Anglais étude de document: Curtesy

Theresa May’s curtsey? We don’t need this deference to royals

1. Identify the document (type, author, publisher, date) in one sentence. How would you qualify this type of article?

This document is an article by Gaby Hinsliff, published in The Guardian on Thursday 9th of August 2018. In my opinion, this article falls in the category of reviews. Reviews are a type of article in journalism which are partly opinion partly fact based. A review needs to fulfil two things: firstly, it needs to accurately describe and/or identify the subject being reviewed (in this case illogical and old-fashioned deference to royals) and secondly, it must provide and informed and intelligent opinion on the subject, based on research and experience.

1. Explain what point the author is trying to make in this piece.

In this piece, the author is trying to prove that government officials in particular conservative prime minister Theresa May should not need to curtsey to the Royal family. Four main reasons are here developed: the first Theresa May in an actual fact detains more power than the Monarchy, who only bear a cultural influence.  The second reason is the age gap between the prime minister and some members of the Royal Family. The third argument is that the levels of contribution to society are vastly unequal and so, it is illogical for the prime minster to put herself in a position of inferiority. The fourth and final argument is that while Teresa May obtains her power through popular sovereignty the Royal Family inherits theirs, thus doing nothing to deserve it.

1. What dangers does the author signal here concerning this tradition?

The journalist in this article shows that the prime minister must curtsey the Royals, shows in a small way that they do not view themselves as equals but as inferior and superior. This according to the author disturbs the balance in the countries governmental stability. The UK’s policy of have both a monarchy and a democracy (Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy) is that Queen only plays a ceremonial role with very limited political involvement. She is a symbol that unites the country in times of crisis. So, the fact that heads of the country (one symbolical the other political) should not consider themselves as equals constitutes a danger to democracy. In the article, Hinsliff informs the reader that this Queen in all likelihood does not pose a threat but in the long term not all candidates to the throne will be as “benign” as the Queen.

1. What difference does she see between American and British journalists regarding the issue of deference towards their respective heads of state? Explain the anecdote in your own words.

The difference here is that: while in the USA journalists are eager to show signs of respect towards their head of government, UK journalist, as mentioned by the author, would rather “drop dead” then make any gesture symbolizing their inferiority towards the in this case prime minister. The anecdote here explained by the author is that despite the American presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush socking scandals there is a troubling sense of devotion that guarantees the maintenance of personal respect. The presidents here are not chosen at random, Bill Clinton had an affair with his secretary during his time at the oval office and George Bush had dead people voting for him. Still despite their outrageous scandals, American journalists still stand up once they enter the room while British journalist stay seated almost as a form of protest, proving that unlike in the UK, America perceives their presidents as almost deities who deserve respect in spite of all errors and in some cases serious offences committed.

1. What reproach does the author address to certain members of the royal family?

The author reproaches the ambiguous lives that the Royals wish to live that ultimately contradict each other. She reproaches in particular prince William and duchess Kate who wish to appear in the tabloids as commoners, wearing “high street labels” and going to Waitrose, and simultaneously be treated in accordance to old conventions. In addition, she also makes a subtle remark on the absurdity that is Meghan Markle curtseying at her own wedding. Still she respects these conventions once they are restricted to members of the family and not third parties.  

...