Abstract
For King and Country explores the role of King George V and his immediate family in supporting the British war effort during the First World War, focusing on their social and cultural functions. Heather Jones locates her research in the broader context of the longer-term modernisation and democratisation of the British monarchy. Both trends are analysed throughout the study. The book does not solely focus on elites, however. Instead, Jones provides a plurality of voices to explore their relationship to the throne and to the sovereign, including everyday Britons and imperial subjects. The first extensive academic study on the topic, the book comprises over 500 pages of meticulous research presented across six chapters. Illustrations are numerous and well-chosen, and the Press must be commended for allowing the author to provide abundant footnotes and bibliography along with a comprehensive index – all of which will be useful to scholars.
Chapter 1 examines the role of the monarchy in the mobilising and conscripting of British subjects and shows how war service was intimately linked to the sacred persona and figure of the King. Exploring how the royal family performed its war service and the privations its members imposed on themselves to emulate their fellow countrymen and women is effective in demonstrating the cultural relevance of the institution to contemporaries who looked up to it. Chapter 2 considers the relationship between the King and the troops, through the honours system, visits to the front, and royal philanthropy. Here Jones effectively synthesises the royal family's personal archives, letters from soldiers to their families, and a rich collection of press reports.
Chapters 3 considers the royal body in wartime. The framing refers to Marc Bloch's methodology in the Royal Touch but, in reality, the chapter analyses discourses on royal perfection, rather than studying common peoples’ mental structures and investments in the monarch's sacredness. This chapter intends to show that the First World War resulted in the re-sacralisation of the British monarchy, while the following chapter analyses de-sacralisation discourses – limited as they were – and how the monarchy was challenged in the period 1916–1918. In an era of revolution with the collapse of empires and monarchies, the British monarchy continued to thrive. Jones argues that King George V himself, together with the way he and his family handled the First World War, explained why Britons, by and large, remained supportive of a monarchy which successfully branded itself as democratic, as opposed to other monarchies. Perceived sacrifices by the King and his family as part of the war effort – however modest compared to that of their subjects – revived the relation between the throne and the people.
The final part of the book considers the role of the British monarchy in war commemorations, with Chapter 5 considering victory celebrations and Chapter 6 examining post-war commemorations through to the mid-1930s. In many ways, the First World War and its commemoration occupied a central role in the British monarchy's status and role after the conflict. It was a fine balancing act between performing victory and its celebratory nature, while also putting forward the highest standards of grief and bereavement. In short, the monarchy was the vector for both popular national celebrations and mourning. Jones also does a wonderful job of analysing the identity and self-branding of the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VIII) as a war veteran despite his sheltered war service.
Although the study focuses exclusively on the British monarchy, one wishes there had been more comparative history throughout. Have the idea and embodiment of the République and that of the Fatherland provided similarly strong signifiers to French and German peoples respectively? Were they somewhat equivalent to ‘King and Country’ in providing both a reason and a meaning for the war? In other words, is what Jones observed in Britain unique to Britain, or a common process of wartime cultural mobilisation which finds embodiment in various types of institutions? Jones’ work also calls for further study of those citizens for whom monarchist rhetoric fell on deaf ears – not the anti-monarchists who are reflected, albeit fleetingly, in the historiography – but those who could not care less about King and Country, who were indifferent to it, yet supported and endured the long Great War.
Besides its undeniable historiographical contribution, Jones’ book is a pleasure to read. Her way of weaving well-chosen primary source quotations into the text is compelling and gives insights into the British world of the time, with gender, class and race forming key areas of investigation throughout the book. For King and Country will be valuable to anyone with an interest in the First World War, monarchies at war and the British war effort.