montgomery-of-Alamain">Viscount Montgomery of Alamain</a>, or Jacob Epstein’s bust of the Italian actor <a href="https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw126248/Gina-Lollobrigida-with-her-bust-by-Sir-Jacob-Epstein?search=sp&OConly=true&sText=jacob+epstein&wPage=2&rNo=48">Gina Lollobrigida</a> and you will see what I mean: the hair, clothing and skin are modelled differently and with character.</p>
<p>The sculptor’s efforts are more apparent in the statue’s composition. Diana’s stance is protective and maternal, like a madonna. This protective pyramidal composition draws attention to its apex, which is formed by Diana’s head. The emphasis is skilfully balanced by her strong horizontal belt, which is at head height to the two children in front. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1410614124745134080"}"></div></p>
<p>This gives the children a stronger presence, and it seems important to the meaning of the work, speaking both to the princes’ relationship with their late mother and of Diana’s interest in children. These aspects are both symbolically and sculpturally successful. Interestingly, the belt and the rest of Diana’s attire seem to come straight from the photograph shown above.</p>
<p>But an unfortunate consequence of this strong, protective shape is that it is so stable that it appears static. Here again, the camera works against the artist. The nation’s memory of Diana is of a mercurial, light and tragically brief life, a figure in motion. Diana was many things, but she was not stolid. What works for the sculpture is at odds with our televisual expectations. </p>
<p>In the laconic utterance of one art historian who preferred to remain unnamed, sculpting is <a href="https://www.theartnewspaper.com/blog/quite-butch-or-wonderful-new-statue-of-princess-diana-seriously-splits-opinion">“a tough gig”</a>“.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/163849/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benedict Carpenter van Barthold does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Reactions to the new figure embody the problems that come with recreating the images of modern iconsBenedict Carpenter van Barthold, Pricipal Lecturer, School of Art & Design, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1051752018-10-18T14:22:06Z2018-10-18T14:22:06ZPrince William shows conservation still has a problem with ‘white saviours’<p>Prince William recently spoke at one of the largest illegal wildlife summits ever held in London. He said, “Poaching is an economic crime against ordinary people and their futures.”</p>
<p>The quote could have been better. Poachers, after all, are merely the <a href="http://thewire.wikia.com/wiki/Corner_Boys">corner boys</a> of the global illegal wildlife trade, the ones who benefit least financially and risk most, usually their lives. They’re ordinary people too, and vilifying them is not getting to the heart of the issue. </p>
<p>William had travelled to Tanzania, Kenya and Namibia in September and October this year, to learn about conservation, and a video of his trip to Tanzania was presented to the attendees. It did not go down well with various NGOs and campaigners who accused the video of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/oct/12/prince-william-accused-of-white-saviour-mentality-over-wildlife-conservation-video-tanzania">promoting a “white saviour” image</a>, given that only one African, a student, spoke to the camera, while the rest of the interviewees were international participants.</p>
<p>Certainly, the team making the video could have better selected the participants and had a wider range of people speak. But that would be putting a sticking plaster over a very serious wound. There are fundamental issues at the heart of conservation, which as a movement was built on inequality and can also perpetuate that same inequality. </p>
<p>In the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/oct/12/prince-william-accused-of-white-saviour-mentality-over-wildlife-conservation-video-tanzania">Guardian’s</a> reporting of the Prince William incident, Dr Mordecai Ogada, director of Conservation Solutions Afrika, said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Conservation even now, nearly 55 years after Kenya got independence, is still the one arena where Prince William can waltz in to Kenya and tell us he wants us to do this, that or the other … He couldn’t do that in education, banking or other fields, but conservation still has that romantic, Out of Africa feel about it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is the bigger issue we should be having a conversation about. Why, decades after the independence of many countries in the Global South, does conservation still have this (neo-)colonial undertone?</p>
<h2>Colonial history cannot be ignored</h2>
<p>In conservation, history is always present. Across the Global South, researchers like me often work in post-colonial landscapes, areas marked by evictions, forced settlement of herders, the fencing of large swathes of land for private use, or other access restrictions. This, understandably, can foster resentment, disenfranchisement and anger in people living in those regions. </p>
<p>I’ve looked at elephants in South Africa’s Kruger National Park, for instance, where the very name “Kruger” is divisive given he was an Afrikaner leader with a <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2637390?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents">dubious relationship to conservation</a>. There, the government has settled land claims of people who were dispossessed from the park land – for example, in 2016, six communities received <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-21/south-africa-settles-kruger-game-reserve-land-claims">84m rand</a> (£4.5m). Rates of visiting the park are <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09669582.2014.940045?src=recsys">still recovering</a> from the fact that generations of South Africans who were classified as “non-white” were denied access to large sections of national parks under apartheid.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241258/original/file-20181018-67167-7k2x7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241258/original/file-20181018-67167-7k2x7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241258/original/file-20181018-67167-7k2x7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241258/original/file-20181018-67167-7k2x7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241258/original/file-20181018-67167-7k2x7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241258/original/file-20181018-67167-7k2x7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241258/original/file-20181018-67167-7k2x7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241258/original/file-20181018-67167-7k2x7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Paul Kruger looks over the park that bears his name.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Felix Lipov / shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I recently attended a session on human and wildlife “conflict” and coexistence in southern India. I realised this wasn’t a simple north-south issue. A lot of my Indian colleagues had also been trained under our current ideas about anthropogenic activities threatening biodiversity. This concept can risk bleeding into a perception of humans themselves being the threat. For example, an article in Nature on <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22900#access">future threats to biodiversity and paths to prevent them</a> takes on the distinctly misanthropic and negative “<a href="https://nypost.com/2017/06/01/humans-are-killing-the-planet-and-all-its-inhabitants/">humans are killing the planet and all its inhabitants</a>” when reported in the New York Post.</p>
<p>At the same meeting, I heard sentiments way too close for comfort to the “noble savage” trope about communities, in this case local ethnic minorities, who live alongside wildlife. I was disappointed that we seemed to reduce people to bad guys, victims, or romanticise them even though conservation paradigms have supposedly shifted to <a href="https://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-2/conservation-in-the-Anthropocene/">centring, or at least considering people</a>. As we talked about low-paid immigrant workers on tea plantations, I noticed there weren’t any representatives present. This risks them being “othered” and the psychological distance creating a space for us to accept them facing risks, like being <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42733022">killed by an elephant</a> as they walked to work.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241269/original/file-20181018-67176-3sxjq4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241269/original/file-20181018-67176-3sxjq4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241269/original/file-20181018-67176-3sxjq4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241269/original/file-20181018-67176-3sxjq4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241269/original/file-20181018-67176-3sxjq4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241269/original/file-20181018-67176-3sxjq4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241269/original/file-20181018-67176-3sxjq4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241269/original/file-20181018-67176-3sxjq4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Wild elephants are a big danger for workers on India’s tea plantations.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Hari Mahidar / shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I talked to a journalist colleague in Johannesburg and she shared a similar sentiment, the world wants wildlife stories about a collectively imagined “wild Africa”, not human stories. Because the human stories are complex, less palatable, and potentially threatening to biodiversity. And it’s a shame because Johannesburg is such a vibrant hub of entrepreneurship and creativity. We should be leaping onto that for conservation and collaborating, not seeing it as the opposition.</p>
<p>I am not naïve enough to think that the global distributions of funding and biodiversity map onto each other. In fact, it’s no coincidence that richer countries have lost most of their large mammals in favour of agricultural, industrial and urban development. But how can we manage the funding and conservation efforts without perpetuating the “white saviour” issue? </p>
<p>The answer to me is clear. Conservation can’t be the preserve of people who can afford international travel and to take unpaid internships. We can make choices about communication, participation, training, educating, hiring, salaries, promotion and project leadership (let’s not trap people in assistant positions) and focus on diversity in those. The opening to every conservation text book reads like the fall from the garden of Eden and we have to turn that around; people (and not just white people) are the opportunity.</p>
<p>Skills in spatial analysis, human behaviour, modelling data are vital to a vibrant and technology-driven approach to conservation and these are marketable skills. We need to capture this exceptional human talent, make sure a wide range of people have access to funding and ensure people feel heard in conservation so they choose to make it their career. There are already some incredible leaders and people sharing platforms, and hopefully Prince William will do that in his next speech.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105175/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hannah Mumby receives funding from the Drapers' Company through Pembroke College, Cambridge and the Branco-Weiss Society in Science Fellowship administered by the ETH, Zurich. She is a Research Fellow in the Conservation Science Group at the Department of Zoology at the University of Cambridge and Honorary Fellow at the Centre for African Ecology at the University of Witwatersrand. She has had fellowships and/or grants from the Cambridge Africa fund, NERC, the DST and NRF, the Fulbright Commission and the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin. She's worked with the non-profit Elephants Alive but these opinions are entirely her own.</span></em></p>A movement built on inequality can also perpetuate that same inequality.Hannah Mumby, Research Fellow, Department of Zoology, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/815522017-08-03T01:13:37Z2017-08-03T01:13:37ZDiana revived the monarchy – and airing old tapes won’t change a thing<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180654/original/file-20170802-11377-a6fbr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Queen Mother, Diana, Princess of Wales and Prince Harry ride in their carriage from Buckingham Palace in 1992. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kevin Lamarque/Reuters</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>August 31 marks the 20th anniversary of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales in a car crash in Paris. It is already the subject of widespread coverage, with commemorative editions of magazines and television documentaries about her life and death. This is in marked contrast to the relatively subdued acknowledgement of earlier anniversaries. </p>
<p>Diana’s sons, Princes William and Harry, are using the occasion to commemorate their mother’s memory and to emphasise the lasting effect she had on the British monarchy. They are leading a media campaign that suggests the monarchy is as popular today because of their mother’s legacy, not in spite of it. </p>
<p>The queen, in particular, now stands as one of the most popular and long-reigning monarchs Britain has ever had. Such is her popularity, it seems very likely that she will remain a royal favourite despite the renewed interest in her and Diana’s often difficult relationship. </p>
<p>Many will view with interest the candid videos of Diana talking about her neglect and unhappiness within the royal system – <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/29/diana-tapes-reveal-queens-reply-to-sobbing-plea-loveless-marriage?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other">and at the hands of the monarch in particular</a> – which the UK’s ITV/Channel 4 is due to air this month. However, William’s and Harry’s early intervention into their mother’s story will hold sway with the public. It’s likely the monarchy – embodied with traces of Diana’s face and charm in the guise of the young princes – will be invigorated, not diminished, by her memory.</p>
<p>The ITV/Channel 4 tapes of Diana’s “interview” with her voice coach Peter Settelen (never an interview so much as a training tape Diana recorded in 1991-1993 as a way of improving her public speaking skills) were aired on NBC in the US in 2004 and have been widely available on the internet ever since. The site has always enjoyed thousands of hits.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/A3OyVhfKtjA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Nonetheless, the revelations contained in the Settelen tapes have not prevented the rise of the queen’s popularity, even among so-called “Diana-rists”. If anything, ITV’s broadcast of the tapes will offer the Windsors new opportunities to demonstrate the rehabilitation of their public image; emphasising again that their main concern has been, as always, the wellbeing of Diana’s sons. This will not do them any harm at all.</p>
<h2>An ill-judged response</h2>
<p>This was not the case in 1997, when the royals’ ill-judged response to Diana’s death presented the royal house with one of its greatest challenges in modern times. The queen’s personal approval rating dipped, according to IPSOS polls, to 66%, down from ratings in the 70-plus range that she had enjoyed since the 1950s. Prince Charles’s rating dropped to 59%, with only 36% believing he should ever be crowned. </p>
<p>Something had to be done. The Windsors mobilised and invested in some serious (and seriously expensive) public relations consultants to resuscitate their popularity.</p>
<p>Hitherto, generations of palace press secretaries had followed a PR rule that they should “never explain” and “always deny everything” to the media. Diana, by contrast, consistently, almost obsessively, broke with this code. Her direct contact with the public via the media redrew the lines of engagement between the palace and the press for ever more.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180655/original/file-20170802-11382-1k2uxb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180655/original/file-20170802-11382-1k2uxb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180655/original/file-20170802-11382-1k2uxb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180655/original/file-20170802-11382-1k2uxb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180655/original/file-20170802-11382-1k2uxb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180655/original/file-20170802-11382-1k2uxb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180655/original/file-20170802-11382-1k2uxb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180655/original/file-20170802-11382-1k2uxb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Charles and Diana at a Korean War commemorative service in November 1992.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is an interesting coincidence that the 20th anniversary of Diana’s death aligns almost exactly with the 100th anniversary (July 17, 1917) of the royal house’s change of name from “Saxe-Coburg and Gotha” to “Windsor” in response to anti-German sentiment during the first world war. King George V, like his grand-daughter Queen Elizabeth II, knew a thing or two about monarchical survival.</p>
<p>The reaction to Diana’s death taught the Windsors that they needed to be more in touch with their and their public’s “feelings”. The queen once said, “I have to be seen to be believed,” but by the late 20th century the British public didn’t think this was enough. The royals had to be seen to be caring and in touch with the public to earn the people’s faith in the institution.</p>
<p>Boosting her public persona in this way had never been part of the queen’s make-up. Yet, in the Diana funeral week, she responded to advice from her household staff and from the prime minister, Tony Blair, and cut short her annual stay at Balmoral to come down to London to walk among the mourning crowd. She stood and listened to their stories of loss and she allowed the Union Flag to fly at half-mast above Buckingham Palace for the first time.</p>
<h2>Irony and emoting</h2>
<p>The queen, famously and on the record, does not do “stunts”. Nowadays she doesn’t only do more public “emoting”, but she also has been known to gesture ironically at herself – for instance, at the opening of the 2012 London Olympics when she was “seen” to be exiting a helicopter with Daniel Craig/James Bond. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1AS-dCdYZbo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>William will be king one day; he looks like a Spencer; his tenure in the palace will encompass the traditions of the QEII age but will be redrawn in a modern context. The centrality of William and Harry to the reconfiguration of the Windsors in the 21st century is a deft way, too, of side-stepping the less popular idea that Charles, not William, will accede to the throne after the queen dies.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180656/original/file-20170802-11377-1s58ijr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180656/original/file-20170802-11377-1s58ijr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180656/original/file-20170802-11377-1s58ijr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180656/original/file-20170802-11377-1s58ijr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180656/original/file-20170802-11377-1s58ijr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180656/original/file-20170802-11377-1s58ijr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1069&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180656/original/file-20170802-11377-1s58ijr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1069&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180656/original/file-20170802-11377-1s58ijr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1069&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Prince William last month: he looks like a Spencer.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The “Diana-fication” of the monarchy is perhaps nowhere better represented than in a <a href="https://au.pinterest.com/pin/554857616563751823/">recent portrait of the queen</a> by artist Kim Dong-Yoo that depicts an image of the smiling Elizabeth made up entirely of 1,106 individual pixelated images of the princess.</p>
<p>Recent IPSOS MORI polls have shown that the monarchy’s popularity – the queen’s in particular – is as strong as it was when she came to the throne in 1953. This is a remarkable feat in an increasingly culturally diverse and fractured Britain. In 1997, many predicted that the monarchy as an institution was in its death throes; today, public discourse points to it being an unwavering symbol of stability and endurance in a post-Brexit Britain.</p>
<p>Popular expression of the high regard in which the queen is held can be found in the spate of recent biopics about the royal family. Films such as Stephen Frears’s <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436697/">The Queen</a>, Tom Hooper’s <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1504320/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">The King’s Speech</a> and, most recently, Peter Morgan’s <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4786824/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">The Crown</a> have been engaged in a project of re-centring the monarch at the heart of a royal narrative that had otherwise been overtaken by the tales of domestic scandal and woe of the Charles and Diana years.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JWtnJjn6ng0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>In the early 1990s, the sovereign may well have had moments of wishing that her former daughter-in-law, the self-styled “Queen of People’s Hearts”, would simply fade away quietly. Little would she have realised that Diana, her heart rended asunder in a car crash in a Paris tunnel, would become instead the catalyst for the monarchy’s own rehabilitation of itself at the heart of the British nation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81552/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Giselle Bastin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In the 20 years since the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, the monarchy has been remade largely in her own image.Giselle Bastin, Associate Professor of English, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/773472017-05-15T08:15:34Z2017-05-15T08:15:34ZIn defence of the British stiff upper lip<p>In April, Prince Harry disclosed the turmoil he suffered <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/16/prince-harry-sought-counselling-death-mother-led-two-years-total/">by “shutting down”</a> his emotions in the years following the death of his mother, Diana, Princes of Wales. His brother, Prince William, condemned the stigma surrounding mental illness and urged people to talk more openly about their emotions. </p>
<p>For many observers, this was a key moment in the history of Britain’s emotional culture. The convention of not disclosing one’s feelings, even in the most extreme of circumstances, had apparently been abandoned in that last redoubt of what William himself termed the British “stiff upper lip”: the royal family.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"854390710006665216"}"></div></p>
<p>The House of Windsor has all too regularly exposed the dangers of excessive emotional restraint. The uncompromising formality that characterised George V’s dealings with his children <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/King_Edward_VIII.html?id=odBTVkiVnA4C&redir_esc=y">contributed</a> to Edward VIII’s adult immaturity and George VI’s <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/George_VI.html?id=fVQQuQAACAAJ&redir_esc=y">chronic shyness</a>, speech impediment and notoriously explosive temper. </p>
<p>Elizabeth II’s rigorous adherence to the protocols of self-restraint in the immediate aftermath of Diana’s death in 1997 suggested that the Queen was out of step with the changing emotional temper of her subjects. And despite the young princes’ efforts to modernise the emotional culture of the royal family, real change may have to await the passing, not merely of the current sovereign, but of her son, the future Charles III. </p>
<p>Saying farewell to some of the less prepossessing connotations of the stiff upper lip – notably its association with hierarchical representations of class, gender and race – should come easily to progressive-minded people. However, emotional self-control and detachment should not be stereotyped as merely archaic survivals from a now vanished imperial and social order. Representing the “stiff upper lip” as an essentially elite public school creation that was subsequently foisted on the rest of the population ignores the broader currency of emotional restraint among all classes in 20th-century Britain. </p>
<h2>Leaving it unsaid</h2>
<p>In World War II, in particular, the suppression of nervous strain was presented as a <a href="http://player.bfi.org.uk/film/watch-london-can-take-it-1940/">genuinely national virtue</a> that transcended class and gender differences. The underplaying of deep emotion went on to become a cliché in popular representations of the British officer class during the war and the immediate postwar years – and an object of scathing contempt in the “<a href="https://youtu.be/ZZaBbH4bCjY">satire boom</a>” of the early 1960s. </p>
<p>Yet, small gestures and veiled words, rather than rage or tears, were no less pertinent in a scene in Noel Coward’s cross-class wartime naval drama <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034891/">In Which We Serve</a> during which robustly working-class seaman Shorty Blake (John Mills) calmly informs stoical lower-middle-class petty officer Walter Hardy (Bernard Miles) that his wife has been killed in the Plymouth blitz. Restraint of emotion did not necessarily imply the absence of emotion. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ci0OLNp61Z0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>In the 1940s and 1950s, the playwright Terence Rattigan succeeded in creating characters who – while superficially understated and undemonstrative – also succeeded in conveying powerful forces of human desire and compassion. Today, both Rattigan’s work and other classic texts of British emotional restraint such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2011/mar/16/journeys-end-review">Journey’s End</a> and <a href="https://www.southbankcentre.co.uk/whats-on/92094-brief-encounter-2017">Brief Encounter</a> are once again popular. This suggests that British audiences remain convinced that feelings are no less authentic for not being fully disclosed. </p>
<p>By contrast, the uninhibited emotional spasms of Jimmy Porter in John Osborne’s 1956 play <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2003/may/21/theatre.samanthaellis">Look Back In Anger</a> now seem both dated and intrinsically phoney. This was the work that supposedly ushered in an era of increased authenticity in British culture and rendered Rattigan’s restraint an elitist anachronism. Yet, in Osborne’s play, Porter’s vituperative outbursts have a destructive impact on those around him. This should serve as a warning that the freedom to express one’s emotions cannot be unequivocally promoted as an inalienable right.</p>
<h2>Room for restraint</h2>
<p>It would be a tragedy if a commendable desire to improve mental health acted as cover for further encouragement to the less salubrious attributes of our era: narcissism, incivility, the devaluation of privacy and a relentless promotion of immediacy and sensation over contemplation and thought. </p>
<p>Hopefully nobody would begrudge the two princes for wanting to open up about the grief and trauma that so unexpectedly shattered their young lives. However, would we want to be quite so indulgent if those emotions that an individual wishes to share are not grief, fear or anxiety, but anger, hatred and contempt?<br>
US president Donald Trump’s alarming early morning tweets suggest that this may not be the best historical moment to insist on loosening the protocols of emotional restraint in public life. In this sense, if nothing else, the stiff upper lip – provided we refuse to approach it through lazy stereotypes – still has a great deal to recommend it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77347/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Francis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Emotional restraint in public life has a lot going for it.Martin Francis, Professor of War and History, University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/659882016-09-26T11:26:12Z2016-09-26T11:26:12ZWilliam and Kate – and Canada’s complex relationship with the crown<p>Canada is hosting a visit from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the first few days of the trip have proven to be a huge pictorial success. The photogenic royals and their equally glamorous hosts, prime minister Justin Trudeau and his wife Sophie, have provided the world’s press with plenty to splash over the weekend newspapers and bulletins. But, pretty pictures aside, this trip is prompting some interesting constitutional questions. </p>
<p>This isn’t just a visit from the British royal family – Queen Elizabeth II is queen of Canada and, as such, Kate and William are part of the Canadian royal family. Under Canada’s quite separate constitutional law, this is an institution differentiated from the British monarchy. </p>
<p>As with Australia – which has had a well-documented debate on the merits of republicanism versus monarchism – Canada’s relationship with the crown is complex. <a href="http://www.utppublishing.com/The-Invisible-Crown-The-First-Principle-of-Canadian-Government.html">Many have argued</a> that the politics of Canadian monarchism are not properly understood – and <a href="http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/289/majority-dont-want-prince-charles-as-head-of-state/">a 2015 poll</a> found that while less than half (39%) of respondents wanted to abolish the monarchy, nearly three-quarters (73%) believed the head of state should be born and/or live in Canada. The queen is considered Canadian according to law, but this doesn’t change the fact that she’s primarily the British monarch. <a href="https://www.royal.uk/canada">The official royal website</a> reads:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Canada has been a monarchy for centuries – first under the kings of France in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, then under the British Crown in the 18th and 19th centuries, and now as a kingdom in her own right … The territories which now form Canada came under British power at various times by settlement, war or cession.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The blasé and uncritical phrasing completely overlooks the history of colonialism. It might now be a “kingdom in its own right” but what does it mean when this kingdom’s head of state is a white, British woman? If these territories were ruled by Britain “by settlement, war or cession” what are the politics of retaining an Anglo-Canadian monarchy?</p>
<p>Further colonial memories are evoked with William and Kate’s trip. Their itinerary includes visits to groups such as Heiltsuk First Nations: a community of tribal groups in British Columbia. However, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/23/william-kate-duke-duchess-cambridge-urged-confront-colonial-wrongs-canada?CMP=share_btn_tw">as critics have pointed out</a>, this visit fails to acknowledge a violent colonial history between the crown and these communities – the consequences of which are still being felt today. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/16/canada-first-nations-suicide-crisis-attawapiskat-history">Broken promises</a> made to the communities during treaties has led to widespread poverty, homelessness, disease, violence against women and a massively inflated suicide rate. These communities have been protesting against <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/07/canada-water-crisis-puts-first-nations-families-risk">alleged abuses of indigenous treaty rights</a> by the Canadian government, as well as organising an <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/aboriginal-day-of-action-unfolds-peacefully-1.638605">Aboriginal Day of Action in 2007</a> aimed at ending First Nations poverty. </p>
<h2>Regretful past</h2>
<p>What role are popular culture heroes William and Kate playing in this history then? <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/23/william-kate-duke-duchess-cambridge-urged-confront-colonial-wrongs-canada?CMP=share_btn_tw">Some have suggested</a> they will be “confronted” by the horrors of Britain’s colonial past – but to what extent will they actually face up to the realities of empire? </p>
<p>They are to be greeted by Heiltsuk First Nations with a welcome celebration, where we’ll no doubt be treated to more images of royals getting “involved” with traditional culture by standing by in Western dress watching natives dance around them, perhaps being <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/tuvalu/9549814/Duke-and-Duchess-carried-on-thrones-in-Tuvalu.html">carried on homemade thrones</a> like they were in Tuvalu in 2012.</p>
<p>If they do acknowledge the history of the region, it’s incredibly unlikely that this will include an apology or even a recognition of Britain’s involvement. In 2011 the queen made a well-publicised “apology” to Ireland, but all this apology entailed <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/may/18/queen-ireland-apology-britains-actions">was her saying</a> that “with the benefit of historical hindsight we can all see things which we wish had been done differently, or not at all”. That’s more a commentary than anything else. </p>
<p>In 2012, Prince Harry was due to visit Jamaica when the prime minister, Portia Simpson Miller, invited Britain to apologise for the “wicked and brutal” slave trade. She further suggested Jamaica would be looking to replace Elizabeth II as head of state. Upon Harry’s arrival, all controversy appeared to have been forgotten. Harry and Simpson Miller <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-harry/9127123/Prince-Harry-meets-Jamaican-prime-minister-Portia-Simpson-Miller.html">hugged, kissed and held hands</a> for an official photocall and there was no sniff of an apology for the duration of the trip. </p>
<p>If Britain’s former colonial possessions are happy enough to go along for the ride on these royal visits – as they mostly appear to be – then there is little pressure for an apology, which suits the royals just fine.</p>
<h2>Question of sovereignty</h2>
<p>As far as I can find, there is no official protocol for these royal “apologies”. The monarchy’s relationship with decolonised territories is strange and varied. The Commonwealth still has <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-told-prince-charles-he-could-be-head-of-the-commonwealth-51271">many troubling relations to empire</a> which don’t perhaps attract the attention they might. The queen herself has never attended an independence ceremony upon decolonisation, but always sends a royal representative – an odd procedure when the monarchy is the very institution the territory is distancing itself from. </p>
<p>But this raises interesting questions about the constitutional role of the monarchy today. At the time of historical settlement and war in Canada, the British monarchy was absolute – and solely responsible for the development of treaties and law. Now the relationship is constitutional, how is the British government implicated in this history? We know that the British government reviews – and sometimes even composes – all of the queen’s speeches except her Christmas speech. If she had ever apologised for colonial misdeeds, this would have been with the express permission of the British government. How does the British constitution function – and who really controls the crown as an institution: the queen or Theresa May? </p>
<p>Even though her role as queen of Canada is independent of her British sovereignty, this Canadian visit raises interesting questions about remnants of colonial rule in modern states. If William and Kate should apologise for violent histories, what are the implications for Canada’s royal family? Will the Canadian monarchy be abolished upon the queen’s death? How does British constitutionalism function alongside the queen’s other sovereignties? </p>
<p>They may try and distract us with cute photographs of the royal grandchildren, George and Charlotte, but these are the questions that need to be asked.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65988/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laura Clancy receives funding from the ESRC and the AHRC.</span></em></p>The royal visit to Canada raises some important constitutional questions.Laura Clancy, PhD Candidate, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/408092015-05-02T19:12:15Z2015-05-02T19:12:15ZBaby’s first photo call: how the royals learned to act normal<p>After a day of waiting, the world’s press got their first look, and first photographs, of the newest member of the royal family at around 6pm on May 2. The picture of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge standing outside the hospital doors, new baby in Kate’s arms, will be one of the defining images of the year.</p>
<p>The young parents may well have been relieved by the lower level of frenzy that has surrounded the birth of their second child. For one thing, it probably made the whole experience a lot easier to deal with. But for another, it helps William and Kate cement their status as the most “normal” royals in the palace.</p>
<p>Taken literally, the royal family is, just that – a family, albeit with a dynasty spanning thousands of years. But the idea of the monarch and their relatives as an exemplary, model unit has been a key aspect of royal family PR for more than 100 years.</p>
<h2>The road to normal</h2>
<p>The value of presenting the royals as ordinary people was first recognised during Queen Victoria and Prince Albert’s reign in the 19th century. The couple’s down-to-earth attitude and strict standards of personal morality made them icons of Victorian values. And the marriage of their nine children into various European royal dynasties earned Victoria the nickname “the Grandmother of Europe”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79368/original/image-20150426-14581-1f9avez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79368/original/image-20150426-14581-1f9avez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79368/original/image-20150426-14581-1f9avez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79368/original/image-20150426-14581-1f9avez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79368/original/image-20150426-14581-1f9avez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=588&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79368/original/image-20150426-14581-1f9avez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=588&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79368/original/image-20150426-14581-1f9avez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=588&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Victoria and Albert, waiting for a takeaway.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Around 100 years later, during World War II, King George VI’s two daughters, Princess Elizabeth (now Queen Elizabeth II) and Princess Margaret, were used by the government as an emblem of national loyalty and wartime stoicism.</p>
<p>Their apparent steadfastness in the face of wartime threats and sacrifices was illustrated by photographs of the young girls in a variety of relaxed, carefree poses. These were aimed at reassuring the public of their collective safety – even if the pair were generally positioned in front of unidentifiable backdrops to shield their location from potential attacks.</p>
<p>The national affection for the family, and in particular for Princess Elizabeth, never waned, and her accession in 1952 when she was already a mother to two young children – Charles and Anne – was a popular move.</p>
<p>The decline of the British Empire and the rise of the Commonwealth placed the new queen at the apex of a worldwide, multicultural family, and so it followed that she must exhibit comfort and contentment with her “normal” family life.</p>
<p>This idea of normality became central to the workings of the royal institution and the monarchy was pushed to embrace the popularity of television and the illusion of intimacy this promoted.</p>
<p>In 1969 the family featured in the first royal <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNgO31HUiFM">fly-on-the-wall documentary</a>, which showed them cooking a barbecue together at Balmoral. The Queen prepared salad while Charles and Anne grilled sausages. The documentary was hugely popular at the time, even if it is now <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1346984/The-home-movie-doesnt-want-Why-Queen-STILL-keeping-wraps-fly-wall-film-changed-view-Royals.html">embargoed by the Queen</a>.</p>
<h2>21st century normal</h2>
<p>This iconography of family values is now best embodied by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. After the birth of Prince George in 2013, they were pictured sitting on the grass in the Middleton family garden, along with their dog Lupo, mirroring the pose of the Queen’s family 53 years earlier. No doubt with baby Cambridge number two, a similar shot will be produced.</p>
<p>This is partly just a reflection of celebrity culture in general, where public relations are enhanced through carefully managed and structured intimacy. The royal family is, after all, an institution like any other, with <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04xtmvf">press relations officers and spin doctors aplenty</a>.</p>
<p>But there is also more than a hint of class disguise at play when William and Kate spread out on the lawn. As <a href="http://www.bookdepository.com/Talking-Royal-Family-Professor-Michael-Billig/9780203314067">Michael Billig</a> wrote, this performance of ordinary is part of “an ideological job of settlement” which staves off antipathy towards royal privilege from the lower classes. To maintain their popularity (and, ironically, their superiority), they have realised they must be relatable and in touch with everyday values.</p>
<p>This has been perfected by <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/28/comment-royal-baby-kate-william">yummy mummy Kate and everyman William</a>, who have successfully embodied what looks to all intents and purposes like an upper middle-class lifestyle – despite the vast hereditary wealth and hundreds of staff at their disposal. The very image of the couple on the grass with baby George is carefully choreographed to match the middle-class ideal, right down to being taken in the Middleton family garden, and there’s certainly no opulent palace towering behind them.</p>
<p>Likewise, seeing William emerge from a hospital wing carrying his new child in a car seat, before driving her and his wife back home himself, mirrors the experience of many young fathers, even if the gaggle of press watching his every move (and the helicopter tracking his car) does not.</p>
<h2>The trouble with normal</h2>
<p>But as the real middle class is being squeezed ever tighter by <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-simple-win-win-case-for-higher-wages-in-britain-37074">stagnant wages</a>, the rising cost of living and low employment rates, is it helpful to have Kate and William, whose second home <a href="http://www.theweek.co.uk/59880/anmer-hall-inside-william-and-kates-country-home">Amner Hall</a> cost the taxpayer millions to refurbish, as the pin-ups of upper middle-class aspirations?</p>
<p>These images are essentially propaganda. They mask William and Kate’s class privilege and hereditary wealth, and most importantly, their constitutional and institutional power.</p>
<p>The monarchy may not be politically powerful in any traditional sense, but it is still extraordinarily socially, culturally and economically powerful. And in an age in which <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/26/crisis-what-crisis-britains-richest-double-their-wealth-in-10-years">inequality is rising beyond recognition</a>, masking this power is particularly dangerous. It normalises upper-class lifestyles, luxury consumption and hierarchical class structure. It makes colossal wealth inequality into a natural fact of life, and intensifies the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/09/children-uk-victorian-conditions-inequality-child-poverty">contemporary stigma</a> attached to the working classes. </p>
<p>As the whole world melts into a typically <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/royal-baby-the-most-tenuous-pr-campaigns-surrounding-the-birth-of-the-spare-heir-10195513.html?dkdk">sycophantic puddle</a> over Kate and William’s daughter, we need to start addressing the mythology that surrounds the couple. We shouldn’t forget that the monarchy is an institution – and a powerful one at that.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40809/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laura Clancy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How the royal propaganda machine tries to make hereditary millionaires seem just like the rest of us.Laura Clancy, PhD Student, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/408122015-05-02T12:08:11Z2015-05-02T12:08:11ZRoyal baby: it’s a girl! And thank heavens she wasn’t born in 1516<p>A new member of the British royal family has been born, in the form of a daughter to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"594443545118924800"}"></div></p>
<p>The royals have received warm congratulations from the prime minister, deputy prime minister and the leaders of the opposition parties.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"594445455330795520"}"></div></p>
<p>But the birth of an English princess has not always been a cause for celebration. In February 1516 the Venetian ambassador congratulated Henry VIII upon his daughter’s birth, remarking that “the state would have been yet more pleased had the child been a son.” Henry replied that “if it was a daughter this time, by the grace of God the sons will follow.”</p>
<h2>Cast out</h2>
<p>In centuries past, an English princess was a valuable prize on the royal marriage market. Royal women were expected to secure marriages with foreign princes in order to create diplomatic links with other kingdoms. These marriages helped cement the power of the monarchy on the European stage. </p>
<p>Royal women might also marry into the English nobility, creating blood ties between the monarch and his most powerful courtiers. But these unions were also subject to the changing political fortunes of the time.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79501/original/image-20150427-18138-1gfz9fa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79501/original/image-20150427-18138-1gfz9fa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=663&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79501/original/image-20150427-18138-1gfz9fa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=663&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79501/original/image-20150427-18138-1gfz9fa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=663&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79501/original/image-20150427-18138-1gfz9fa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=833&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79501/original/image-20150427-18138-1gfz9fa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=833&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79501/original/image-20150427-18138-1gfz9fa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=833&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A drawing of the young Joan of England.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JoanEngland.jpg">Wikipedia</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some unions were doomed never to take place. <a href="http://historyofengland.typepad.com/blog/2013/10/107-the-death-of-joan.html">Princess Joan</a> was only 14 when she died of plague in 1348 en route to her wedding in Castile.</p>
<p>Still, other princesses were destined for a happier fate. </p>
<p>Princess Mary was married to the ageing Louis XII in 1514. He died just a few months later, apparently worn out by his exertions in the bedchamber. The widowed Mary defied her king and <a href="http://englishhistory.net/tudor/relative/charles-brandon-mary-tudor/">secretly married the Duke of Suffolk</a> when he arrived in France to accompany her home. It was a rare example of a royal princess who was able to marry for love.</p>
<p>Still other princesses never married and were dedicated to a religious life. <a href="http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/inconvenient-woman.html">Princess Bridget</a> was sent to Dartford Priory in Kent to become a nun in around 1487.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79485/original/image-20150427-18170-1c3ggnn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79485/original/image-20150427-18170-1c3ggnn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79485/original/image-20150427-18170-1c3ggnn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79485/original/image-20150427-18170-1c3ggnn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79485/original/image-20150427-18170-1c3ggnn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79485/original/image-20150427-18170-1c3ggnn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79485/original/image-20150427-18170-1c3ggnn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Princess Mary Tudor.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/60861613@N00/6813430647/sizes/l">lisby1</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Despite their royal blood, the daughters of a king were not, in the past, expected to sit upon the throne in their own right.</p>
<p>It was believed that women by their nature were unfit to exercise power; God, it was argued, had created women to be under obedience to men. Henry VIII firmly believed the wisdom of his age, and famously married six times in his quest to secure a male heir.</p>
<p>His daughters Mary and Elizabeth eventually ascended to their father’s throne and became the first ruling queens of England. Both came to the throne with popular support, but they also faced uphill battles to establish themselves as female rulers.</p>
<p>The institution of monarchy in England was gendered male, from the language of royal business to the coronation ritual itself, which involved 15 knights of the bath plunging naked into a tub and receiving a kiss on the shoulder from the king. Mary I was forced to reassure her subjects that her sovereignty would not be threatened when she married Prince Philip of Spain – whereas Elizabeth I famously refused to take a husband throughout her long reign.</p>
<h2>Equal footing</h2>
<p>Since the 16th century, England has been ruled by a number of queens. Two of them, Elizabeth I and Victoria, have given their names to golden ages.</p>
<p>Despite all this progress, princesses have only recently assumed an equal footing with their brothers in one important aspect of royal life: it was not until a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15492607">landmark ruling in 2011</a> that the eldest child of the monarch was ruled to take precedence in the succession regardless of their sex.</p>
<p>The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s as-yet-unnamed daughter becomes fourth in line to the throne, bumping her uncle, Prince Harry, down into fifth place. </p>
<p>The birth of Prince George in 2013 means that England will see at least three future generations of kings. But even if this baby never makes it to the throne, the birth of an English princess is at least a cause for celebration these days.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40812/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lynsey Wood does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The life of a princess has traditionally not been pleasant.Lynsey Wood, PhD Student, Associate Lecturer, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/393702015-03-26T03:21:27Z2015-03-26T03:21:27ZPower to the princesses: Australia wraps up succession law changes<p>A small blow was struck for women on Thursday. At 11am, laws came into effect across the Queen’s Realms to change the rules of succession to the throne, with retrospective application back to 2011. Males are no longer favoured over females, so that an older sister will become sovereign ahead of her younger brother. </p>
<p>In a further blow to long-entrenched discrimination, a person will not lose his or her right to succession to the throne for marrying a Catholic.</p>
<p>This does not remove all discriminatory aspects of the rules of succession. Family and religion still play a critical role. A person can only be sovereign if he or she is a Protestant who is “in communion” with the Church of England, and can only inherit the throne if he or she is descended from Sophia, Electress of Hanover. That rules out most of us.</p>
<p>Most people probably thought that these changes were done and dusted after <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth_Agreement">agreement was reached</a> in Perth in 2011 to implement them. However, <a href="http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchandcommonwealth/queenandcommonwealth/whatisacommonwealthrealm.aspx">16 realms</a> have Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state. In addition to the United Kingdom, they include Australia, New Zealand and Canada, as well as a number of Caribbean and South Pacific countries.</p>
<p>Since 2011, a mammoth effort has been undertaken to ensure the rules of succession will be the same in each of these realms, so that in future the Crown remains held by the same monarch. Australia was the last realm to complete its legislation. As a consequence, on March 26 the changes to succession to the Crown across all the realms came into effect simultaneously at 11am Australian Eastern Daylight Time.</p>
<h2>Changing the rules, realm by realm</h2>
<p>In some of the realms, no action was needed. For example, the <a href="http://www.tuvaluislands.com/const_tuvalu.htm">constitution of Tuvalu</a> states that Queen Elizabeth II:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… having at the request of the people of Tuvalu graciously consented, is the Sovereign of Tuvalu and, in accordance with this Constitution, Head of State.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This vests the queen’s sovereignty in the choice of the people, rather than inheritance, colonial rule or “the grace of God”.</p>
<p>However, for the future, the constitution vests the power to make laws about succession to the Tuvaluan Crown in the Parliament of Tuvalu, but says that, in the meantime, whoever is the monarch of the United Kingdom is sovereign of Tuvalu. Having not legislated on the subject, the parliament has left this for the British to determine.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DWmAOjm0TVk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Other countries, such as Australia, Barbados, Canada, New Zealand, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, and St Vincent and the Grenadines, have passed legislation to give effect to the changes. The process was more difficult in Australia and Canada as they are both federations with entrenched constitutions.</p>
<p>Canada courted controversy by ignoring its provinces and seeking to avoid amending its constitution by asserting that whoever is queen of the United Kingdom is automatically queen of Canada. This has, unsurprisingly, <a href="http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/royal-succession-laws-challenged-in-bid-to-renew-constitutional-debate-1.1320560">led to litigation</a> and the possibility that the Canadian laws of succession will be out of kilter with those of other realms. </p>
<p>Australia took the more cautious approach of consulting the states and co-operating with them to achieve a constitutionally effective change. It used a fairly obscure constitutional provision, which allows the Commonwealth to legislate, at the request of all the states directly concerned, to do something that only the UK Parliament could have done at federation (that is, change the rules of succession to the throne).</p>
<p>Over the past two years, each state has enacted its own legislation, requesting the Commonwealth to enact the law to implement these changes. Western Australia was the last state to pass its <a href="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/sttca2015269/">request Act</a> earlier this year and the Commonwealth has now <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5419">passed its law</a>. All of these laws are being brought into effect simultaneously across the realms.</p>
<h2>‘Tis still treason to violate the king’s unmarried daughter</h2>
<p>The exercise highlighted the relics of British law that remain part of Australian law. For example, the New South Wales request legislation gave effect to amendments to the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3Stat5/25/2/section/II">Treason Act of 1351</a>, which still applies as part of NSW law. Under that law, it is treason to “compass or imagine” the death of the king or his queen or their eldest son and heir, or to violate the queen or the eldest daughter of the king if she is unmarried. </p>
<p>No doubt the people of NSW will be most relieved to know that, as from March 26, it will also be treason to imagine the death of the king’s eldest daughter if she is his heir. But it will no longer be treason to violate the wife of the king’s eldest son unless he is the heir. Violation of the eldest daughter of the king remains treason as long as she is unmarried. </p>
<p>One of the few consequences of substance of this exercise in changing the rules of succession to the Crown is its effect upon marriages. Under the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/apgb/Geo3/12/11/contents">Royal Marriages Act 1772</a>, the descendants of George II who failed to obtain the monarch’s permission prior to marrying had their marriage declared void.</p>
<p>This potentially applies now to many people, probably including some Australians, who have no idea that they need the monarch’s permission before they can marry. That Act has now been repealed and any marriages that would otherwise have been invalid for lack of royal permission will be validated. We can now all breathe easier.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39370/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anne Twomey receives funding from the ARC and occasionally does consultancy work for governments. She provided some unpaid assistance to governments in relation to the legal changes necessary to implement the agreed new rules of succession to the throne. She is also an expert witness in the Canadian litigation concerning the changes to succession to the Crown.</span></em></p>The Crown has become a little less discriminatory with changes to the rules of succession – and descendants of George II who failed to get permission to wed need no longer fear their marriage is void.Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/390382015-03-20T14:13:26Z2015-03-20T14:13:26ZWhy do Americans fawn over British royalty?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196577/original/file-20171127-2089-7z59j7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Britain's Prince Harry and his fiancee Meghan Markle appear on the grounds of Kensington Palace in London, Nov. 27, 2017.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Britain-Royal-Engagement/d7b5358a87eb49f78ef7b2bad9a61d05/10/0">AP Photo/Matt Dunham</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>After months of speculation, profiles and fawning coverage in U.S. media outlets, Prince Harry will finally marry American actress Meghan Markle on May 19.</p>
<p>But what’s with Americans’ fascination with the British monarchy in the first place? It might seem strange, given the nation’s decision to sever ties with George III in 1776. No royal family from any other nation has induced the same level of scrutiny or celebration. </p>
<p>It’s important to recognize that British royals have been eliciting similar responses on American shores for the last 150 years</p>
<p>In 1860, Prince Albert Edward (the future King Edward VII) staged a surprisingly successful American tour, during which he was <a href="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo5550062.html">mobbed by fans</a> in cities including Chicago, Albany and Detroit. In 1939, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth made similar headlines when they ate their <a href="http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/aboutfdr/pdfs/royal_picnicmenu.pdf">first hot dogs</a> in Hyde Park, New York, urged on by President Roosevelt and his wife, Eleanor. </p>
<p>And then there was the frenzy surrounding Prince Charles and Princess Diana’s visit to Washington in 1985. President Reagan may have mistakenly referred to Diana as “Princess David,” but no one will forget Diana’s turn on the dance floor with John Travolta.</p>
<p>Of course, there’s an element of pragmatism in the tradition of warm American receptions. After the American Revolution, the newly independent nation realized that it would need to maintain strong ties with the imperial motherland for diplomatic and security reasons; the War of 1812 proved to be the exception – rather than the rule – in 19th-century Anglo-American relations. This “special relationship” would only become more vital during World War II and the Cold War that followed. President Roosevelt invited George VI to that picnic in 1939 not only to exchange pleasantries, but to also telegraph British and American unity in the face of German belligerence.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75522/original/image-20150320-14633-1duvbom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75522/original/image-20150320-14633-1duvbom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75522/original/image-20150320-14633-1duvbom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75522/original/image-20150320-14633-1duvbom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75522/original/image-20150320-14633-1duvbom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75522/original/image-20150320-14633-1duvbom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75522/original/image-20150320-14633-1duvbom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75522/original/image-20150320-14633-1duvbom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In 1939, when King George VI and Queen Elizabeth dined on hot dogs at FDR’s Hyde Park retreat, the two nations sought to convey a message of unity to the Nazis.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/1490129801.jpg">The National Archives</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But the emotion on display during royal visits also suggests a deep affective tie. Although the American revolutionaries long ago rejected colonial government, there has always been a certain degree of ambivalence about the Crown. The colonists, after all, had felt an intense and personal relationship with George III, whom they regarded as distinct from the British Parliament, even as many came to question the concept of hereditary sovereignty. As late as 1775, Alexander Hamilton would defend George III in his <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KKxCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=These+colonies+were+planted+and+settled+by+the+grants,+and+under+the+protection+of+English+kings%22+alexander+hamilton&source=bl&ots=1uUkZulOMR&sig=Hs-JCuJ8-q_Z7xlUUD9QUJtExA4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ndgLVfbuPKeX7QaU2YGoAg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=These%20colonies%20were%20planted%20and%20settled%20by%20the%20grants%2C%20and%20under%20the%20protection%20of%20English%20kings%22%20alexander%20hamilton&f=false">The Farmer Refuted</a> on the grounds that George III was “king of America, by virtue of a compact between us and the kings of Great Britain.” As Hamilton went on to explain, “[T]o disclaim the authority of a British Parliament over us, does by no means imply the dereliction of our allegiance to British Monarchs.”</p>
<p>In the wake of the Revolution, the routines, symbols, rituals and attitudes associated with the Crown proved difficult to sacrifice. </p>
<p>These thorny aspects of the transition from colony to nation have been addressed in works by <a href="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo5550062.html">Elisa Tamarkin</a>, <a href="http://uncpress.unc.edu/browse/book_detail?title_id=1430">Brendan J McConville</a> and, most recently, Eric Nelson. In <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674735347">The Royalist Revolution</a>, Nelson even goes so far as to suggest, provocatively, that the nation’s founders crafted the American presidency with the image of a strong king in mind. Not everyone will buy Nelson’s thesis, but there’s no denying that Americans have made their own political dynasties: instead of the Windsors, we have the Kennedys, Bushes and Clintons.</p>
<p>Now – with one of their own as the bride – it may afford Americans a moment, however fleeting, to imagine themselves once again as royal subjects.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This is an updated version of an article first published on March 20, 2015</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39038/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Arianne Chernock does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It might seem strange, especially given the nation’s decision to sever ties with George III in 1776.Arianne Chernock, Associate Professor of History, Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/232782014-02-19T15:08:34Z2014-02-19T15:08:34ZPrince William will need new ideas to tackle wildlife crisis<p>Addressing the conference on <a href="http://www.zsl.org/science/events/wildlife-trafficking-symposium,793,EV.html">illegal wildlife trafficking</a> in London, Prince Charles said it “<a href="http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/media/speeches/speech-hrh-the-prince-of-wales-the-london-conference-the-illegal-wildlife-trade">broke new ground</a>”, while Prince William said it represented an “unprecedented gathering” that has “<a href="http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/media/speeches/speech-hrh-the-duke-of-cambridge-reception-mark-the-london-conference-the-illegal">never before happened</a>”.</p>
<p>This suggests a case of dynastic forgetfulness in the House of Windsor, as it was Edward, Prince of Wales in 1933 who enrolled prime minister Ramsey Macdonald into convening a <a href="http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/jepson02-histories.pdf">London Conference on African Wildlife</a>.</p>
<p>There are some striking similarities between these two conferences. Both respond to the fear that treasured species will become extinct. Both were small affairs bringing together governing elites (40 delegates in 1933 and 46 in 2014) and both were dominated by experts from the UK and US. Both meetings were premised on the belief that endangered wildlife can be saved if heads of state, royalty, and celebrities use their influence.</p>
<h2>A tale of two meetings</h2>
<p>But there are also intriguing differences between the two meetings. In 1931, Richard Hingston <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/1783602">published in The Geographical Journal</a> an independent analysis of wildlife threats and solutions which remains a model conservation assessment. It specifies values and assumptions, summarises issues at stake, discusses cultural perspectives, and sets out clear policy criteria, targets and management principles. Hingston doubted whether, without action, the elephant, rhinoceros and hippopotamus would survive 50 years. He identified the spread of agricultural cultivation, demand for animal products, hunting, and disease as the main threats.</p>
<p>In contrast, the evidence base for the 2014 conference consisted largely of news reports of organised crime and rebel militias butchering wildlife to feed a multi-billion dollar black market in Asia. The few scientific assessments focused on modelling illegal killing and population declines: an in-depth independent assessment of the how those markets functioned was missing.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>A second notable difference was rhetoric. Last week’s conference sounded distinctly militaristic: Prince Charles <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prince-charles-says-theres-not-a-moment-to-lose-in-stamping-out-poaching-9125506.html">said</a> “Africa is at war to save its wildlife,” framing the illegal wildlife trade as a “battle” against a villainous enemy, the criminal networks supplying ignorant consumers in the Far East.</p>
<p>In contrast the tone of 1933 was less accusatory, emphasising instead the constellation of forces causing the problem. A few days after the conference, Prince Leopold of Belgium told the African Society, “The history of mankind has been marked by periods of indifference towards Nature,” arguing that society was returning to the idea that when we experience and contemplate nature it enriches lives. “The economic advantages due to the protection of nature are apparent to everyone,” he said. In short, responsibility for the decimation of wildlife lies with humankind. It is not something we can or should pin on one group.</p>
<h2>Heated rhetoric, but what else?</h2>
<p>The marked difference between these two conferences 80 years apart is the outcome. The first resulted in the <a href="http://www.webcitation.org/69hsbtkwR">International Convention for the Fauna and Flora of Africa</a> which established a system of National Parks and nature reserves. The convention also included articles to protect species at high risk of extinction, to stop the trafficking and trading of articles manufactured from trophies, and to respect native rights. Adopted in British colonies outside Africa such as India and Indonesia, the convention established the foundations and institutional architecture for wildlife conservation over the next century. And it succeeded, in that none of the listed mammals in Africa have gone extinct.</p>
<p>In contrast the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/280890/london-wildlife-conference-declaration-140213.pdf">declaration</a> arising from last week’s conference is more modest in status and scope. It calls upon the international community to eradicate demand and supply for illegal wildlife products, passing laws if necessary, improve enforcement, destroy seized contraband such as ivory caches, and address corruption and money laundering issues.</p>
<p>Given the growth and complexity of international environmental frameworks since 1933 it’s unrealistic to expect anything more than this. But we might have expected a more progressive, inventive approach: national parks introduced by the 1933 convention were still a novel idea outside the US. By accident or design, the fact they were introduced worldwide through the empire before its subsequent decline has been beneficial. In contrast the proposed measures from last week – of enforcement, corruption crack-downs and demand reduction – are all top-down techniques of “big government”. Leaders of the future will need a broader range of approaches, with which to approach the modern world’s messy, networked, multi-polar nature.</p>
<h2>New approaches, new voices needed</h2>
<p>Writing 80 years ago, Hingston insightfully wrote, “The one great hope [for African wildlife] lies in converting the living animal into a commercial asset.” Sustainable use and wildlife farming was marginalised at last week’s meeting, <a href="http://www.newswise.com/articles/opening-remarks-international-wildlife-trafficking-symposium-solutions-to-a-global-crisis">dismissed</a> by John Robinson of the World Conservation Society as “often untested” and “while academically intriguing, unlikely to be feasible in the short term”.</p>
<p>This is a statement of ideology rather than evidence. Market-based approaches to governing supply-chains (for example <a href="https://ic.fsc.org/">FSC forest certification</a> and crocodile farming) have been around for 20 years and subjected to detailed academic and policy scrutiny.</p>
<p>South Africa and other African countries promoting sustainable use have made <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1038">a compelling case</a>, based on experience, for <a href="http://mg.co.za/article/2013-11-14-legal-sale-of-rhino-not-feasible">a legal trade</a> in rhino horn, and have cautioned against mass destruction of ivory stocks. It’s telling that the South African perspective was granted <a href="http://static.zsl.org/files/microsoft-word-international-wildlife-trafficking-symposium-programme-10-feb-final-2762.pdf">only 20 minutes</a>, with no South African delegates at the highest level meeting.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/p101bkZUYvE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Prince William’s pledge to continue the Royal family’s tradition of supporting the wildlife conservation movement provides a publicity boost. His initiative in forming conservation NGO collaboration <a href="http://www.unitedforwildlife.org">United for Wildlife</a> demonstrates a willingness to lead. And the alignment of global security concerns, through the involvement of armed groups with trafficking, with conservation efforts is potentially beneficial.</p>
<p>But the fact remains that prohibition of drugs, alcohol and other natural products have <a href="http://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid%3A4b4487d6-6564-4fc6-9a60-0559eb4ac532">a poor record of success</a>. In order to achieve his vision of a truly effective conservation collaboration, all concerned will need to bring together a broader range of insight, expertise, experience and ideas than that.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/23278/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Jepson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Addressing the conference on illegal wildlife trafficking in London, Prince Charles said it “broke new ground”, while Prince William said it represented an “unprecedented gathering” that has “never before…Paul Jepson, Course Director, MSc Biodiversity, Conservation and Management, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/232232014-02-14T06:05:28Z2014-02-14T06:05:28ZPrince William shows you can go hunting and be a conservationist<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41491/original/bd6xd6qd-1392315663.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tally-ho.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">John Stillwell/PA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>William, Duke of Cambridge, second in line to the British throne, likes to go deer stalking. It must be a class thing. Until the 19th century, deer stalking – what in the US is called “hunting” – was largely confined to the ruling family and members of the landed aristocracy, so in the UK it represents the class system. </p>
<p>The US, on the other hand, is unique in that the right to hunt on public lands is, for the time being, an opportunity available to all who apply for a hunting license. To non-Americans, that access is one of the clearest indicators that the US is a democracy.</p>
<p>A public furore erupted when William featured as guest of honour at an unprecedented gathering of world wildlife agencies in London, which met in order to combat the acute global problem of poaching endangered animals for sale on the black market. The illegal taking of elephants, tigers and rhinos has only accelerated as their populations near functional extinction, and their trade has become so profitable that <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26153516">organised criminals</a> are now joining in. The US is also joining this effort to reshape legal frameworks to better attack the problem. </p>
<p>The problem is that William also spent last weekend <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26105706">stalking deer and wild boar</a> in Spain, drawing howls of protest from anti-hunting groups. Their basic argument seemed identical to the public backlash against culling <a href="https://theconversation.com/death-of-marius-the-giraffe-reveals-cultural-differences-in-animal-conservation-23052">Marius the Giraffe</a>, the most recent animal outrage. In sum: only soulless bastards could take a life so cute. Humans are here to protect animals, so if we kill the ones we can see, what perfidies happen where no-one is watching?</p>
<p>Then why did Jane Goodall, high priestess of wildlife conservation and nobody’s political stooge, <a href="http://www.channel5.com/shows/5-news/features-archived/dr-jane-goodall-prince-william-shooting-trip-was-unfortunate-timing-endangered-animals">defend</a> William? Because hunting is not poaching. Robin Hood and his Merry Men were outlaws because they were poaching game in the King’s Forest, a forest that only the King and favoured lords were allowed to hunt. Being poor and hungry was no excuse for breaking the law. Hunting is lawful; poaching is not. </p>
<p>Only species that exist in abundant quantities are legally hunted in every country. That hunting involves political power is unquestionable, but it is only recently that animal rights have become a factor in debates that used to revolve around class-based resentment that only aristocrats got to eat venison. And the reasons for the turn to animal rights is as good as any: it’s because wildlife is rapidly disappearing from the planet, so every public pet, every Knut the Polar Bear, <a href="https://theconversation.com/death-of-marius-the-giraffe-reveals-cultural-differences-in-animal-conservation-23052">Marius the Giraffe</a>, and Shrek the Sheep becomes an icon for all the other mammals being bullied out of existence. </p>
<p>The disappearance of wildlife is a fact, not a political debate. It is also a fact that hunting and conservation have gone together since long before the concepts of “environmentalism” and “conservation” existed, since the rulers who were entitled to hunt quickly realized that you can’t hunt what is not there. </p>
<p>In the US, Teddy Roosevelt inaugurated the first national conservation programs precisely because he was a big game hunter, and because he understood that wildlife requires a true wilderness. Instead of yelling at William for being a prince and fighting to save wildlife, animal rights groups should listen to Goodall and focus their anger at the economic systems and first world privileges that enable poaching in the first place. Perhaps then, a few years from now, wild lions will be able to eat wild giraffes where no one can see, and it it will be as nature intended: without us watching.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/23223/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paula Young Lee does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>William, Duke of Cambridge, second in line to the British throne, likes to go deer stalking. It must be a class thing. Until the 19th century, deer stalking – what in the US is called “hunting” – was largely…Paula Young Lee, Faculty Fellow, Center for Animals and Public Policy, Tufts UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/187252013-10-29T06:25:02Z2013-10-29T06:25:02ZTigers, elephants ask: what have royals ever done for us?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/33940/original/74szywvq-1382982209.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Royal interest in tigers has cut both ways through the years.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">S. Taheri</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On the face of it the British royal family’s commitment to wildlife conservation is unmistakable.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most well-known work is that of Prince Charles, who in May co-hosted a meeting on <a href="http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/media/speeches/speech-the-prince-of-wales-the-illegal-wildlife-trade-conference">illegal wildlife trade</a>, just one of many of his endeavours that include high level activities on rainforests and considerable work in Britain.</p>
<p>Both his father Prince Philip, who <a href="http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/borneo_forests/about_borneo_forests/borneo_prince_phillip.cfm">co-founded the WWF</a>, and his son Prince William (now the Duke of Cambridge), are actively involved in global conservation. Indeed Prince William <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/12/prince-william-leaves-raf-charity-work">recently retired</a> from his role as a RAF helicopter pilot to focus on his charity work, launching the <a href="http://www.unitedforwildlife.com/">United for Wildlife</a> conservation alliance.</p>
<p>Less well known is that Princess Michael of Kent <a href="http://www.princessmichael.org.uk/charities/animals-wildlife/">is a patron</a> of the <a href="http://www.georgeadamson.org/">George Adamson Wildlife Preservation Trust</a>, Mark Shand (the brother of Camilla Parker-Bowles, Prince Charles’ wife) <a href="http://www.elephantfamily.org/what-we-do/conservation-news/founder-mark-shand-returns-to-where-it-all-began/">set up</a> the charity <a href="http://www.elephantfamily.org/">Elephant Family</a>, and Prince Andrew has visited game reservation areas in Tanzania.</p>
<p>But their work is far more than just supporting and establishing charitable activities. What the royal family has done historically and continues to do for conservation in Britain is to drive a particular vision of what conservation should be, an influence that continues to this day.</p>
<p>We need to be careful. Any conservation vision is also inherently a social vision. Any battle for wildlife is a battle fought between people, which means people as well as animals will be among the casualties. The royal family is no stranger to these dilemmas and has found itself embroiled in controversy in the past. For example, when a WWF helicopter donated by Prince Philip was used in a shoot-to-kill anti-poaching operation in <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/302">Sapi</a> safari area in Zimbabwe in the 1980s. The helicopter was quickly withdrawn, but left a PR disaster for the WWF and its royal benefactors.</p>
<p>This is one of the problems of conservation visions, particularly in those overseas issues with which the royal family is associated. On the one hand, it can gloss over the power relations and responsibilities entailed when Britons take an interest in overseas conservation.</p>
<p>For example, as <a href="http://www.tusk.org/royal-patron-of-the-tusk-trust.asp">patron of the Tusk Trust</a> Prince William said last year, “Africa’s natural heritage is the world’s natural heritage. We have to preserve places like this… not just for us, but for future generations.” Preserving African landscapes for “us” essentially meant wealthy Britons, for they were the audience. But whose lands are they? If they are part of the world’s heritage, then who in the world gave the Prince William the responsibility to lead conservation efforts? This is the sort of thinking which raises hackles and leads to phrases like “new imperialism”.</p>
<p>On the other hand it can promote particular ideas of what Africa should look like, and where wilderness should be, that obscures the complex, messy politics behind the practicalities of conservation. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/33936/original/3kgv7m2f-1382980255.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/33936/original/3kgv7m2f-1382980255.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/33936/original/3kgv7m2f-1382980255.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/33936/original/3kgv7m2f-1382980255.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/33936/original/3kgv7m2f-1382980255.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=589&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/33936/original/3kgv7m2f-1382980255.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=589&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/33936/original/3kgv7m2f-1382980255.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=589&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The future King Edward VIII at a tiger shoot in Nepal during his Indian tour of 1921.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Work with wildlife charities is a mark of respectability, like working with children’s charities or supporting a hospital. It seems apolitical and is unlikely to ruffle any government feathers. Who could argue with wanting to save the elephants or tigers? Well, the national park in Tanzania that Princess Michael of Kent’s charity supports was cleared of several thousand residents by an <a href="http://environmentalismandconservation.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/nomadic-peoples-1999.pdf">illegally conducted eviction</a> – but you would be hard put to find details of that from the organisation involved. And the reserve that Prince Andrew visited (a hunting preserve) has since been at the centre of an only <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/30/maasai-game-hunting-tanzania">recently resolved dispute</a> over evicting thousands more pastoralists.</p>
<p>Let us not forget the royal family is privileged. It moves in privileged circles - indeed, it sits among the pinnacle of the global elite. And ever since William the Conqueror set aside one third of England as personal hunting preserves, conservation has been deeply implicated in the defence of privilege. While the British monarchy and others have been central to the spread of conservation, it is based on elite privilege, exclusion, dispossession and separation of humans from their environment.</p>
<p>Our point here is not that the elite’s interactions with nature are somehow unsavoury, even though it may involve a certain amount of hunting. But while the British public were upset that Prince Philip shot a tiger shortly after founding the WWF, and while the Spanish public were furious that their king <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17752983">went hunting elephants</a> as they struggled with economic woes, there was very little adverse impact to wildlife (besides the trophy victims).</p>
<p>The point is rather that royalty more often draws attention, bringing a certain amount of glamour and excitement to particular experiences of nature. In the 1920s, the East African safaris of the future kings Edward VIII and George VI helped mould the expectations of what such trips should be like. Royal support causes Britons to notice and listen, and many will do so less critically than they might otherwise.</p>
<p>Fortunately, our royal family is, at its core, public-spirited. By this we mean that one of its goals is undoubtedly a society which is more alive to conservation issues. And this ultimately will entail moving away from elitist, white, wealthy people that engage in external interventions in countries and communities far distant from their headquarters. It means a move to more local and grassroots conservation organisations instead, and a recognition that this a fight to shape and determine the terms of the debate, <em>a war of position</em> as the Italian intellectual <a href="http://www.internationalgramscisociety.org/">Gramsci</a> would put it, as much as a battle.</p>
<p><em>Following the launch of Prince William’s new conservation charity United for Wildlife, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/24623773">BBC Nature examines</a> which animals already receive a degree of royal protection</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/18725/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rosaleen Duffy receives funding from ESRC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dan Brockington receives funding from the ESRC.
</span></em></p>On the face of it the British royal family’s commitment to wildlife conservation is unmistakable. Perhaps the most well-known work is that of Prince Charles, who in May co-hosted a meeting on illegal wildlife…Rosaleen Duffy, Professor of Conservation Politics, University of KentDan Brockington, Professor in Conservation and Development, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/161542013-07-22T19:33:37Z2013-07-22T19:33:37ZIt’s a boy – but baby Cambridge deserves choices in life<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/27891/original/6kbvnjrq-1374555258.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Their child shouldn't be trapped in the role.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Andrew Matthews/PA Wire</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Not for the first time in our long lives, Prince Charles and I find ourselves on parallel tracks, our first grandchildren born within weeks of each other. I offer him my congratulations, and hope that the experience will be as delightful for him as it has been for me. </p>
<p>Our paths first ran parallel almost 50 years ago, when we went to Australia as teenage schoolboys in 1966. Charles was sent there to boarding school for a couple of terms, a formative experience, apparently – “If you want to develop character, go to Australia”, as he <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/queensland-floods/prince-charles-says-being-called-a-pommy-bastard-in-australia-was-good-for-his-character/story-fn7iwx3v-1225995304245">put it recently</a>, going on to mention some of the character-building nicknames employed by his Australian schoolmates. </p>
<p>I encountered those same character-building opportunities (and nicknames) as a migrant from the UK – my family arrived just three weeks after Charles left. We went our separate ways after that, of course. He came up to Trinity College, Cambridge, had a memorable gig in Wales in 1969, and has now served his country and the Commonwealth for more than 40 years. I went to the Australian National University, Canberra, making the first of many choices that also turned out to lead - happily though much more slowly - to Cambridge and to Trinity College. </p>
<p>But the biggest difference is that in common with most of my generation, in countries such as Britain and Australia, I made choices about what to do with my life. Charles did not, to an exceptional extent. Important as his life’s work is, he did not have the opportunity to choose it, or to volunteer for it, in any meaningful sense. </p>
<p>We don’t know how conscious he has been of this lack of choice, but from the outside - from the perspective of someone who has had choices - his life looks like “a comfortable form of inherited imprisonment”, as one of his biographers <a href="http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20100343,00.html">described it</a> long ago.</p>
<p>This brings me to what puzzles me about reactions to the happy news about Charles’s grandson. It is the apparent indifference, on the part of everyone who expresses views on these matters - from the most <a href="http://www.norepublic.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4329&Itemid=1">loyal monarchists</a> all the way through to <a href="http://www.republic.org.uk/">staunch republicans</a> - to the fact that this child faces the same fate as his famous grandfather. Nobody seems to care about baby Cambridge’s views about whether he wants to be King of England.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/27623/original/wnh35zsy-1374063951.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/27623/original/wnh35zsy-1374063951.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/27623/original/wnh35zsy-1374063951.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/27623/original/wnh35zsy-1374063951.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/27623/original/wnh35zsy-1374063951.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/27623/original/wnh35zsy-1374063951.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/27623/original/wnh35zsy-1374063951.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Born to rule.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">YT Blue</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I <a href="http://theconversation.com/time-for-some-royal-prerogative-lets-give-kates-child-a-choice-11518">wrote about this</a> in The Conversation six months ago, when the initial news about Kate’s pregnancy bought some welcome cheer to a cold Cambridge winter. I pointed out how dismayed most of us we would be if the state decided to conscript <em>our</em> children for future public office - if the prime minister turned up on our doorstep, with the news that our child was going to be brought up to be Archbishop of Canterbury, or master of Trinity, or something equally splendid. But that’s precisely the situation facing baby Cambridge and his future siblings. The only difference is that the prime minister doesn’t need to make a house call – the entire nation just takes for granted that that’s the deal.</p>
<p>I asked whether this is acceptable. Does baby Cambridge really have fewer rights than all other children to be born in Britain over the next few years? If not, then we are simply not entitled to presume that he will wish to spend his life in our service, with all that that entails.</p>
<p>Since then, I’ve had some interesting feedback. Critics of my argument make two main points, the first neatly encapsulated in the words of one kind correspondent, who says that the “justification for hereditary monarchy is that it guarantees the continuity of the state”, and “the curtailment of freedom that being the heir to the throne involves is a price worth paying for the constitutional stability that a monarchical system secures”. </p>
<p>I have two responses to this. First, the evidence for the claim about continuity seems debatable, to say the least. Is Switzerland less stable than Sweden, say, or Austria than Belgium, or the US than Canada? (In each case, the first is a republic, the second a monarchy.) Second, I wasn’t proposing the abolition of the British monarchy (or of any of the handful of other modern democratic monarchies, in Europe or elsewhere). I was simply suggesting that it should be made fairer to the individuals on which it depends - at the very least, that the succession should be opt-in, rather than opt-out. (I suggested that eligible candidates should have the option of adding their names to a line of succession, and of removing them again, once they reach a certain age.) </p>
<p>So even if we were to grant - as I do not - that curtailment of the freedom of the heir would be a price worth paying for some modest increase in national stability, it is a completely unnecessary cost. With a little bit of thought, we could devise an efficient means of cleaning chimneys that didn’t involve children.</p>
<p>Some commentators seem to deny this, suggesting that the role of head of state in a system like Britain’s is so critical that we need to train people from childhood to do it. “A child likely to become the monarch needs a particular education/training for the role”, as one comment put it on my original piece. </p>
<p>I have two responses to this, too. First, if it were true that so much depended on the proper training of children then wouldn’t it make sense to choose the candidates a little more carefully - to screen them for intelligence, character, sociability, and the like, at six or seven years old, rather than relying on chance in such an important matter? More seriously, the idea that these constitutional tasks depend on childhood training is amply refuted by the long experience of countries such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia, where the roles are filled by governors-general, who are chosen for the job not on the basis of special childhood training but of distinguished contributions to public life. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/27622/original/yws6wbft-1374063698.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/27622/original/yws6wbft-1374063698.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/27622/original/yws6wbft-1374063698.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/27622/original/yws6wbft-1374063698.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/27622/original/yws6wbft-1374063698.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/27622/original/yws6wbft-1374063698.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/27622/original/yws6wbft-1374063698.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">No one doubts that Quentin Bryce is up to the job.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Government House, Canberra</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The present governor-general of Australia, for example, is Quentin Bryce, a grandmother of 10 herself, who, as her <a href="http://www.gg.gov.au/">official website</a> notes, “enjoyed a rich and distinguished career as an academic, lawyer, community and human rights advocate, senior public officer [and] university college principal”, before taking up the reins of state. Should Australians sleep less safely in their beds because Bryce was not trained from childhood for her vice-regal role? On the contrary, the experience of Australia, New Zealand and Canada shows how easy it would be to devise a grown-up monarchy for Britain, that didn’t depend on restricting the options of children and young adults. </p>
<p>It is easy to make fun of these attempts to rationalise what amounts to conscription for public office, but they reflect the deep and sincere affection that many people in Britain and the other modern monarchies feel for the institution, and for the families on which it depends. Unfortunately, affection for the institution, love of its traditions, is blinding these well-intentioned folk to the injustice to the very individuals on which the monarchy depends. </p>
<p>On the other side, those <a href="http://www.republic.org.uk/">republicans</a> who would prefer to abolish the monarchy altogether are so much in the grip of the idea that it represents an archaic form of privilege, that they, too, are blind to the injustice to the royal children themselves. </p>
<p>In my previous piece I predicted that as in cases like <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23338279">gay marriage</a>, fair-minded people will soon agree that tradition needs to make way for simple justice. Some way will be found to make the monarchy less unfair. And it will probably survive, like marriage, more robust and popular than ever for dealing with the unfairness at the heart of its present version. </p>
<p>I pointed out that if we moved quickly, this change could be in place in time for the new baby Cambridge to benefit from it – before he goes to school, for example, and learns that his opportunities are different from those of other children. Hence my closing question, which I repeat here. Don’t we owe it to this welcome child to make this change, and to do it soon?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/16154/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Huw Price does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Not for the first time in our long lives, Prince Charles and I find ourselves on parallel tracks, our first grandchildren born within weeks of each other. I offer him my congratulations, and hope that…Huw Price, Bertrand Russell Professor of Philosophy, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.