Commentary

Corporate heritage brands and

the precepts of corporate heritage
brand management: Insights from
the British Monarchy on the eve
of the royal wedding of Prince
William (April 2011) and Queen
Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee
(1952–2012)
John M.T. Balmer
is Professor of Corporate Marketing and Director of the Centre of Research in Marketing at Brunel University, London.
He is also quondam Professor of Corporate Brand/Identity Management at Bradford School of Management and is a
member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Brand Management.

ABSTRACT There are three key precepts that underpin salient corporate heritage
brands: Trust, Authenticity and Affinity. Trust relates to the bilateral confidence
between the institutional brand and stakeholders. Authenticity captures the notion
of preserving the enduring identity traits of corporate heritage brands. Affinity
captures the notion of public sovereignty (for any corporate heritage brand to endure
there has to be public consent). The management of corporate heritage brands
requires policymakers to show corporate brand stewardship to four spheres of
activity: (1) achieving trust between the brand and its brand community; (2)
preserving the brand’s authenticity; (3) showing sensitivity to public concerns and
ensuring the brand remains relevant and respected; (4) demonstrating empathy to
environmental concerns; and (5) ongoing stewardship of the corporate brand. For
its part, the British Monarchy, as a corporate heritage brand, is also dependent on
bilateral trust between the Crown and public. This is predicated on public affinity
towards the Monarchy and the Crown maintaining its authenticity as a corporate
brand vis-à-vis its relationship with its brand community. A central finding relates to
the centrality of trust to the management and maintenance of monarchy. In addition,
there is a management requirement to calibrate authenticity (taking institutional
Correspondence: and identity perspectives) and affinity (being mindful of customers and stakeholder
John M.T. Balmer
Brunel University, London, UK concerns). This study builds on earlier JBM articles on corporate heritage brands

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28

www.palgrave-journals.com/bm/
 Balmer

(Balmer et al, 2006; Urde et al, 2007). This article is timely in that it comes during
the lead up to Queen Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations 1952–2012 along
with the wedding of Prince William to Catherine Middleton (April 2011).
Journal of Brand Management advance online publication, 15 April 2011;
doi:10.1057/bm.2011.21

INTRODUCTION: A CELEBRITY, states1 (the latter was formerly known as

CORPORATE AND CORPORATE the British Commonwealth).
HERITAGE BRAND Queen Elizabeth is a corporate mar-
keting behemoth and an international
The characteristic danger of great nations,
personality brand, with the exception of
like the Roman, or the English, which have
the Pope, without parallel.
a long history of continuous creation, is
Importantly – in branding terms – Queen
that they may fail from not comprehending
Elizabeth is the manifestation of another,
the great institutions they have created.
critically important brand type: a corporate
(Bagehot, 1867)
brand and, moreover, a corporate heritage
It is a global personality marque without brand.
compare – an iconic brand par excellence. It It is the latter – the British Monarchy as
is the most reproduced brand image of a corporate heritage brand – which I will
any individual since Jesus Christ – a brand focus on in this article. Although the article
profile that adorns currencies and stamps also has pertinence for other constitutional
from Australia to Vanuatu, a profile that is monarchies, the study also sheds light on
truly global and is undeniably ubiquitous. the nature and management of corporate
Marshalled by parks, pubs and ships from heritage brands per se.
Aberdeen to Auckland, it is a celebrity
brand name without parallel. Kissed by THE EVE OF THE QUEEN’S
numerous Prime Ministers when appointed DIAMOND JUBILEE 1952–2012:
to office, her hands have, in addition as A TIME FOR DIRECTION AND
sometimes noted in the media, been shaken REFLECTION
by 3 million individuals from every part of Of course, in 2011, in this year when we
the globe and from every walk of life. It is build up to the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee
a brand that enjoys brand support in excess celebrations of her accession to the throne
of 80 per cent of the British population in 1952 there is likely to be a phenomenal
(MORI, 2002). It is also a brand of dreams: amount of global interest in the British
She appears in them and individuals day- Monarchy. Arguably, it is most arcane and
dream about taking tea with her. potent of institutional brands in British
The brand identity of this luminary is contexts. As an aside – since 1721 – there
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second: have been more than 50 Prime Ministers
Queen of the United Kingdom and of her of Great Britain, 11 of whom have served
other 15 Realms. Queen Elizabeth: Sir Winston Churchill
She is Queen of one hundred million people. being the first of these.
In addition, she is linked to one thousand In recent months, global inquisitiveness
million people – almost a third of mankind in the British Crown has been given an
– by virtue of Queen Elizabeth’s position added lustre owing to the success of a low-
as titular Head of the 54 countries that budget British film and the news of a Royal
comprise the Commonwealth of nation Wedding in London’s Westminster Abbey.

2 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28

 Commentary

At the same, criticism of one member of (The Economist, 2011). The film received
the Royal Family in March of this year did, the highest number of Oscar awards (four:
for a time, take away something of the monar- including the Best Film and Best Actor
chical sheen associated with the above. categories). It also received seven British
Academy of Film and Television Arts
The royal wedding of Prince William awards and one Golden Globe award.
to Catherine Middleton A few years earlier, it was another motion
The much anticipated wedding of HRH picture, ‘The Queen’, which generated a
Prince William (second in line to the British not-dissimilar fascination and which re-
throne) to Catherine Middleton in April fired increased interest in the monarchy,
2011 has engendered renewed international especially among the many Caribbean
interest in the rites, rituals and roles of the nations where Queen Elizabeth remains
British Monarchy. The event has received Head of State (The Economist, 2008).
widespread media coverage, including TV Mention can also be made of the popular
coverage in the People’s Republic of China, 2002 Shawcross’s BBC TV documentary
and there is likely to be a very large global ‘Queen and Country’ (Shawcross, 2002) and
TV audience on the wedding day. In the phenomenal success of the 1969
Britain, the wedding will be celebrated BBC documentary on the British Crown,
with a public holiday and the minting of a ‘Royal Family’, which was the first docu-
special five pound coin: many towns and mentary of its type on this most arcane of
villages will hold street parties. Some Com- British institutions. The BBC, as part
monwealth countries will issue commemo- of the celebrations for Queen Elizabeth’s
rative stamps to mark the event. Diamond Jubilee, will broadcast, in 2012,
a three-part TV documentary presented
‘The King’s Speech’ and ‘The Queen’ by Andrew Marr, a prominent BBC TV
The phenomenal success of the film The and Radio news, current affairs and arts
King’s Speech, a movie that focuses on the anchor.
travails of King George VI (Queen Eliza- Arguably, therefore, 2011 should be a
beth’s father) vis-à-vis his speech impedi- time for reflection and for contemplating
ment (a debilitating stutter). In addition, future directions for the Crown in the
the film concentrates on the critical role of build-up to the Diamond Jubilee. As such,
the King’s unorthodox Australian speech a further scrutiny of this institution via a
therapist in helping the monarch to navi- corporate branding lens on the eve of the
gate his way through the responses required worldwide jubilee celebrations (in Britain and
of the monarch as part of the Coronation the Commonwealth) is, perhaps, timely.
service; in giving radio broadcasts and It is also probable that interest in mon-
public speeches and, significantly, the archy will reflect the Zeitgeist that will, no
King’s speech to Britain and the Empire at doubt, characterise the next 2 years: the
the start, in 1939, of the Second World apogee of which, no doubt, will be formal
War (1939–1945). Clearly, this movie has opening of the Olympics (another notable
not only reinforced but has also burnished global corporate heritage brand) by the
the collective memory of the pivotal role Queen in London in 2012.
of the Crown during the Second World
War. The film, which explores the parallel Initial thoughts on corporate heritage
teacher–student and monarch–subject rela- brands and the British Monarchy
tionships, has sparked ‘swooning adulation’ As we will see, scrutinising the British
since its release in Britain in January 2011 Monarchy through the lens of a corporate

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28 3

 Balmer

heritage brand means that, in branding Monarchy (which arguably is a corporate

terms, importance is, necessarily, accorded heritage brand) is all too conspicuous.
not only to the past and present, but also to
the prospective future. Or, to put it slightly HERITAGE BRANDS: FROM THE
differently, corporate heritage brands are REAL THING TO THE REAL QUEEN
simultaneously concerned not only with In the commercial realm, if the Coca Cola
the present, but also with reflections, and, brand can claim (as a heritage product and
importantly, directions. Moreover, corpo- corporate brand) – in terms of strength of
rate heritage brands are concerned with brand heritage – profile and symbolic value
history – sometimes real, sometimes ideal- to be ‘The Real Thing’, then, arguably,
ised and sometimes imagined – and history Queen Elizabeth II can equally affirm to be
in the making: a concern with the future. ‘The Real Queen’ in terms of its provenance,
Corporate heritage brands are not stuck in profile, global presence and psychological
the past or unduly hidebound by history, potency. Both are emblematic of their
but are informed by the precept of ‘pressing respective nations: Coca Cola vis-à-vis the
forwards with the past’. United States and Queen Elizabeth in terms
In terms of the manifestation of heritage, of the United Kingdom/her other Realms
this can, at a more macro level, characterise and in relation to the Commonwealth.
corporate purposes, activities, competen- If it is indisputably the case that the
cies, cultures, philosophies and strategies. British Monarchy, among the world’s
At a more micro level, the heritage foot- monarchical brands, has a prominent posi-
print can be found in design heritage, tion, this is because the brand has entered
advertising and communication heritage, into common consciousness. Why is this so?
sensory heritage, architectural heritage and British Monarchs still wear crowns, have a
so on. formal coronation ceremony, sit on a
Corporate heritage brands can have a throne and still, occasionally, ride in a
symbiotic relationship with other heritage gilded carriage: many monarchies have dis-
brands (place, communities, professions and pensed with all of the above and some have
so on) and can have a meaningful/defining kept only a few of these erstwhile monar-
bilateral relationship with other corporate chical practices. It is a brand that inhabits
heritage brands, for example Bentley (cars) time and space in a way that few other
and Breitling (watches), or, in the United institutional brands can equal. Of course,
States, the close association between the until the mid-twentieth century, a quarter
College of William and Mary and the of the world’s population were subjects of
British Monarchy as we will shortly see. the British King and a good many were
subjects of Queen Elizabeth II. Remark-
Questions of brand archaeology and ably, perhaps, 16 nations still continue as
brand strategy constitutional monarchies with Queen
In terms of corporate heritage brand man- Elizabeth II remaining as their sovereign.
agement, there is a requirement to marry Among these Kingdoms are the United
brand archaeology (a concern with a brand’s Kingdom, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia,
provenance and historic attractiveness) with Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Jamaica,
brand strategy (marshalling the brand her- New Zealand and so on.
itage in order to maintain its brand saliency
and competitive advantage for the future). The Monarchy: A potent heritage brand
As such, the similarity between corpo- In UK contexts, arguably, the British
rate heritage brands and the British Crown is the most potent, as well as the

4 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28

 Commentary

most familiar, of all British corporate her- identity can be seen in the remarks made
itage brands. With the passage of time, the by the President of the College of William
British Monarchy has become less ‘product- and Mary in Virginia (the second oldest
like’, owing to the atrophy of its political University in the United States) given in
power, and more ‘brand-like’ as its symbolic 2009. His speech also provided a lucid and
and emotional power has burgeoned. cogent explanation why heritage and history
As marketing scholars have observed are highly salient. The speech is significant
(viz: Otnes and Maclaran, 2007), the ‘con- in that it represents a somewhat effusive
sumption’ of the British Crown can create endorsement of that University’s continuing
a sense of self – a sense of identity – for – although informal – links with the British
individuals and groups; this is similar to Crown. This appears to be quite atypical in
many other corporate brands and institu- the United States: (See Box 1). It should be
tions (football clubs are a case in point) that noted that the Charter Day ceremony at the
have a similar, ubiquitous, status as corpo- College of William and Mary is, de facto, an
rate heritage brands. As with these sports invented tradition and a highly meaningful
brands, the British Monarchy can some- one at that. Invented tradition refers to those
times engender a religious-like loyalty organisational events that appear to have a
owing to its quasi-sacred aura. considerable provenance, but whose origins
are in fact more recent. This is discussed
The British Monarchy and the further later on.
College of William and Mary, Certainly on reflection, and in the con-
Virginia (USA) text of this article, the observations of the
The appropriation of the British Monarchy President of William and Mary are not that
to create a sense of institutional and group surprising and are in fact highly prescient.

Box 1: The College of William and Mary, Virginia, USA: 2009 Charter Day speech delivered by the College’s President: Taylor
Reveley

Why do we gather in PBK Hall each year for Charter Day? Precious few other colleges or universities set aside
a day each year to celebrate the details of their births. Certainly, no other college or university celebrates
by reading a royal charter from the late seventeenth century. Indeed, among the thousands of colleges and
universities in America, virtually none but William and Mary have a royal charter to read. So, why do we gather
each year for Charter Day?

Perhaps we gather because William and Mary is very old, and people in Virginia like old things. Doubtless, we all
remember why it takes five Virginians to replace a light bulb – one to unscrew the old bulb and insert the new,
and four others to talk about how truly marvellous the old bulb was. So, Charter Day is very Virginian, a time to
remember fondly our ancient self.

Or perhaps we keep Charter Day so faithfully because of our ardent regard for the British royal family. Recall
our delight in having The Queen – Elizabeth II – in our midst twice, with 50 years separating her two visits, and
Prince Charles in 1981 and again 1993, when he returned to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the College. Of
course, it was not always so. William and Mary spat out the British royals during the Revolution. It jettisoned
our college seal crafted in England, replacing it with one apparently designed by George Wythe from 1783
to 1929, when the original seal was resurrected. Wythe, Washington, Jefferson, Marshall, Monroe and their
Revolutionary colleagues would not have gotten a kick out of gathering once a year to read a royal charter, but
a lot of water has flowed under the bridge in Williamsburg since the Revolution.

Beyond Virginians loving old things, and William and Mary loving royal Britons, perhaps there is a bit more
substance to why Charter Day appeals to us. Let me try to capture what that substance might be. To quote an
article I wrote a few years ago – it is always refreshing to quote yourself:

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28 5

 Balmer

Box 1 continued

‘Judging by behaviour, people do put stock in what came first and, more generally, in things with some age on
them. Jamestown stresses it got underway before Plymouth Rock as the oldest permanent English settlement in
America …. Among the various states,Virginia and Massachusetts guard their temporal primacy. Washington
and Lee University and Hampden-Sydney College will disagree forever over which is the tenth oldest institution
of higher education in the United States and which the eleventh. Most people prefer to cite the sayings of long
dead presidents than those still living or only recently gone the way of all flesh. We line up to see famous old
things, like the original Declaration of Independence. We suffer angst when antiquities are lost. We celebrate
institutional birthdays every 25 years, with special passion on occasions denominated in the 100s’.

‘Why do people behave this way? Perhaps because there is a presumption of quality inherent in age. People who
belong to old institutions, accordingly, often feel distinguished themselves because of the association. They are
nourished vicariously by the institution’s deep roots and flourish under the glory of its ancient foliage. They feel
linked to past generations, on common ground with those who also have been nourished by the institution in
earlier years. This is especially true when those who have gone before went on to glittering achievement’.

‘Why should there be a presumption of quality in age? Perhaps because it suggests staying power, the capacity
over time to survive adversity and seize opportunity, the poise and dignity that come from surmounting
countless flaps and crises, and the wisdom born of experience, especially the knowledge what not to change
even as everything else does…’.

‘Whether universities, regiments or law firms, some institutions move powerfully from one generation to the
next. Others find themselves becalmed, or they founder. Reasons for success and failure are legion. But those
institutions that prevail usually take strength from their past. They remember their heroes, their times of peril
and triumph, and their basic beliefs. The importance of the past as a source of confidence and poise grows with
the turmoil of the present’.

So, on Charter Day we celebrate the presumption of quality inherent in William and Mary’s being the second
oldest institution of higher education in the United States.

We celebrate the wisdom born of experience over 316 years, including our sense of what not to change even as
everything else changes.

We celebrate the staying power born of perseverance in the face of wars, financial disasters and controversies,
both internal and external.

We celebrate the poise and dignity born of experience and perseverance – poise and dignity not just during the
good times and but especially during the bad times. There is very little William and Mary has not seen and very
little it has not survived.

Inexperienced and untested institutions do not always respond with the grace under pressure shown by those
who have been around for more than three centuries. So, we celebrate each year on Charter Day the College’s
grace under pressure.

The mythical bird, the phoenix, was on the seal George Wythe designed for the College, the one I mentioned
a moment ago that served William and Mary well from 1783 to 1929. A graven image of a ferocious-looking
phoenix sits where our Old Campus meets the New Campus. The phoenix was placed there in honour of the
College’s 275th birthday with a quote that reads: ‘From the old to the new, may this entrance, like the phoenix,
symbolize a look to the future made promising by a challenging heritage’.

A very happy Charter Day 2009 to us all!

Taylor Reveley. President of the College of William and Mary,Virginia, USA

7 February 2009

Reproduced in full from http://www.wm.edu/news/stories/archive/2009/president-taylor-reveley-remarks,-charter-

day-2009-001.php with the kind permission of the President of the College of William and Mary.

6 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28

 Commentary

This is because our fascination with her- as a distinct category of brand in a study
itage and brands, and corporate brands in of the Swedish Monarchy undertaken by
particular, is redolent of our age. An age Professor Mats Urde, Professor Stephen A.
that is rediscovering the value of the iconic, Greyser, our study was reported in the
symbolic and nostalgic: key features of con- Journal of Brand Management (Balmer et al,
temporary branding (Naughton and Vlasic, 2006).
1998; Brown et al, 2003; Holt et al, 2004). By means of context, Box 1 details the
It is no surprise, then, that this has seen speech made by the President of the Col-
a surge of interest in corporate heritage lege of William and Mary detailed earlier;
brands. It is equally of little surprise that Box 2 provides supplementary information
an examination of monarchy led to the in terms of the British Monarchy’s creden-
identification of corporate heritage brands tials as a corporate brand; Box 3 provides

Box 2: Overview of the British Monarchy’s credentials as a corporate brand

In global contexts, there are two corporate heritage brands that are in a class of their own: the Papacy (an
elected theocratic monarchy) and the British Monarchy (a hereditary constitutional monarchy) and the latter
– although encountering numerous travails – has, for the main, proved to be protean, durable, resilient and
relevant since time immemorial. Having endured for more than a millennia – taking account of its English and
Scottish derivations – it is a corporate brand that survived the ‘institutional regicide’ that swept away many
monarchies and dynasties in the aftermath of World War I. Currently, in Great Britain, the very mention of
the phrase ‘the firm’ is seen, in common parlance, to denote the British Monarchy: the phrase was popularised
by King George VI (Junor, 2005; Micklethwait and Wooldridge, 2005). The implication of the above is that not
only is the monarchy akin to the modern corporation but, currently, should also be viewed and – in general
management terms – managed as an institutional brand: this is key hypothesis of this article.

It is increasingly a sine quo non that monarchies – as with other institutional forms – are dependent on effective
general management of their corporate brands if they are to endure and remain meaningful.

At first sight, the management of monarchy might seem to be a somewhat arcane and atypical general
management concern. However, on reflection, it is indubitably the case that the contrary is true especially when
account is given of the extraordinary breadth and depth of brand loyalty shown towards monarchies; not only
in both British but also in global contexts. A key premise of this article is to reveal, in theoretical terms, the key
precepts of monarchical management in terms of monarchies as corporate brands and, in addition, to explicate
how this might have a utility for general managers.

In several regards, monarchies are akin to the modern corporation as with many contemporary corporate
brands. The British Monarchy, for instance, has powerful visual iconography such as its coat of arms and its use
of Royal Cipher ‘EIIR’ and the symbol of the Crown: it also has prominent verbal iconography such as the use
of the prefix Royal and Regius (viz: Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the appointment of Regius – ‘Royal’
– Professors at Oxford and Cambridge).

Moreover, as a corporate brand, the British Crown has undergone several rebrandings, brand deletions and brand
extensions. Viz:

Monarchical corporate rebranding

Consider the change of dynasty/dynastic name of the British Monarchy during the Great War (1914–1918) when
Great Britain was at war with Germany and the public were outraged that their monarchy had strong Teutonic
links, no more so than its dynastic name, which was Saxe, Coburg and Gotha. To assuage public concerns, and
to downplay the Crown’s foreign antecedents, the dynastic name replaced by the decidedly English-sounding
dynastic name of Windsor (Hough, 1981; Junor, 2005). A failure to change the name might possibly have
brought about a rapid Requiem for Britain’s monarchy.

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28 7

 Balmer

Box 2 continued

Arguably, this was the most strategically effective and celebrated rebranding within recent times.

Monarchical corporate brand deletions

This can happen when a national community has eschewed its links with the Crown; the establishment of
republican constitutions in the United States and India are cases in point. In Eire, and what was to eventually
emerge as the Republic of Ireland, the iconography of monarchy was progressively removed or altered; postage
stamps being a highly visible case in point (Jeffery, 2006).

Monarchical corporate brand extensions and endorsements

These include the conferment of a Royal Title (The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra); the granting of a Royal
Charter (The BBC) and the award of a Royal Warrant – ‘By Appointment to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’
– (Twinning’s Tea and Coffee Merchants is a case in point). In marketing contexts, Royal Warrants are seen to
be a valuable aspect of an organisation’s corporate marketing/marketing mix (Swengley, 2006).

In general terms, we should note that a very great deal of the writing on monarchy is superficial; there is, or
has been, a degree of prejudice – and among parts of the academic community, including those from marketing
and management, insouciance – in taking an objective view of this important and highly meaningful, prominent
and global institutional form. Taking a general management and strategic perspective, this article seeks to,
in part, readdress the above imbalance and to make a theoretical and normative contribution to the general
management of constitutional monarchy per se by identifying the key precepts of monarchical management.

As a prominent lead writer of The Times (of London) reflected:

The trouble is that today it (the British Monarchy) is discussed only in terms of weary triviality or sickening gush (including
hostile sickening gush) and anyone trying to be half serious on this subject will most likely be drowned in the triviality and
gush as soon as he opens his mouth. (Levin, 1991, p. 69)

information on constitutional monarchies more, in-depth, examination of the

generally and Box 4 details information on phenomenon was, actually, provided by
the British Monarchy specifically. another celebrated scholar Professor David
Cannadine (1983).
THE DISCOVERY OF CORPORATE
HERITAGE BRANDS: THE The identification of corporate
INVENTION OF TRADITION AND heritage brands as a distinct
THE INEXTRICABLE LINK WITH branding category
THE BRITISH MONARCHY Equally, as readers of the JBM may, it was
As readers of the Journal of Brand Manage- a branding study of monarchy that led my
ment ( JBM) may recall, it was the legendary esteemed academic colleagues and myself
Professor Eric Hobsbawm (Emeritus Pro- to introduce, define and elaborate the con-
fessor of Economic and Social History at struct of corporate heritage brands (Balmer
the University of London) who, as a con- et al, 2006; Urde et al, 2007). My two aca-
sequence of his scrutiny of the British demic partners being the eminent Scandi-
Monarchy among other institutions, intro- navian branding scholar Professors Mats
duced the term ‘invented tradition’. Urde (Lund University, Sweden) and the
Invented tradition refers to a set of prac- renowned marketing academic Professor
tices that seek to inculcate certain values Stephen A. Greyser (Harvard Business
and norms of behaviour by reputation and School, USA).
implies – and the importance of the word In the second of our two articles (Urde
implies needs to be stressed here – conti- et al, 2007) also published in JBM a review
nuity with the past (Hobsbawm, 1983). A of the literature enabled us to compare and

8 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28

 Commentary

Box 3: Constitutional monarchies in context

Such is the cognitive profile and power of monarchy that it has, for at least the last two millennia, passed into
the intuitive consciousness of mankind (Low, 1927, p. 276). The monarchies of Britain, Denmark and Sweden,
for instance, date back to the first millennium (Cannon and Griffiths, 1998; Duhs, 2000). Often perceived as an
outmoded institutional form, constitutional monarchy is, paradoxically, the preferred constitutional system in
countries that are known to be industrially and economically advanced, egalitarian, decidedly democratic and
socially progressive such the Netherlands and Norway.

Constitutional monarchies – such as those in Australia, Belgium, Jamaica, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Spain,
Sweden, Thailand and the United Kingdom; constitutional monarchies – being the mode of monarchy discussed
in this article – define a state whose titular head of state is Monarch who: ‘reigns but does not rule’ (Bogdanor,
1997, p. 1): the position is analogous to the post of Chancellor in British and in certain Commonwealth
Universities where their roles and responsibilities are largely symbolic and ceremonial: an example of highly
meaningful, although, ‘soft’ power.

Where constitutional monarchies do have constitutional power these are, largely, ‘reserve powers’; such
powers are, typically, only used in extremis.

Currently, constitutional monarchies have a critically important symbolic branding role as an icon of both state
and people. This role, and its attendant responsibilities and obligations, is sometimes articulated in the very
opening of national constitutions (in an analogous manner, the opening lines Royal Charters of Universities
invariably assign importance to visual symbolism, in terms of the grant of a coat of arms).

An indicative example of a Crown’s symbolic role is found in Article 1 of the Constitution of Japan, in which the
symbolic role of the sovereign and, de facto, provides a reminder that brand ownership resides with the people.
As such, the position of The Emperor of Japan is described as:

The symbol of the state and of the unity of the people, deriving his position from the will of the people with whom resides
sovereign power.’(Bowring and Kornicki, 1993, p. 283)

Monarchies, as ancient and polymorphous institutional forms, engender considerable public support and interest
on the global stage (The Economist, 2006a,b): the global television audience of two and half billion watched the
funeral of Princess Diana in London is a case in point. Monarchies – taking a general management perspective –
represent a highly significant, if under researched, institutional category. Monarchs not only have a constitutional
function role, but a symbolic function: the prominent British historian David Starkey (2002) has asserted that
monarchies are brand-like. The management of a monarchy such as that in Britain means that senior courtiers
have day-to-day stewardship of a brand community that extends to almost a third of mankind by virtue of the
Crown’s Commonwealth associations: this is a very real, significant, if daunting, general management concern.

Clearly, the notion that people consume monarchies in a way that is not dissimilar from other corporate
brands – although on both a national and a global scale – would indicate that management scholars are well
placed to advance our comprehension of these important institutional forms: such insights would complement
those provided by scholars of political science; constitutional law and history in terms of our comprehension of
monarchy.

Of course, there are intellectual arguments against monarchy, as well as a visceral dislike of the institution.
Some countries, such as the Republic of Ireland and the United States, as a result of their pattern of historical
development, have troubled and negative associations with the British Monarchy and even today remain outside
the Commonwealth – an association of nations that, typically, had constitutional ties with the United Kingdom
– and of which Queen Elizabeth is its notional and symbolic figurehead. However, it should be noted that an
interest in and attraction towards Royalty can be accompanied by an animus vis-à-vis monarchy (as well as vice
versa) by both individuals and nations alike. In the above contexts, consider the following comment made by
President Roosevelt in 1943 in relation to the continuance of the Italian monarchy with a more recent comment
and that of Laura Bush on the eve of a state visit to the United Kingdom by her husband, President Bush:

‘The British are definitely monarchists and want to keep Kings on their thrones.They are monarchist-minded,’ whereas,
‘We would like to get the King out.’ President Roosevelt in 1943 (Roberts, 2009, p. 430)

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28 9

 Balmer

Box 3 continued

‘I think it’s (the British Monarchy) is a fairytale to the United States. Americans have always been fascinated by the
Monarchy and certainly the British Monarchy.’ Laura Bush (Coman et al, 2003)

Monarchies can have a clear economic value. For instance, in Japan the birth of a son to the Crown Prince and
Princess created such excitement that it gave a noticeable economic boom to Japan’s economy, which was
worth more than six hundred and eighty three million pounds (Parry, 2006).

However, as with many corporate brands, the source of their value resides in a brand community’s attachment
to a marque and the sense of identity they derive from it; this is especially true of the British Monarchy among
others:

The Crown seems to be deeply embedded in the identity of the English people, if not all the British people.The Monarchy
reinforces the sense of English uniqueness. My sense is that removing the British Crown would be akin to psychological
amputation.

Seitz (1998, p. 95): Former US ambassador to the United Kingdom

contrast our understanding of corporate somewhat greater detail (Urde et al,

heritage brands by making reference to 2007).
related historically rooted constructs such
as iconic brands, retro branding, heritage As with the work of Hobsbawm (1983),
marketing and so on. All, I might add, who introduced the notion of ‘invention
are of especial significance and, in of tradition’, our individual and collabora-
corporate marketing terms, provide a tive work on monarchy also led to the
valuable repertoire of historically rooted identification of the corporate heritage
constructs. brand construct (Balmer et al, 2006).
In our article (Urde et al, 2007), we also
made the distinction – to us a critical dis- Corporate heritage brands: Initial
tinction – between brands with a heritage insights
and heritage brands. Brands with a heritage In 2006, we detailed a number of points
are defined as having a somewhat retro- relating to corporate heritage brands and to
spective character and logic, whereas the monarchies as corporate heritage brands
latter, although corporate heritage, while (Balmer et al, 2006). For example, we
drawing on a distinctive brand provenance, asserted that:
has a pronounced contemporary/forward-
looking personality. (a) monarchies as institutions are very
Our first article on corporate heritage much like corporate brands including
brands (Balmer et al, 2006), which appeared ‘amenability to being managed in a
in a special double edition devoted to cor- manner analogous to that for a corpo-
porate branding (edited by Professor rate brand, especially one with a heritage’
Melewar and Dr Karaosmanoglu), is, to (Balmer et al, 2006, p. 139);
me, noticeable in a number of regards in (b) well-known multigenerational family-
that we owned firms whose CEO still bears the
family name, for example Fisk Johnson
(a) introduced the term corporate heritage of S.C Johnson and William Clay Ford
brands and articulated some of their of Ford Motor Company or August
salient features (Balmer et al, 2006); Busch IV of Anheuser–Busch, are cor-
(b) went on to explore corporate heritage porate heritage brands (Balmer et al,
brands and their management in 2006, p. 142);

10 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28

 Commentary

Box 4: The British Monarchy in context

The British Crown represents the most celebrated of all constitutional monarchies and has, in effect, provided a
template for many other – non-autocratic – monarchies on the global stage. For the above reasons and because
insight from this institution informed this research and examination of the British Crown provide a useful
context for this study.

The historiography of the British Monarchy, and the genealogy of its incumbents, is impressive by any measure
(Cannon and Griffiths, 1998). British monarchs have a remarkable provenance in that they are descended
from, among others, Charlemagne, the Emperor Barbarossa and Rodrigo the Cid. The British Crown, with
the exception of the Papacy and perhaps the Danish monarchy, arguably has the richest, and most celebrated,
pattern of historical development of any monarchy in global contexts.

An examination of the historiography of the British Crown reveals that the institution has metamorphosed
from an elected institution (very early incumbents of the English throne were selected among the aristocracy); a
theocratic institution (the catholic church accorded Kings an especial sacerdotal status); an autocratic institution
(monarchs became absolute, dynastic, rulers); a symbolic institution (the Crown, in recent times, derives its
status from its symbolic rather than political role); an international institution (the British Sovereign is also
Queen of Canada and New Zealand, among many other Realms) and, finally as a high-profile supra-national
institution (the British Monarch’s position as titular head of the Commonwealth.)

In constitutional terms, the British Crown has been characterised as the prototypical constitutional monarchy
(Bogdanor, 1997). Macaulay (1885) in his ‘History of England’ defined this monarchical form, which is different
from absolute monarchs and theocratic monarchies, in the following manner:

According to the pure idea of constitutional royalty, the prince reigns, and does not govern; and constitutional royalty, as it
now exists in England (sic), comes nearer that in any country to the pure idea.

Within the United Kingdom, public support for the British Monarchy is impressive by any measure and has been
so for much of the last century (Viz: Jennings and Madge, 1937). In Britain, 80 per cent of the population is in
favour of the country remaining a monarchy; 82 per cent are satisfied with the way the Queen is exercising her
monarchical role; 80 per cent believe it is important to the nation and 61 per cent feel the institution is highly
respected (MORI, 2002). A recent survey among 15 000 young adults found the Crown to be of particular
significance to their British sense of identity (Smithers, 2006) and public interest in the Crown has shown little
sign of abating as the award-winning film, ‘The Queen’ (Frears, 2006) and the books ‘On Royalty’ (Paxman,
2007) and ‘Queen Elizabeth: The Queen Mother’ (Shawcross, 2009) attest.

Many fail to grasp the extent of Queen Elizabeth II’s global brand community and are unaware that She is, de
facto, 16 Queens rolled into one (Bogdanor, 1997). This is because the Monarch is separately, and divisibly,
Queen of the United Kingdom, as well as Sovereign to 15 Realms ranging in size from Australia and Canada to
the more minuscule nations of Antigua and Barbuda and to tiny Tuvalu. In addition, Queen Elizabeth by virtue of
her status as titular head of the (British) Commonwealth has an association with in excess of an extraordinary
1 000 000 000 people plus worldwide in 54 nations: almost a third of mankind (Hodson, 1995; Cannon and
Griffiths, 1998). In organisational terms, Edwards (2006) concluded that the British Crown was in essence
nothing short of an organisational behemoth.

In addition, account needs to be taken of those individuals and groups who – although do not have any formal
association with the British Monarchy, as in nations such as France, Italy and the United States – still ‘consume’
the monarchy as a brand and derive pleasure from the institution: such individuals and groups that, to me, have a
vicarious membership of the Crown’s brand community.

In transatlantic contexts, the monarchy is viewed as the single, and most visible, difference between the United
Kingdom and United States (Marr, 2000, p. 43) and, in North American contexts, between Canada (a monarchy)
and the United States (a republic): Canada is sometimes known as ‘The Maple Monarchy’. The importance of
the institution to Canada’s sense of identity and distinctiveness – and thereby further illustrating the Crown’s
credentials as a global brand – is illustrated by the following quotes:

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28 11

 Balmer

Box 4 continued

‘The relationship with the Crown has brought much benefit to the people of Canada and will continue to do so: why
change it?’ Prime Minister Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, speaking in 1973 (Shawcross, 2002)

‘Canadians take some pride in the fact that we have a Queen of Canada.The Americans don’t, and this is one of the
defining differences. Americans love royalty but don’t have any Kings.We do, and this puts us up in the North American
league’. Former Principal Secretary to the Canadian Prime Minister (see Shawcross, 2002).

Finally, it should be noted that the literature on monarchy, particularly the British Monarchy, is voluminous.
For instance, it has been scrutinised by scholars from the perspective of the history of art (Molesworth, 1969),
commonwealth studies (Butler and Low, 1991; Bell, 2006; Jeffery, 2006; Murphy, 2006), constitutional history
(Chrimes, 1967), constitutional law (Jennings, 1950; Brazier, 2003), heraldic science (Innes, 1978), history
(Pimlott, 2002), philosophy (Montesquieu, 1748) political science (Hennessy, 1996, 1997; Bogdanor, 1997) and
sociology (Birnbaum, 1955). Of particular note is empirical studies relating to the Crown, including the social
psychological research undertaken by Billig (1991), the anthropological study of Hayden (1987), the social
policy research of Prochaska (1995) and the celebrated sociological inquiry of Shils and Young (1953) into the
Coronation. Other significant sources included Sir Roy Strong’s (2005) disquisition of British Coronations
and Bradley’s (2002) consideration of the Crown’s spiritual dimension; the longitudinal studies of the Crown
undertaken by the UK opinion research consultancy MORI (2002) and the discussion paper on the future of the
monarchy produced by the think-tank, ‘Demos’ (Hames and Leonard, 1998).

(c) monarchies (by implication corporate

heritage brands too) have the capacity
to harness positive public emotions REGAL RELEVANT
that surround the institution and its
brand heritage (Balmer et al, 2006, ROYAL
p. 142);
(d) managing the crown is similar to man- RESPONSIVE RESPECTED
aging corporate heritage brands with
the need to focus on identity (the royal
dimension), and on being relevant, Figure 1: Balmer’s royal branding mix (Balmer, 2004, 2008).
respected, responsive and maintaining (NB: Royal equates with identity and Regal equates with symbolism,
rituals, regalia and brand behaviour).
royal rituals, symbolism and regalia (the
regal dimension (Balmer, 2004; Balmer
et al, 2006, p. 159); cably linked to place (Great Britain) and
(e) the temporal dimension was of critical to a people, such as the British (Balmer
importance: ‘All heritage institutions et al, 2006, pp. 145, 146, 160).
should recognise that their brands call
for them to be not only of the past and A key aspect of the year 2006 was the ear-
present, but also of the future’ (Balmer lier work on monarchy and the articulation
et al, 2006, p. 160); of the Royal Branding Mix (Balmer, 2004,
(f) one reason why corporate heritage 2008), which consisted of five elements
brands are attractive is because they (Royal, Regal, Relevant, Respected and
may serve as stable reference points in a Responsive). It is shown in the diagram-
changing world (Balmer et al, 2006, matic form in Figure 1 and was in several
p.160); significant aspects a precursor to our fuller
(g) by inference, corporate heritage brands, treatment of corporate heritage brands in
such as monarchy, are often inextri- Urde et al (2007): as with the article on

12 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28

 Commentary

monarchy, our work on corporate heritage corporate heritage brands and that of trust;
brands was also published in the JBM. detail the methodology approach; explain
the initial theoretical and normative insights;
The five dimensions of corporate introduce a new corporate heritage brand
heritage brands management/monarchical management
In 2007, we (Urde et al, 2007) developed framework; discuss the significance and
the above work further by identifying what limitations of the work and provide general
we viewed to be the five elements of brand management advice regarding the custodi-
heritage viz: anship of corporate heritage brands.
This article draws on and builds on pre-
(a) track record: delivering value to cus- vious collaborative and individual work
tomers and non-customer stakeholders cited above, and it is hoped that it makes
over (a long) time; a meaningful advance on our understanding
(b) longevity: although on its own it does of corporate heritage brands.
not necessarily result in a heritage
brand, it is one component, among THE LITERATURE: LINKING
others, that is important; CORPORATE HERITAGE BRANDS
(c) core values: held for a period of time AND TRUST
and which have guided corporate pol- In general management contexts, and in the
icies, behaviours and actions; context of this latest phase of this study,
(d) use of symbols: reflect a corporate brand’s three studies were found to be especially
past via communications; salient in examining the British Monarchy:
(e) history important to its identity: the past the diverse literature on monarchy (this will
helps define the present. be examined later) and, moreover, the nas-
cent literature on corporate brands and the
Figure 2 shows the five dimensions of literature on trust.
brand heritage detailed above in the dia- Scrutinising the literatures on trust and
grammatic form. corporate branding, it became apparent that
there were significant links between them,
and this shed light in examining the institu-
MOVING FORWARD: CORPORATE tion of monarchy and in furthering our
HERITAGE BRANDS AND understanding of corporate heritage brands.
MONARCHY These perspectives provided the context for
In this article, I detail my latest work on this research.
the phenomenon of corporate heritage For instance, Trust – and the importance
brands in the context of monarchy and of mutual trust – between Crowns and
begin by discussing the literature on people was a prominent theme in the
literature on monarchy (Bagehot, 1867;
Kantorowicz, 1953; Billig, 1991; Colley,
Track Record Longevity 1996; Bogdanor, 1997; Pimlott, 2002; Bell,
2006). In addition, the notions of ‘the cor-
Brand porate brand promise’ and ‘corporate brand
History important Stewardship
to identity
Core values covenant’ (Balmer, 2001a, b) suggested that
an informal type of bilateral contract char-
acterised the relationship between the brand
Use of symbols
(the Crown) and the brand community
Figure 2: Elements of brand heritage (Urde et al, 2007). (the population).

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28 13

 Balmer

In corporate branding contexts, it can be earlier study) in terms of research, the single
seen that trust is of especial importance case design has the potential to reveal
in providing assurance to customers (see important insights into unique and signifi-
Levy in Pavitt, 2000, p. 33). Moreover, cant phenomena, and it has been this
corporate trademarks are analogous to trust approach that has been drawn on here
marks (Kapferer, 1997). At its essence, brand (Znaniecki, 1934 ; Gouldner, 1955; Norman,
building is concerned with company, cus- 1970; Van Maanen, 1979; Bonoma, 1983;
tomer and stakeholder relationships and the Eisenhardt, 1989; Gill and Johnson, 1991;
building of trust between them (Aperia, Gummesson, 1991; Numagami, 1998;
2001; Aperia and Back, 2004). Churchill and Iacobucci, 2002; Easton,
It has been shown that the trustworthiness 2003; Gephart, 2004; Yin, 2009). It has
of brands reduces risk (see DeChernatony been argued that a single case study meth-
and McDonalad, 1998). Moreover, brand odology has the utility in investigating a
loyalty and brand equity is dependent contemporary and previously unexplored
on trusting behaviour on the part of phenomenon and in which multiple
consumers (see Kay, 1995; Kapferer, 1997; methods of data can be marshalled (Yin,
Keller, 1998). Individuals marshal brands 2009).
to define their sense of self, and this is Of course, and to reiterate, it should be
dependent on brand trust (Elliott and noted that this study, in effect, represents a
Wattanasuwan, 1998; Newmann, 2001; continuation of the earlier study of mon-
Kapferer, 2002). archy and corporate heritage brands.
In broader contexts, brand extensions As an embedded single case study, the
are, to a considerable measure, based on examination of constitutional monarchies
trustworthiness, especially in relation to an involved several sub-units of analysis, namely
organisation’s environmental and commu- the monarchies of Britain and Sweden (see
nity programmes (see Keller and Aaker, Balmer et al, 2006 for earlier data drawn
1998); corporate brands, do of course, pro- from the latter).
vide an umbrella of trust. Institutional The monarchies of Britain and Sweden
brands, as corporate assets, are divisible are exemplar monarchical forms. As exem-
from the organisation and, therefore, may plar monarchical entities, this means that
have a life of their own as a distinctive they represent institutions that have an
identity type (Balmer, 2005a, b); as such, especial general management utility in
they can be bought, sold and borrowed: terms of benchmarking. For this reason, they
franchise arrangements being a case in point are of especial significance to this institutional/
(see Balmer and Gray, 2003). corporate branding category of corporate
Finally, and importantly, it has been heritage brands.
asserted that legal ownership of a corporate The research presented a number of not
brand – and moreover a corporate heritage inconsiderable problems both collectively
brand – is vested with the institution (legal and individually, and there were severe,
trust) and emotional ownership (emotional although entirely understandable, con-
trust) resides with the brand community of straints in terms of how the data could be
customers and other stakeholder groups collected and disseminated vis-à-vis the
(see Balmer, 2005a). Swedish Monarchy, and the difficulty in
gaining access to the British Crown meant
METHODOLOGY that reliance had to be placed on secondary
Faced with a virtual tabula rasa (this research data. Any weakness in this regard is, it is
can be viewed as a continuation of the argued, balanced out by the fact that this

14 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28

 Commentary

represents a revelatory case study and, undertaken over a 4-year period (see
arguably, in its own terms is significant. Balmer et al, 2006) The primary vehicle
Again, to reiterate, the contribution of this of data collection was interviews under-
study is in terms of analytical generalisation. taken with Senior Court Officials and
Data relating to the Swedish Monarchy with discussions with The Royal Family
draw on our previously published work in – including the King, Queen and
JBM (Balmer et al, 2006). Crown Princess of Sweden. The inter-
The analysis of data followed, in broad views were of a highly confidential
terms, a pattern matching logic (Trochim, nature, and the quotes marshalled in this
1989) whereby literature-based insights (in article are drawn from the case study
effect propositions) were confirmed by the and which, in one form or another, are
empirical study of the Swedish Crown and already in the public domain. Formal
secondary research of the UK Crown analytical coding was not possible for
(cross-case synthesis). Two forms of trian- the above as, for reasons of confidenti-
gulation – data triangulation and investi- ality, the interviews were not recorded.
gator triangulation – informed this enquiry The researchers took notes and followed
(Yin, 2009). audiences, interviews and meetings with
Data triangulation was manifest in terms lengthy debriefing discussions between
of marshalling multiple sources of data (the the three researchers’ key themes: the six
literature on monarchy; the empirical study facets as per 1 were found to be salient.
of the Swedish Monarchy and second This stage of the study identified monar-
research on the British Monarchy). chies as corporate heritage brands, and we
Investigator triangulation informed the introduced the notion of corporate her-
investigation of the Swedish Crown where itage brands (Balmer et al, 2006), which
there was consensus among the researchers we further elaborated (Urde et al, 2007).
on the findings. 3. ‘Consolidation’: The third thread of the
This study comprised four, distinct, study focussed on my own work on the
stages of inquiry viz: British Monarchy per se and which has
taken place since 2001. This aspect of
1. ‘Conceptualisation’: This led to the iden- the research examined the diverse lit-
tification, via the synthesis of key themes erature on the Crown, and, in broad
in the literature on monarchy (Balmer, terms, a form of content analysis took
2004, 2008). A mode of content analysis place with regard to the six facets. As
was used for this. This resulted, initially, with the Swedish Monarchy, the 5R
in the identification of five precepts of facet framework was found to be ger-
monarchies as corporate brands (these mane (Balmer et al, 2006), but that it
are akin to propositions). An implicit, required the further and sixth dimension
and prominent, dimension through all of Regulation (management).
stages of the study – the importance of 4. Theoretical contribution: The above insights
regulation (the ongoing stewardship of were placed in the context of the literature
monarchy as a corporate heritage brand) on corporate branding and trust in order
– formed the sixth precept as detailed to conceptualise a theoretical contribution.
in the findings section of this article. Within the case study tradition, the theo-
2. ‘Affirmation’: The second strand of the retical contribution is in terms of analytic
study marshalled insights from an empir- generalisation rather than statistical gener-
ical, collaborative case study (Urde alisation (Yin, 2009, p. 15). The theo-
et al, 2007) of the Swedish Monarchy retical contribution was the identification

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28 15

 Balmer

of three precepts of corporate heritage (this represents, arguably, the key theoret-
brands, namely: the critical importance of ical contribution of this study).
trust, affinity and authenticity.
The Authenticity precept
Authenticity relates to the maintenance of
FINDINGS monarchical/institutional identity in terms
of being a corporate heritage brand.
General finding
The monarchies of Britain and Sweden, as
corporate heritage brands, are dependent The Affinity precept
on bilateral trust between the Crown and Affinity embraces the notion of public
public. This is predicated on public affinity expectation that the Crown should remain
towards the monarchy and the Crown, a meaningful symbol in both national and
maintaining its authenticity as a corporate cultural contexts in terms of a corporate
brands vis-à-vis its relationship with its brand heritage brands.
community. Moreover, the synthesis of
these additional insights resulted in a central NORMATIVE INSIGHT:
finding relating to the centrality trust CORPORATE HERITAGE BRANDS
towards the management and maintenance AND THE 6Rs OF MANAGING
of monarchy and the requirement to cali- MONARCHIES AS CORPORATE
brate authenticity (taking an institutional HERITAGE BRANDS
and identity perspectives) and affinity (being Taking a general management and a nor-
mindful of customers and stakeholder con- mative perspective vis-à-vis corporate her-
cerns). itage brands, it was found that, Trust,
Authenticity and Affinity are underpinned
Theoretical insight: The precepts of by the 6Rs (Royal, Regal, Relevance,
corporate heritage (monarchical) Respect, Responsiveness and Regulation).
brands – Trust, Authenticity and The initial analysis of both monarchies
Affinity broadly confirmed the earlier insight as
In theoretical terms, the study revealed that reported in Balmer et al (2006) but, in addi-
the saliency of monarchies as corporate her- tion, revealed the importance of regulation
itage brands is dependent on the maintenance (management). This being said, it was also
and the meaningful equilibrium of the three found that the six dimensions (6Rs) can be
precepts: Trust, Authenticity and Affinity. clustered in to four clusters viz:
In terms of analytical generalisation, it is
advanced that achieving equilibrium bet- First Cluster: Internal/Institutional Concerns
ween the aforementioned may be regarded The Royal and Regal dimensions
as a key tenet of institutional corporate
heritage brand saliency per se. Second Cluster: External/Public Concerns
The Relevance and Respect dimensions

The Trust precept Third Cluster: Environmental Concerns

Trust represents the bilateral covenant The Responsiveness dimension
between the Crown and people, which
requires institutional Authenticity to be in Fourth Cluster: Brand Custodianship and
dynamic equilibrium with public Affinity General Management Concerns
in terms of being a corporate heritage brand The Regulation dimension

16 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28

 Commentary

THE 6Rs OF MONARCHIES AS

CORPORATE HERITAGE BRANDS You see, Edward (King Edward VII, in
In this section, the facets of monarchies as 1936) ran away before he was crowned.
corporate heritage brands are further elabo- He was never anointed, so he never really
rated: reference is made to selected quotes became King. So he never abdicated.
from the study. (British Courtier (Paxman, 2007, p. 125))

Royal Regal
The Royal status is a critical dimension of As defined here, regal refers to the actions
corporate heritage brands. This is because and behaviours and, importantly, symbols
the monarchical identity – as it invests a that are appropriate – and what are not
Head of State with a unique role, status and appropriate – to those having a royal status.
obligations (Hayden, 1987; Cannon and The regal dimension of corporate heritage
Griffiths, 1998; Ormrod, 2001; Strong, brands is derived from history (‘what we
2005); it also, as a corporate heritage brand, have done’), traditions (‘what we do, and
accords a Royal identity to nation states as how’) and culture (‘what the people expect
Kingdoms. The Royal identity means that and accept’). Monarchical behaviour
monarchs, and their families, are set apart, (Regal) should be in alignment with expec-
told that they are apart, treated as if they are tations (the Royal identity): this is a key
apart, and, in the end – in cognitive terms tenet of corporate brand management.
– everyone, including the Royals them- Royal behaviour has been the subject of
selves, recognise that they are apart (Holes- treatises penned by no less than Machia-
worth, 1969, p. 27). The Royal status can velli, Pontano and Sacchi: of particular note
be withdrawn (Colley, 1996; Cannon and among these is Patrizi’s ‘The Education of a
Griffiths, 1998; Black, 2001): the abdication King’ (Skinner, 2000).
of King Edward VI and the removal of the
Stuart dynasty in 1688. In fact, monarchy The mass of the people expects a King
has a quasi-religious identity. Indeed, for or Queen to look and play the part. (Lord
centuries in the past, the Anglican Church Halifax in Thompson, 1967, p. 104)
had a service of ‘touching the sick’, based
on the belief that a consecrated monarch We are sometimes criticised that we are
had the power to cure subjects who suffered too common in a sense. Young people, for
from scrofula (The Economist, 2007). example, often want us to be like them-
but at the same time there are expectations
It is never forgotten that it is because of the that we should be role models and ‘behave
State that the King is powerful, without the like a royal.’ I feel that dealing with this
State he is nothing. (Gilbert, 1992. p. 30) paradox is sometimes very hard. (Audience
with Her Royal Highness Crown Princess
The Government and the Head of State Victoria of Sweden in Balmer et al, 2006)
(the Monarch) must understand the
content of each other’s tasks and roles. The (Royalty is) ‘an arduous profession’ which
roles are defined in the Constitution, but has few opt-outs. ‘Their daily tasks, for
they must play the roles in a way that wins months ahead, are prescribed and set out
the people’s approval. In a democracy the in a diary of engagements from which
play is written and put on stage by the only illness can excuse them. None but
Parliament.’ (Ingemar Eliasson: Marshal of those trained from youth to such an
the Swedish Realm; in Balmer et al, 2006) ordeal can sustain it with amiability and

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28 17

 Balmer

composure. The royal motto “Ich Dien” (His Royal Highness Prince Charles
is no empty phrase. It means what it says (Prince Charles: Television Interview
– “I Serve”.’ (Princess Alice, Countess on US Television, 2005))
of Athlone – last surviving grandchild
of Queen Victoria – 1966 (Shawcross, Diana’s (The Princess of Wales) appeal
2009, p. 761)) rested in part on an ancient archetype:
the monarch who walks among the
people, working miracles, in her case
Relevant
among lepers, AIDS patients and maimed
As with any successful corporate heritage
children she unsquemishly embraced.
brand, the monarchy must remain relevant
(The Economist, 2007).
and attuned to its brand community; for
the Crown, this is the country at large. If
It is a complete nonsense to imagine the
in former times monarchy focussed on the
Monarchy exists in the interests of the
noblesse, at present the importance of noblesse
Monarch. It doesn’t. It exists in the interests
oblige is stressed. For example, the Crown
of the people. If at any time any nation
has marshalled its privilege position to shed
decides that the system is unacceptable, then
light on the plight of the poor, disadvantaged,
it is up to them to change it. (His Royal
or forgotten (Balmer, 2009); Ormrod (2001)
Highness Prince Philip – speaking in Canada
has noted this significant trait of modern
in 1969 – (Lacey, 2002, p. 394))
monarchy in his in-depth treatise of the
Crown. Prochaska (1995) has averred that
We are going into a world that is global
in addition to being a constitutional mon-
and globalised. People need roots. I
archy, the British Monarchy may fairly be
remember when an older gentleman
known as a ‘Welfare Monarchy’.
walked up to me and said: ‘Wasa rye crisps
In broader contexts, monarchies are
are now Italian, Volvo Cars is American.
highly meaningful institutions in expressing
Then only thing we have left is the
national identity and, as corporate heritage
King’. (Interview with Gunnar Brodin:
brands, in providing a focus for national
Former Marshal of the Swedish Realm,
identification from the populace; in an
2003 in Balmer et al, 2006)
increasingly globalised and homogenised
world, monarchy has a heightened rele-
Over the last twenty to thirty years we
vance in this regard. Testimony to the con-
have lost our colonies, our industries and
cern that the Crown needs to remain
our British Passports have been replaced
relevant to people from all walks of life and
by European ones, we have lost almost
from all parts of the country is the map of
everything. If we lose the Royal Family
the United Kingdom on the connecting
what is there?’ (Marjorie in Rowbottom,
door between the offices of the Queen’s
2002, p. 38)
Principal and Deputy Private Secretaries,
which is covered with pins showing the
places where Queen Elizabeth has visited
Respect
during her reign (Bailey, 1977). This is not
Respect is a cornerstone of constitutional
a new phenomenon: a similar concern
monarchy and is of critical importance in
characterised the reign of King George III
maintaining the saliency of corporate her-
(Colley, 1996).
itage brands. Former British Prime Minister
The most important thing is to remain Stanley Baldwin, tendering advice to King
relevant. It isn’t easy as you can imagine. Edward VIII in 1936, pointed out that the

18 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28

 Commentary

more freedom ordinary people claim for the people. That consent, or the lack of
them, the more they demanded high stand- it, is expressed for you, Prime Minister,
ards from those who ruled them (Cannon through the ballot box. It is a tough, even
and Griffiths, 1998, p. 631). It is only brutal, system, but at least the message
through public consent – and, moreover, is clear for all to read. For us, a Royal
respect – that Britain’s Monarchy endures Family, however, the message is often
(Bogdanor, 1997); monarchs need to deal harder to read, obscured as it can be by
honourably with men at all times and keep deference, rhetoric or the conflicting
faith with them (Skinner, 2000). Earlier attitudes of public opinion. Bur read it
notions of kingship focussed on the precept we must. (Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth
of: ‘ad vitam aut culpam’ – for life unless II (Hames and Leonard, 1998, pp. 7–8))
removed for fault – (Manchester, 1993,
p. 18). The affection and respect between Royal Families around the world can no
the Crown and people cannot be taken for longer take for granted their legitimacy.
granted: the travails experienced by the In the 125th generation [of the present
Crown in the immediate aftermath of the Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko],
death of Diana, Princess of Wales, revealed legitimacy is earned through hard work
the institution to be vulnerable and bare. and humility. But we worry about
Respect should not be confused with pop- the 126th generation. (Member of the
ularity or with fame: the latter tend to be Imperial Household Agency of Japan
transitory. It requires hard work, persever- (Lloyd Parry, 2008))
ance and ongoing public courtship, some-
thing that the late Queen Elizabeth (the Responsive
Queen Mother) was credited with (Shaw- Responsiveness accommodates the notion
cross, 2009, p. 942); at her death, her lying- that constitutional monarchies as corporate
in-state, attracted an 8-mile queue of people heritage brands cannot afford to be scle-
wishing to pay their final respects (Roberts, rotic: account needs to be taken of changes
2003). The loss of respect has, in the past, in the political, economic, social, ethical
resulted in execution (King Charles I in and technological environment. One of the
1649); abdication (King Edward VIII in imperatives of monarchy as a corporate
1936); dynastic alteration (from Stewart to heritage brand is the need to interpret the
Hanoverian) and brand deletion (changing nation to itself (Bogdanor, 1997), and it has
the dynastic name of Saxe Coburg and been the ruthless pragmatics of the Crown
Gotha to Windsor during the Great War that has ensured its continuance. For
of 1914–1918). instance, whereas in the past the crown as
corporate brand had to be relevant to the
In the age of democracy the Crown has to be church and nobility, at present the brand
like any other brand: it has to win the respect community is much wider, and more
of the people. (Dr David Starkey, 2002) varied, with the monarch having an obliga-
tion to all walks of society. As such, the
Despite the huge constitutional difference relationship between the Crown and people
between a hereditary monarchy and an is not one of ruler and subjects, but more
elected government, in reality the gulf akin to servant and citizen: currently, mon-
is not so wide. They are complementary archies are in the service of the people and
institutions, each with its own role to not vice versa. The servant–citizen relation-
play. Each, in its difference way, exists ship – after the recent travails within finan-
only with the support and consent of cial services institutions – may also to be of

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28 19

 Balmer

saliency to general managers; and the final also share stewardship for the monarchy as
quote, cited below, from Queen Elizabeth a corporate brand.
is salient in this regard.
When our Kings are in conflict with
I am not concerned at the possible our constitution we change our Kings.
sacrifice of old traditional ideas and (Churchill to King Edward VIII (in
customs regarding Royalty. Some of these Cannadine, 2003, p. 50))
have already been sacrificed. Sovereigns
must keep pace with the times. (Lord Sir Alan Lescelles to Prime Minister
Stamfordian, Private Secretary to King Baldwin: ‘In my considered opinion, the
George V (Prochaska, 2000, p. 157)) Heir Apparent (the future King Edward
VIII) in his unbridled pursuit of Wine
(My motto) ‘For Sweden – With the and Women, and of whatever selfish
times’. To me it means being a Monarch whim occupied him at the moment, was
in a modern society – that is, to adapt going rapidly to the devil, and unless he
the role by meeting the demands of a mended his ways, would soon become
changing world. Not being ahead of the no wearer of the British Crown. You
times, not being behind the times. But know, sometimes when I sit in York
rather being in our time. It’s about sensing House waiting to get the results of some
feelings and what is right at the time – point-to-point in which he is riding, I
what the Swedish people wish and expect can’t help thinking that the best thing that
from a modern Monarch. (Audience could happen to him, and to the country,
with His Majesty Carl XVI Gustaf of would be for him to break his neck.’
Sweden, 2004 in Balmer et al, 2006)) Prime Minister Baldwin: ‘God forgive
me. I have often thought the same.
The Queen has accepted that the Royal ’Hart-Davis, 2006, p. 104)
Family must change its image after the
death of Diana, Princess of Wales. A
CORPORATE HERITAGE BRANDS:
source close to the Queen spoke yesterday
A MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
of the need to demonstrate, ‘softer,
Figure 3 marshals the theoretical and
gentler touches’ in the wake of what
normative insights from this study into a
he described as the first royal tragedy to
management framework vis-à-vis corporate
occur in mass media culture. (Middleton,
heritage brands. From this, it can be seen
1999, p. 601).
that trust is the nexus that links brand
authenticity (the brand promise) and brand
Regulation affinity (the positive associations towards
Monarchies – as with all manner of con- the brand on the part of the brand com-
temporary corporate brands/corporate her- munity). It is a dynamic and reciprocal
itage brands – require regulation (corporate process.
brand management): they are dependent on As with the earlier framework (see
the application of good corporate/heritage Figure 1), the Royal and Regal dimensions
brand management principles, which are can be adapted for general use vis-à-vis cor-
affected by able policymakers. The ultimate porate heritage brands (Royal equates with
guardian for the institution as a corporate identity and Regal equates with symbolism,
heritage brand is the monarch and in extremis behaviour, ritual and so on).
the Queen’s Private Secretary, Prime Min- As such, it is important to appreciate that
ister and the Government of the day: they trust is an active/evolving trait, in that the

20 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28

 Commentary

REGULATION

ROYAL RELEVANCE
AUTHENTICITY TRUST AFFINITY
REGAL RESPECT

RESPONSIVE

Figure 3: A corporate heritage brand management framework (derived from monarchies as corporate heritage brands).
Note: Royal equates with identity (for non-monarchical heritage brands); Regal equates with symbolism, behaviour, rituals and so on
(for non-monarchical heritage brands).

nature of trust can shift over time as the brand Kingdom and Sweden are favourable, stable
community evolves (this has something and have been so for some considerable time.
monarchy has adjusted to over the centuries). (b) An individual’s relationship with an
It also illustrates the centrality of trust and the organisation is predicated on trust
need to achieve symmetry between authen- (Zaheer et al, 1998).
ticity (from the organisation) and affinity Many individuals have a close association
(from the brand community). with monarchy in both Sweden and the
The stewardship of the Crown as a United Kingdom and the institution as a
corporate heritage brand is conceptualised corporate brand is used to define – in part
as achieving equilibrium between the – an individual’s identity.
following dimensions; these are conceptu- (c) Benevolence, integrity and positive
alised as five propositions based on trust, identification between parties is built
authenticity, affinity, responsiveness and on trust (Butler and Cantrell, 1984).
regulation. As Vaclav Havel mused, we can The monarchies of Sweden and the United
be both mature and modern and still have Kingdom are characterised by the above
icons (Shawcross, 2002, p. 235). because there is mutual identification, a
regard for institutional authenticity and a
REFLECTION: THE PRECEPTS OF high degree of public affinity.
CORPORATE HERITAGE BRANDS (d) Having regard for the temporal dimen-
AND THE LITERATURE ON TRUST sion of trust is important as trust takes
Placing the findings of the research in the time to develop (Ring and Van de Van,
context of the extant literature relating to 1992).
trust, there was prima facie confirmation for Both Crowns have a rich pattern of his-
a number of theoretical insights vis-à-vis the torical development, and over many years
saliency of the construct viz: they have won a high degree of public trust:
trust that has few parallels among contem-
(a) Trust underpins transactional expecta- porary organisations.
tions and is a requisite for goodwill and (e) Trust is dependent on context (Mayer
stability between parties (Barker, 1979; et al, 1995).
Zucker, 1986; Ring and Van de Van, The British and Swedish monarchies have
1992). endured as they have given due regard to
The bilateral relationships between the changes in the environment and to the mores
monarchy, state and public in the United and precepts of their respective countries and

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28 21

 Balmer

people. Thus, the Swedish Court – in com- already exist in the public domain. Under-
parison with the British Royal Household standably, these factors presented certain
– is minimalist and less formal. constraints in terms of data analysis. How-
ever, this was countered by the breadth and
depth of the study and by the research
THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION, being underpinned by two forms of trian-
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE AND gulation: data triangulation and researcher tri-
LIMITATIONS, AND FURTHER angulation. It is worth reiterating that the
RESEARCH findings aim to meet the criteria of ana-
In theoretical terms, this research resulted lytical generalisation and do not claim to
in the identified three, key, precepts of the meet the requirements of statistical gener-
management of monarchy as corporate her- alisation.
itage brands and detailed the significance of Further research might usefully apply
attaining a meaningful equilibrium between the framework to individual constitutional
them: the precepts being identified as Trust, monarchies in order to explicate the dynamic
Authenticity and Affinity. between the 6Rs and the importance that
In terms of institutional theory, the ana- monarchies accord to each dimension in
lytical generalisation from this study, terms of the management of their corporate
detailed above, can provide meaningful heritage brands. For instance, the British
insights vis-à-vis the nascent area of corpo- Monarchy has a more pronounced sacer-
rate heritage brands. dotal status and is surrounded by greater
This study is significant in that it pro- ceremonial than in Sweden. Research might
vides revelatory insights in relation to the also usefully be undertaken among auto-
general management of constitutional mon- cratic monarchies – Saudi Arabia, Morocco
archies as corporate heritage brands: an among others – in order to identify the
important, institutional, widespread and monarchical precepts of these institutions;
global phenomenon that hitherto has, sur- the same is true of the Papacy – a theocratic
prisingly, received little attention from man- and elected monarchy. The utility of the
agement and corporate marketing scholars. findings to corporate brands in business con-
In addition, it throws light on corporate texts represents another avenue of inquiry.
heritage brands per se. Deductive and quantitative methodologies
Although it is argued that the strengths leading to statistical generalisation would,
and revelatory nature of this study out- naturally, represent another meaningful
weigh the limitations, it should be noted research dimension.
that research undertaken within monar-
chies represents quite considerable difficul- MANAGEMENT ADVICE FOR
ties in terms of gaining access and in terms CORPORATE BRAND MANAGERS
of the collection and reporting of data. For In terms of general management guidance
instance, it was not possible to gain access vis-à-vis the custodianship of corporate her-
to the British Royal Household, and there- itage brands, five insights emerge from this
fore a reliance had to be placed on sec- study. As such, corporate brand managers
ondary sources; within the Swedish Royal have a responsibility in
Household – although wide access was
granted – a good deal of sensitivity had to 1. achieving trust between the organisation
be shown vis-à-vis the manner in which the as a heritage brand and its corporate
data were reported: the quotes detailed brand community of customers and
here, for instance, have been approved and stakeholders;

22 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28

 Commentary

2. maintaining the authenticity of the cor- branding and internal reinforcement of

porate heritage brand: this involves brand values;
knowing an organisation’s key identity 4. marshalling historical insights prospec-
traits and the corporate heritage brand tively useful in defending the company
promise and the relationship between (and its brand) in times of brand crisis;
them; and
3. ensuring stakeholder affinity with the 5. revisiting the brand’s history regularly to
corporate heritage brand: general man- gather new or revised insights, especially
agers need to ensure that these are if the organisation will be entering pre-
relevant, as well as respected; viously uncharted territory (for example,
4. responding to changes in the environ- new geographic markets, new industry
ment and ascertaining that both the cor- sectors).
porate heritage brand (expectations) and
corporate identity (actions and reality)
are aligned with the same; and CONCLUSION
5. administrating the corporate heritage
The characteristic danger of great
brand in such a way that it is part of
nations, like the Roman, or the English,
senior management’s strategic delibera-
which have a long history of continuous
tions; they are the sentinels of an insti-
creation, is that they may fail from not
tution’s heritage brand.
comprehending the great institutions they
have created. (Bagehot, 1867)
CHRONICLING CORPORATE Bagehot’s admonition to policymakers –
HERITAGE BRANDS AND detailed at the start of this article and repro-
EFFECTIVE BRAND STEWARDSHIP duced, again, above, that the characteristic
In addition to the extant insights on cor- danger of great nations is that they may fail
porate heritage brands detailed here, a key from not comprehending the great institu-
dimension of the custodianship of heritage tions they have created – has a contempo-
brands is to delve into a brand’s historiog- rary resonance in the context of our scrutiny
raphy. As such, I advocated elsewhere that of corporate heritage brands.
in order to ensure that long-held brand One such failure is to see their organisa-
values remain relevant and distinctive, I tions as corporate brands and, in some
advocate that policymakers and corporate instances such as the British Monarchy, as
brand managers periodically chronicle their corporate heritage brands.
corporate heritage brands (Balmer, 2009, As such, mindful of Bagehot’s admoni-
p. 659). ‘Chronicling the corporate brand’ is a tion, a key management task vis-à-vis cor-
five-stage process that encompasses the fol- porate branding, which has been long
lowing activities: standing, is to determine whether or not it
is a corporate heritage brand (the approach
1. chronicling the brand’s history to uncover detailed earlier vis-à-vis chronicling corpo-
key dimensions of brand values; rate heritage brands should be of utility
2. assembling key managers and selected here).
outside specialists to examine the chron- If so, CEOs and their advisors need to
icle and derive lessons from major events understand the nature of their heritage
in the brand’s history; brands. In addition, they need to ensure
3. documenting and communicating insights that they maintain the saliency of their cor-
from the lessons for external strategic porate heritage brands.

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28 23

 Balmer

A failure to recognise, manage and main- survival of many organisations increasingly

tain corporate heritage brands will cause depend on the strength and saliency of their
them to be weakened and, in extremis, could corporate brand and, for some, the strength
lead to their demise. and saliency of his corporate heritage brands
A failure to recognise their institutional in particular.
brand to be a corporate heritage could well The above, perhaps, explains why the
mean that they are losing out on a valuable British Monarchy as a corporate heritage
and unique corporate asset and resource. brand has endured and has remained mean-
To me, there is prima facie evidence ingful for many in Britain and the Com-
to suggest that a significant number of monwealth and, even, for those outside the
institutional brands are also corporate her- Commonwealth. (The not inconsiderable
itage brands and include automotive com- interest shown towards the British
panies, banks, breweries, hospitals, hotels, Monarchy in France, Germany, Italy and
restaurants, shipping and cruise companies, the United States are cases in point.)
engineering companies, food companies, In the build-up to the Diamond Jubilee
watchmakers, sports teams, retail outlets, as celebration of Queen Elizabeth in 2012 –
well as analogous institutions to monarchies and on the eve of the Royal Wedding of
such as the ancient monastic universities of Prince William in April 2011 – there is just
Oxford and Cambridge; the Ivy League cause for celebration. First, for a monarch
institutions of the United States, such as who, by general consensus, has been stead-
Harvard, Yale and of course the College of fast in her duty; and second, in terms of
William and Mary. the Royal Wedding, in terms of the con-
Corporate heritage brands are not tinuity of the brand (which, perhaps, in
only a western phenomenon: they exist management parlance can be viewed as suc-
throughout the globe, such as in China, cession planning) as the second in line to
India and Japan. Of course, identities and the throne (Prince William) is wedded to
corporate brand identity are also mean- Catherine Middleton.
ingful to small- and medium-sized entities In addition, there perhaps ought to
(SMEs), as noted by Ambibola and Kocak be a small celebration by those who have
(2007) and Balmer (2010), and corporate advised the Monarchy over recent decades
heritage brands will most certainly charac- in good times and in bad and who have
terise many SMEs. ensured that it has endured and remains
Truly, corporate heritage brands appear salient.
to be ubiquitous. There have been many successes to com-
To reiterate: it is the task of senior man- memorate, and a number of significant fail-
agement as stewards of corporate heritage ures on which to cogitate: some of which
brands – and ultimately the Chief Execu- have shaken the institution to the core and,
tive Officer – to not only understand their at times to some, appeared to threaten the
organisation as a corporate brand and – to existence of the institution.
draw on the insights from this study – to In bringing this commentary to a close,
maintain a meaningful equilibrium between I am mindful of what we said in our first
three, key, pivotal branding precepts: Trust, JBM article on corporate heritage brands
Authenticity and Affinity. when it was noted that all heritage institu-
tions should recognise that their brands call
APERCU for them to be not only of the past and
Finally, both senior managers and scholars present, but also of the future (Balmer et al,
alike should be mindful that the success and 2006, p. 160).

24 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28

 Commentary

The management of corporate heritage those nation states that remain outside the Common-
wealth, even though they have historic constitutional
brands is always ‘work in progress’ and ties with the British Crown/Great Britain are Burma,
characterised as it is with a broad temporal Hong Kong, Ireland and significantly the United
palette (corporate brands being of yesterday, States. Most curious in this regard is the United States,
which, even today, remains decoupled from nations
today and of the morrow) means that it is with whom it shares historic familial ties, including
best characterised as a process. Australia, Canada, New Zealand and of course Great
In one sense corporate heritage brands Britain: the wounds of 1776 (the American Revolu-
are always in the making, but are never tion) have never, it would appear, been fully healed
in this regard. In recent years, quite a few nations,
quite truly made. although not enjoying historic links with the British
Corporate heritage brands are not merely Crown, have applied for Commonwealth membership:
about history, but of history in the making: most applications have been rejected with the excep-
tion of Cameroon, Mozambique and Rwanda who
a history informed by continuity and by were, curiously, respectively French, Portuguese and
change. Belgium overseas territories and were admitted owing
As Queen Elizabeth’s Diamond Jubilee to exceptional circumstances. Commonwealth Prin-
ciples (as defined in 1971) include the requirement
celebrations approaches, the Sovereign’s for Commonwealth States to share common values
confidants and advisors can do no better relating to: democracy, human rights, good governance, the
than to ensure that the Crown keeps its rule of law, individual liberty, egalitarianism, free trade,
allure, sparkle and significance as befits a multilateralism and world peace. Heads of overseas dip-
lomatic missions from Commonwealth countries are
global corporate heritage brand. There is a known as High Commissioners and they do not have
lesson here for all those having custodian- embassies but High Commissions. The logic for this
ship of a corporate heritage brand. is because Commonwealth nations are not foreign to
each other: Commonwealth countries are, in collo-
Arguably, managing the monarchy as quial terms, seen as part of a family of nation states. In
a corporate heritage brand is one of the Commonwealth countries, High Commissioners take
most exacting tasks within the corporate precedence over ambassadors. For example, in the
United Kingdom, High Commissioners, when pre-
marketing and corporate branding realms: senting their credentials to the Queen, are driven in
it calls for connoisseurship (Balmer, a carriage drawn by four horses, whereas the ambas-
1995). sador’s coaches have only two horses. Among the
If Queen Elizabeth’s advisers can build principal symbols of the Commonwealth are the Brit-
ish Monarch (as its titular head) and the English
on past successes and are adroit in meeting language.
future challenges, then the toast ‘Long Live
the Queen (King) and God Save the Queen
(King)’ will, perhaps, be raised throughout REFERENCES
Britain and the Commonwealth for many Ambibola, T. and Kocak, A. (2007) SME as expressive
more years to come. organizations: A resource based perspective.
Qualitative Market Research 10: 416–430.
Aperia, T. (2001) Brand relationship management:
NOTES Den varumarkesbyggande processen. Doctoral
1 Footnote on the Commonwealth of Nations: Membership thesis, University of Stockholm School of Business,
of the Commonwealth traditionally has been limited Stockholm.
to those nations that were formerly part of the Brit- Aperia, T. and Back, R. (2004) Brand Relationship
ish Empire. With only a few exceptions, most former Management. Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen
British territories have joined the Commonwealth, Business School Press.
most Commonwealth no longer have constitutional Bagehot, W. (1867) The English Constitution. London:
or legal ties with Great Britain. The overwhelming Chapman and Hall.
majority of Commonwealth nations are Republics. A Bailey, A. (1977) Profiles: Queen Elizabeth II – Part 1.
few are monarchies that do not have Queen Elizabeth The New Yorker, 11 April.
as their Head of State viz: Malaysia, Lesotho. Sixteen Balmer, J.M.T. (1995) Corporate branding and
Commonwealth nations retain Queen Elizabeth as connoisseurship. Journal of General Management
their Head of State; as such, she is separately and divis- 21(1): 22–46.
ibly Queen of Australia, Queen of Canada, Queen of Balmer, J.M.T. (2001a) Corporate identity, corporate
Jamaica, Queen of New Zealand and so on. Among branding and corporate marketing: Seeing through

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28 25

 Balmer

the fog. European Journal of Marketing 35(3–4): Century. Oxford, UK: The British Academy/
248–291. Oxford University Press, pp. 69–96.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2001b) The three virtues and seven Brown, S., Kozinets, R.V. and Sherry Jr, J.F. (2003)
deadly sins of corporate brand management. Journal Teaching old brands new tricks: Retro branding
of General Management 27(1): 1–17. and revival of brand meaning. Journal of Marketing
Balmer, J.M.T. (2004) The British Monarchy; Does 67(July): 19–33.
the British Crown as a Corporate Brand Fit?. Brad- Butler, J.K. and Cantrell, R.S. (1984) A behavioural
ford University School of Management Working decision theory approach to modelling dyadic trust
Paper Series, Paper No 04/16 (April). in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports
Balmer, J.M.T. (2005a) Brand cultures and communi- 55: 19–28.
ties. In: J.E. Schroeder and M. Salzer-Morling (eds.) Butler, S.L. and Low, D.A. (eds.) (1991) Sovereigns
Brand Culture. London: Routledge, pp. 34–49. and Surrogates, Constitutional Heads of State in the
Balmer, J.M.T. (2005b) Values, promise and behaviour. Commonwealth. London: Macmillan.
The corporate branding triumvirate? THEXIS 1: Cannadine, D. (1983) The context, performance and
13–17. meaning of ritual: The British Monarchy and the
Balmer, J.M.T. (2008) Corporate brands, the British ‘Invention of Tradition’. In: E. Hobsbawm and
Monarchy and the resource-based view of the firm. T.E. Ranger (eds.) The Invention of Tradition.
International Studies of Management and Organizations Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37(4): 20–45. Cannadine, D. (2003) In Churchill’s Shadow. London:
Balmer, J.M.T. (2009) Scrutinising the British Penguin.
Monarchy: The corporate brand that was shaken, Cannon, J. and Griffiths, R. (1998) Oxford Illustrated
stirred and survived. Management Decision 47(4): History of the British Monarchy. Oxford, UK: Oxford
639–675. University Press.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2010) Explicating corporate brands Chrimes, S.B. (1967) English Constitutional History.
and their management: Reflections and directions Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
from 1995. Journal of Brand Management 18(3): Churchill, G.A. and Iacobucci, D. (2002) Marketing
180–196. Research: Methodological Foundations, 8th edn. Mason,
Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (2003) Corporate OH: South Western/Thomson Learning.
brands: What are they? What of them? European Colley, L. (1996) Britons. Forging the Nation 1707–1837.
Journal of Marketing 37(7–8): 972–997. London: Vintage.
Balmer, J.M.T., Greyser, S.A. and Urde, M. Coman, J., Brown, C. and Walker, T. (2003) It was a
(2006) The crown as a corporate brand: Insights on good idea at the time. Sunday Telegraph, 16
monarchies. Journal of Brand Management 14(1–2): November: 22.
137–161. DeChernatony, L. and McDonalad, M. (1998)
Barker, B. (1979) The Symbols of Sovereignty. Newton Creating Powerful Brands. London: Butterworth
Abbot, UK: Westbridge Books. Heinemann.
Bell, D. (2006) The idea of a patriot queen? The mon- Duhs, S. (2000) The Monarchs of Sweden. Bromma,
archy, the constitution, and the iconographic order Sweden: Purley Lodge.
of Great Britain, 1860–1900. The Journal of Imperial Easton, G. (2003) One case study is enough.
and Commonwealth History 34(1): 3–22. Proceedings of Academy of Marketing Annual Conference.
Billig, M. (1991) Talking of the Royal Family. London: Birmingham, UK: Aston Business School.
Routledge. Economist. (2006a) 22 April: 33.
Birnbaum, N. (1955) Monarchies and sociologists: A Economist. (2006b) 17 June: 69.
reply to Professor Shils and Mr Young. Sociological Economist. (2007) 25 August: 36.
Review, new series. iii. Economist. (2008) 15 March: 71.
Black, J. (2001) The House of Hanover (1714–1837). Economist. (2011) 15 January: 30.
In: W.M. Ormrod (ed.) The Kings and Queens of Edwards, A. (2006) The most famous face in the world.
England. Stroud, UK: Tempus. The Daily Telegraph, 20 April: XV.
Bogdanor, V. (1997) The Monarchy and the Constitution. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Building theories from case
Oxford, UK: Clarendon. study research. Academy of Management Review 18(4):
Bonoma, T.V. (1983) Case research in marketing: 532–550.
Opportunities, problems and a process. Journal of Elliott, R. and Wattanasuwan, K. (1998) Brands as
Marketing Research 22: 199–208. symbolic resources for the construction of identity.
Bowring, R. and Kornicki, P. (eds.) (1993) The Cam- International Journal of Advertising 17(2): 131–144.
bridge Encyclopaedia of Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cam- Frears, S. (dir.) (2006) The Queen. London: Pathe
bridge University Press. Pictures.
Bradley, I. (2002) God Save the Queen, the Spiritual Gephart, R.P. (2004) Qualitative research and the
Dimension of Monarchy. London: Darton, Longman, Academy of Management Journal. Academy of
and Todd. Management Journal 47(4): 454–462.
Brazier, R., The Monarchy in and Bogdanor, V. (ed.) Gilbert, M. (1992) The person of the king: Ritual
(2003) The British Constitution in the Twentieth power in a Ghanaian state. In: D. Cannadine

26 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28

 Commentary

and S. Price (eds.) Rituals of Royalty. Cambridge, Keller, K.L. and Aaker, D.A. (1998) Corporate level
UK: Cambridge University Press. marketing: The impact of credibility marketing on
Gill, J. and Johnson, P. (1991) Research Methods a company’s brand extensions. Corporate Reputation
for Managers. London: Paul Chapman Pub- Review 1(4): 356–378.
lishing. Lacey, R. (2002) Royal. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
Gouldner, A.W. (1955) Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. London: Little Brown.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Levin, B. (1991) Now Read On. London: Sceptre
Gummesson, E. (1991) Qualitative Methods in Manage- Books.
ment Research. London: Sage, pp. 73–134. Levy in Pavitt, J. (ed.) (2000) Brand New. London: V&A
Hames, T. and Leonard, M. (1998) Modernising the Publications.
Monarchy. London: Demos. Low, S.L. (1927) The Governance of England. London:
Hart-Davis, D. (ed.) (2006) King’s Counsellor. Abdication Fisher Unwin Limited.
and War: The Diaries of Sir Alan Lascelles. London: Macaulay, T.B. (1885) History of England. London:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Dutton and Dent.
Hayden, I. (1987) Symbol and Privilege. The Ritual Manchester, W. (1993) A World Lit Only by Fire. The
Context of British Monarchy. Tuscon, AZ: University Medieval Mind and Renaissance. Boston, MA: Little
of Arizona Press. Brown.
Hennessy, P. (1996) The Hidden Wiring. Unearthing the Marr, A. (2000) The Day Britain Died. London: Profile
British Constitution. London: Indigo. Books.
Hennessy, P. (1997) Muddling Through. Power, Politics Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995)
and the Quality of Government in Postwar Britain. An integrative model of organisational trust.
London: Indigo. Academy of Management Review 20: 709–734.
Hobsbawm, E. (1983) The invention of tradition. In: Micklethwait, J. and Wooldridge, A. (2005) The Com-
E. Hobsbawm and T.E. Ranger (eds.) The Invention pany. A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea. New
of Tradition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University York: The Modern Library.
Press. Middleton, M. (1999) Is the British Monarchy out of
Hodson, H.V. (1995) Crown and commonwealth. touch? In: The Encyclopaedia of Britain. London:
Round Table 333( January): 89–95. Hutchinson.
Holesworth, H.D. (1969) The Princes. London: Molesworth, H.D. (1969) The Princes. London:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Holt, D.B., Quelch, J.A. and Taylor, E.L. (2004) How Montesquieu, C.-L.de Secondat, Baron de (1748) De
global brands compete. Harvard Business Review, l’esprit des Lois ou du rapport que les lois doivent avoir
September, 69–75. avec la constitution de chaque Government. Geneva:
Hough, R. (1981) Mountbatten: A Biography. New Barrillon.
York: Random House. MORI. (2002) Britain’s latest vies on the monarchy,
Innes of Learney, Thomas, Sir. (1978) Scots Heraldry. http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/ca/302/
London: Cassell Ltd. No-Royal-Rollercoaster.aspx, accessed 7 March
Jeffrey, K. (2006) Crown, communication and the 2011.
colonial post: Stamps, the monarchy and the British Murphy, P. (2006) Breaking the bad news: Plans for
Empire. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth the announcement to the empire of the death of
History 34(1): 45–70. Elizabeth II and the proclamation of Her successor,
Jennings, H. and Madge, C. (eds.) (1937) May the 1957–67. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth
Twelfth, Mass-Observation Day Surveys 1937. History 34(1): 139–154.
London: Faber and Faber. Naughton, K. and Vlasic, B. (1998) The nostalgia
Jennings, I. Sir. (1950) The British Constitution. boom. Business Week, 23 March: 58–64.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Newmann, K. (2001) The sorcerer’s apprentice? Alchemy,
Junor, P. (2005) The Firm. The Troubled Life of the House seduction and confusion in modern marketing. Inter-
of Windsor. London: Harper-Collins. national Journal of Advertising 20: 409–429.
Kantorowicz, E. (1953) The Kings Two Bodies: A Study Norman, R. (1970) A Personal Quest for Methodology.
in Medieval Political Thought. Princeton, NJ: Stockholm, Sweden: Scandinavian Institute for
Princeton University Press. Administrative Research, p. 53.
Kapferer, J.-N. (1997) Strategic Brand Management. Numagami, T. (1998) The infeasibility of invariant laws
London: Kogan Page, p. 29. in management studies: A reflective dialogue in defence
Kapferer, J.-N. (2002) Corporate brands organizational of case studies. Organization Science 9(1): 2–15.
identity. In: B. Moingeon and G. Soenen (eds.) Ormrod, W.M. (ed.) (2001) The Kings and Queens of
Corporate and Organizational Identities. London: England. Stroud, UK: Tempus.
Routledge. Otnes, C.C. and Maclaran, P. (2007) The consumption
Kay, J. (1995) Foundations of Corporate Success. Oxford, of cultural heritage among a British Royal Family
UK: Oxford University Press. Brand Tribe. In: R. Kozinets, R. Cova and A. Shankar
Keller, K.L. (1998) Strategic Brand Management. Upper (eds.) Consumer Tribes: Theory, Practice and Prospects.
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. London: Elsevier/Butterworth Heinemann.

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28 27

 Balmer

Parry, R.L. (2006) Prince welcomed with shouts of Skinner, Q. (2000) Machiavelli: A Very Short Introduction.
Banzai as birth suspends fight on imperial throne. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
The Times, 7 September: 42. Smithers, R. (2006) Young Britons value nation’s
Parry, R.L. (2008) Sympathy turn to scepticism as history and values. The Guardian, 6 November: 9.
courtiers whisper that princess does not do her duty. Starkey, D. (2002) Reinventing the Royals. London:
The Times, 25 October: 47. Channel 4 television documentary.
Paxman, J. (2007) On Royalty. London: Viking Books. Strong, R. Sir. (2005) Coronation. A History of Kingship
Pimlott, B. (2002) The Queen. Elizabeth II and the and the British Monarchy. London: HarperCollins.
Monarchy. London: Harper Collins. Swengley, N. (2006) By appointment to the Queen.
Prince Charles HRH. (2005) Interview given on US Financial Times, 15/16 October: 3.
television during visit to the US. Thompson, D. (1967) England in the Nineteenth Century.
Prochaska, F. (1995) Royal Bounty: The Making London: Penguin.
of a Welfare Monarchy. New Haven, CT: Yale Trochim, W. (1989) Outcome pattern matching and
University Press. program theory. Evaluation and Program Planning
Prochaska, F. (2000) The Republic of Britain. London: 12: 355–366.
Penguin. Urde, M., Greyser, S.A. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2007)
Ring, P.S. and Van de Van (1992) Structuring coop- Corporate brands with a heritage. Journal of Brand
erative relationships between organizations. Strategic Management 15(1): 4–19.
Management Journal 3: 483–498. Van Maanen, J. (1979) Reclaiming qualitative methods
Roberts, A. (2003) Memo to palace PR: We are not for organising research. Administrative Science
amusing. The Times, 25 October: 4. Quarterly 24: 520–526.
Roberts, A. (2009) Masters and Commanders. London: Yin, R. (2009) Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks,
Penguin. CA: Sage.
Rowbottom, A. (2002) Subject positions and ‘real royal- Zaheer, A., McEvily, B. and Perrone, V. (1998) The
ists’: Monarchy and vernacular civil religion in Great strategic value of buyer-seller relationships. Interna-
Britain. In: N. Rapport (ed.) British Subjects. An Anthro- tional Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management
pology of Britain. Oxford, UK: Berg, pp. 31–48. 34: 20–26.
Seitz, R. (1998) Over Here. London: Phoenix. Znaniecki, F. (1934) The Method of Sociology. New
Shawcross, W. (2002) Queen and Country. London: York: Farrar and Rinehart.
BBC Worldwide. Zucker, L.G. (1986) Production of trust: Institutional
Shawcross, W. (2009) The Queen Mother: The Official sources of economic structure, 1984–1990. In:
Biography. New York: Vintage Books. B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (eds.) Research in
Shils, E. and Young, M. (1953) The meaning of the Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 8. Greenwich, CT:
coronation. Sociological Review, New Series 1: 67. JAI Press, pp. 53–122.

28 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28