Royal Overexposure?

     On Thursday, February 27th, Princess Beatrice had her Twitter account formally verified (@yorkiebea), making her the second known member of the Royal family to establish a personal account on the social media site.

The Princess's Twitter account ballooned from just under 2,000 followers to over 10,000 in the five days since it was verified on February 27th.

     She follows in the footsteps of her father, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, who took to Twitter in April 2013 (@TheDukeofYork), as well as her mother Sarah (@SarahTheDuchess). In addition, Buckingham Palace has its own page representing the Queen and the Royal family in general (@BritishMonarchy), and Clarence House created a page for Prince Charles, Camilla, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and Prince Harry (@ClarenceHouse).

     All of these pages - alongside sister accounts with Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, etc. - are usually for the posting of official activities and to keep followers informed on how the monarchy works, as well as on what the Royal family is doing and to give "shout-outs" to people, charities, and organizations they support. It is however, extremely rare for a member of the family to write a personal tweet - Andrew usually sign's such tweets with "AY" at the end for Andrew York - and in the case of Princess Beatrice, one has to believe that her account had to be cleared by the Palace in some way, and (perhaps) that she has been given guidance on using Twitter, given her status. The Princess is after all, sixth in line to the 16 Commonwealth thrones (including the United Kingdom).

     Nonetheless, this embrace of social media has not been received well by everybody. Naturally, republicans and cynics will roll their eyes and claim that the royal family is attempting to control the message that we receive about them (which is not new, because message control and PR have been going on centuries - including from republicans themselves), and even people with positive opinions on the monarchy have expressed concerns about the social media strategy. On Twitter, Victoria Arbiter - a royal contributor for CNN and CTV News - remarked on February 27th:

     "Am clearly stuck in the last century, but royals tweeting doesn't seem like a good idea! Survival is down to maintaining an air of mystery."

     This sentiment was further echoed by Victoria Coren Mitchell, writing for the Observer on Saturday, March 1st. In response to the reports that Prince George may be getting a full-time nanny after all, she poured water on the idea of royalty (or anyone else of high social status) "pretending" to be ordinary, and offered a warning that "if the new generation actually succeeds in becoming 'just like the rest of us' then republicans will not be placated and royalists might just stop caring."

     These beliefs uttered by Arbiter and Mitchell are not new; they have been echoed through the generations within, and outside of, royal circles - most famously and succinctly by the 19th Century constitutional commentator Walter Bagehot, who said: “We must not let in daylight upon magic.”

     The implication is that the danger going forward is not scandal or the appearance of being aloof and out-of-touch; it is that by becoming increasingly accessible to the people - and acting in ways that appear ordinary - the monarchy risks becoming irrelevant by losing its mystic qualities, which requires that Royal family place a veil between themselves and the people, and that their lives must reflect their status. To do any less would at best, be a dereliction of duty and at worst, be seen as patronizing and insulting to real ordinary folk who know that the royal family cannot possibly relate to them.

     In other words, if you are going to be royal, act royal, with the nannies, protocol, pomp and circumstance, and the like. That's what you are are paid to do.

     However, I believe it is false to espouse that the monarchy and members of the royal family cannot enjoy the best of both worlds: to be extraordinary and ordinary, as well as to be more accessible without letting everything hang out in the open. (Indeed, I would caution against anyone claiming to know everything about the monarchy, for there is much that we do not know, and should never know).

The Queen has deftly managed the transition of the monarchy into the new media age. Her's is reign that has witness the rise of various forms of media - from radio and television to the Internet and social media.

     It is a balancing act that must be delicately maintained. Members of the Royal family must place themselves above the people, but not become so high-minded that they appear look down on them with contempt and confirm the worst stereotypes of hereditary power and social status. At the same time, it does not hurt to become relatable in ways that are helpful, such as Princess Beatrice discussing her issues with dyslexia, and lending her support to charities that assist others with the same condition. Making personal connections with ordinary people is just as important as displaying a difference between them.

     Indeed, the story of monarchy in Britain for the past 1,500 years has been the story of a dialogue between Crown and People, which has, in the words of David Starkey, shaped the country's "social and political life to this day." Contact and interaction are necessary, especially in the present age. The question is: How much?

     Over the last century and up to the present, the balancing act has been executed well by the Queen, who - along with her advisers - has shrewdly seen the need to open up the Palace and bring it closer to the masses, but only so much. As time goes on, the pressures of the new media landscape and the voracious appetite for all things royal will challenge to monarchy to break down more barriers. 

     However with Prince William's protective attitude towards his family - born out of the chaos of his parents marriage - we should expect the balance to be healthily observed in a way that serves the interests of both Crown and People.