Mrs H and I were on holiday when the Queen died. By chance we were in Corfu, the birthplace of Phil the Greek* and so we toasted them both with cocktails and raised a glass to the new king at the start of the Carolean age. Who knew we had a King Carole? (Apparently it's from an old Germanic word, karilaz, meaning "free man").
You will tell from the above that I have become a fond if irreverent monarchist. It was not always thus. I would have described myself as a republican for at least half of my life, though I didn't feel strongly about it. My republicanism tendencies, driven mainly by a desire for a classless and meritocratic democracy, waned with the realisation that electing presidents would probably not be a good move. As I've often put it, who wants a President Blair? Or a reality tv celeb? (Don't underestimate the Boaty McBoatFace tendency the British have for something that they think doesn't really matter).
So I became a reluctant monarchist, convinced that the royal family is a good deal for the taxpayer, as it must generate more in revenue and international goodwill than it costs. And much better than the alternative head of state arrangements in other countries. But the deal of course is that they must keep their heads down, noses clean, stay out of politics, keep their opinions to themselves and do their job. Which the Queen did admirably - and I have growing confidence that Charles will do the same.
As a reformed republican, a piece in the Times this week caught my eye. It was by Robert Crampton who had gone to Buckingham Palace, the Mall and St James's Park over the weekend to study the reaction of the crowds gathered there. He noted that he did not recognise the supposed national mood as it has been described in the media: not a single person in tears. It felt more to him like people coming to see "history". He saw no royalist fervour, though he accepted that most of the throng loved the institution of the monarchy , whereas he wants to see it come tumbling down. I expect he would have seen more emotion had he gone when the Queen's coffin arrived at Buckingham Palace, or during it's passage to Westminster Hall.
But the point in his article that I take real issue with is where he said:
A large chunk of my country seems to revel in self-abasement, and then is delighted to present this subservience to the world as something magical. I wish I knew why we do it, but I don't. It's a continuing mystery to me.
The royal family give us a continuity that stretches across the generations and binds our society with its heritage and to its future. The number of the Queen's prime ministers, stretching back to Winston Churchill, provides an instant history lesson for young folk. A string of presidents just wouldn't deliver the same effect. Nor bring the nation together as we have seen, not just over the last week but at other major occasions in the lives of the royals and significant moments in the history of our country.
Personally, I don't need something as tangible as a monarch to love and be loyal to my country. But it was pointed out to me a few decades ago that I am comfortable, indeed sometimes relish, the abstract. No need for visuals with presentations for me, or maybe just some numbers or a graph. It was spelled out to me in words of one syllable that most people aren't like that, won't respond as well to words without pictures, aren't comfortable with the abstract and need imagery and tangibility to hang on to. So the royal family embody our country for many people and they are necessary for many citizens to have something that they can relate to as fundamentally British. The royal family make the country tangible for them rather than abstract. The monarch is a figurehead and that role gives substance to the abstract. Most people seem to need a leader and the fact that the role is purely ceremonial helps make it apolitical.
So I became a lukewarm monarchist, if only because others need it and the alternatives are inferior. But I still found the Queen's Christmas broadcast a step too far. If I ever did watch one I must have been very young. Certainly since a teenager I haven't seen a single one. It has become part of our family tradition that we don't watch the royal Christmas broadcast; there are better things to do. So I won't be watching the King's first such broadcast in December. I didn't want to meet the Queen - I don't like dogs and know as little about horses as she most likely did about progressive rock though we might have been able to hold a conversation about gardening. Indeed, I doubt I would cross the road to meet the King: I just have no personal interest.
However, I respect the job he's doing and I'm glad he's there. Indeed, were I to meet the King, I would probably tell him what a good job he's doing. Because he serves us, not the other way around. His mama (I suspect he actually used the French pronounced style ma-maahh more than mummy) probably saw it that way too.
An interesting posting Phil. On balance I'm a Republican but I don't give the issue much thought as there are far bigger fish to fry in our troubled world of politics and our all but broken society such as poverty, poverty and poverty.
ReplyDeleteThe old Queen did very though; indeed she led a remarkable life indeed so I respect her whilst not really approving of the monarchy. Now I've said that I'll await the Police to knock on my door as we seem to be sliding ever more towards stopping dissent. Oh for the days when the UK welcomed alternative views to the government of the day and a police state scared the hell out of us all. As an aside do you think that’s one reason why Labour fails to effectively oppose the present government?
I think we should have had a public debate during her lifetime on whether we wanted a monarchy after she passed and if so what kind of monarchy/alternative we might want. I’ve always found it interesting that the Irish Republic seems to have carried off the Presidential model quite well, but maybe our broken ‘us and them’ society which is celebrity crazy would end up in the muddle you make reference to if we went down a similar path.
I agree that the police have over-reacted about mild protest but they are on a hiding to nothing in these situations. I think the latest laws you have been concerned about use phrases like "cause annoyance" when I think they should have focussed on causing gross or life threatening inconvenience (eg idiots glueing themselves to roads). But no, I don't think Labour's low key opposition style is anything to do a slide towards a police state, which I don't think we are on anyway.
DeleteThe modern monarchy has come through periods of high unpopularity: in the Victorian era when the queen effectively disappeared from view, in the 1930s over the abdication and in the 1990s after Diana's death. But I read last week that a regular poll has been taken since the early 1980s on abolition of the monarchy and support has never been more than 25%. It is usually less than 15% and is currently lower than that. So pretty similar to support for the LIb Dems (ouch, sorry!). In that context a debate isn't called for; as you say there are far bigger fish to fry.
But your comment about Ireland made me think and check. Recent Irish presidents have commanded affection but it struck me that I didn't even know the name (or gender) of the current Irish president, when it is the country literally closest to us, sharing a language, border and common travel area. If you don't know either I'll leave you to check but their president is into a second seven year term.
The Irish president is elected by public ballot (single transferrable vote) but nominations require support from about 10% of the Houses of Oireachtas (parliament) and at least four of the 31 city or county councils. While independents do get nominated this means there are always political nominees and this is part of my problem with a presidential system. After all, under the Irish system Jeremy Corbyn could get nominated here. The American and French presidents for example are the country's main political figure as well as head of state, but even in the Irish system the president is likely to be a political figure and therefore will not be seen as politically neutral, even though the post is mainy ceremonial with limited discretionary power. In Germany the president is elected by a kind of electoral college of the Bundestag and the Lander. It is an overtly political position and contested as such.
In contrast we get to know and usually respect our monarch over a very long time. They are not seen as politically partial - any suggestion of it, such as the Queen/Thatcher stories of the 1980s create much controversy. They are unifying rather than divisive and a role model for other monarchies around the world. The soft power the monarchy brings the UK is not to be underestimated. It has been reported that Reagan gave us more behind the scenes support over the Falkands because of his ride through Great Windsor Park with the Queen and Obama saw no point in the special relationship on taking power but changed stance completely after he and his wife met the Queen.
It could be very damaging to switch to an elected president: I worry about an elected upper chamber feeling it has a mandate to challenge the Commons, an elected president could be similar.
Fortunately the British people seem in no mood for a change from a system that just works. But if you want a more politicised and potentially divided society, then an elected president would be the way to go. After all there is a fair chance Boris Johnson could get elected. (Don't pooh pooh: he'd get a lot of support and much would depend on who else was on the ballot). Be careful what you wish for!