Of the two illusion shattering shocks faced by Marie Antoinette on her arrival in France for her marriage to Louis XVI, one was having to be fully naked in public to be re-attired. The second was to have a batch of ladies-in-waiting that were to impart the lessons of queenship and carrying herself in the French court.
Traumatic as the experience may have been the 14 year old adjusted, adapted, and when unable to take it any longer, rebelled. She went down in history as the Queen that was flippant, yet one that was more wronged.
The concept of ladies in waiting continues till today in most of the dwindling western monarchies. As was the wont in those times, matters of the realm were prioritized by royal decisions that inevitably put royal privileges first. It was all about egos and superiority complexes born out of the belief of the divine right to rule.
That that should rub off on the more "common" people was just as inevitable. Thereafter when more "people oriented" rule evolved, the pageantry first evolved and then transformed into a massive expense borne by the taxpayer.
Just when the developing world had fashioned its own versions of such pageantry, matters began to change. Queen consort of the United Kingdom Camilla is following her husband's footsteps by announcing the disbanding of the ladies-in-waiting flock. King Charles, cognizant of simmering public discontent at the massive wealth of the British monarchy, had announced halving the Palace staff to reflect the newer nuances of modern day royals.
It comes after not insignificant outrage at revelations of the King's investments in off-shore tax havens. It would be wrong to expect monarchies to shed all trappings so quickly. They have taken their steps reflective of ground realities in their countries.
Buckingham Palace's Beefeater guards aren't likely to disappear any time soon, in spite of the fact that they have not in recent memory had to pull out the shots in defense of the then Queen and now King.
Divinity has little to do with monarchies. They are like most arrangements man made, designed to satisfy egotistical aspirations that later transformed to “tradition.” The impact on societies hasn't been totally lost. When Hussain Mohammad Ershad's party returned with 30 plus Parliament seats and he from all five constituencies contested in Rangpur, an incredulous journalist sought out voter opinions.
Why did they vote for a man that had been exposed for the many dalliances? The answer was short and sweet. “Oh, kings and emperors do such things.”
In most countries nowadays, heads of state government slip in and out on official visits without too much fanfare. Not so in most developing countries. Red carpets, presentation lines, and salute from guards are not only demanded, they are “musts.” That these achieve little to nothing is never taken into account, not to mention the useless expense.
In communist states they symbolize a form of power that acts as the front for tight, highly specialized security apparatus. In democracies, they now come across as ridiculous exhibitionism. The electorate that is now used to their representatives treading grass come polls time and then cloistering themselves in the corridors of power thereafter, mumble and grumble no more.
It would be remiss not to mention that for the more powerful leaders, public exposure is kept limited as far as practicable. President Bill Clinton's visit to Bangladesh was run in almost curfew mode, as was the SAARC leaders meeting in Dhaka.
The US has a growing list of security contingents for former presidents and their families. Many other states choose similar means without too much fuss and bother. Let's not forget that Olaf Palme, a former Swedish prime minister, was assassinated when on the fringe of retirement from politics.
Let's also not forget Abraham Lincoln, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Ziaur Rahman, Anwar Sadaat, Indira and Rajiv Gandhi, and John G Kennedy who were assassinated while being heads of state and government.
The reactive security cordons have grown heavier since then to the point of distancing leaders from the very people they work for.
While there can be few arguments about security, there's little to be said about the long robes of trappings that continue. King Charles' move towards a 50% headcount cut in staff makes it very clear that, as in most business corporations, there's plenty of fat to be trimmed. Such trimmings are crucial savings in these dire times.
Marie Antoinette, polite to the end, apologized to her executioner for treading on his toes. It was the same Queen that flippantly said “if they don't have bread, give them cake.”
Mahmudur Rahman is a writer, columnist, broadcaster, and communications specialist.