Given that to some people it is a bizarre, outdated, isolated, impotent, expensive, religiously and sexually prejudiced institution, the question remains, why does it survive in the early twenty-first century? Despite the fact that the British people no longer need a king or queen to rule over them, despite the fact that the reign has no real power and has no sanction from either God or a democratic vote, despite the fact that many of the rituals and titles and conventions associated with it require a resident historian to explain them, and despite the fact that it costs millions to support a few in a luxurious lifestyle that the rest can only dream of, why is the British Monarchy allowed to go on?
The three answers that I have heard are: 1) the monarchy provides a central focal point of unity for the country; 2) the present queen is hardworking and has the respect and affection of her people; 3) the monarchy provides glitz and glamour that the people like to look up to.
Doubtless individual prime ministers have benefited from their weekly chats with the lady who has spent her life striving to be above the inevitable divisions of politics - though arguably a similar service at a much cheaper cost might be provided by a reasonably competent and experienced therapist. And it is easy to see how, in a time of war, a monarch provided a rallying point for nationalistic feeling and patriotism. However, as the pre-1960’s generations, with their inbred deference to authority and their memories of the Second World War pass away, I am not sure how strongly the argument of monarchy as symbol of national unity continues to hold up. It is quite conceivable, that when the next world war happens, if the monarchy no longer exists, the country would unite around the leader of a war-time government. A focal point may be valuable, but it doesn’t have to have a crown.
Queen Elizabeth II clearly does work hard and has the respect of many of her subjects. However, the fact that the present incumbent may be a good one is no argument for keeping the institution alive. A brief look through history would suggest that statistically, the chances of getting a good one are less than those of getting a bad or indifferent one. Remember that the only qualifications for getting the post are that you were born and that someone else died or abdicated. The hostility towards the queen in the aftermath of the death of Diana Princess of Wales shows how thin that respect can be.
If you look into the future, the chances of any future incumbent either having or keeping the nation’s respect are much, much harder than they were a century ago. The nature of the royals is such that it is hard for them to be ‘normal’. They are brought up to believe that they have no peers, and therefore normal human interaction is almost always impossible. That, coupled with immense wealth, makes problems almost inevitable. A century ago, those problems could be kept hidden. Now they provide tabloids with front pages and the most intimate royal sexual conversations are posted round the world for anyone to download. It is almost inevitable that any initial respect for any future incumbent will decline.
When Jeremy Paxman asked Prince Charles what the point of monarchy was, the short answer he received was: “Soap opera!” I suspect Charles may have been thinking more of ‘Dynasty’ than ‘Neighbours’, and I suspect the BBC would long to be able to spend the royal budget on a single soap. The monarchy may provide diversionary glitz and glamour that some enjoy, and that may bring the tourists in, but glitz and glamour are now more easily available, without the trappings of monarchy.
I suspect that part of the affection for Diana, Princess of Wales, was not so much because she was a royal, but in a strange way, because she wasn’t. She appealed because she wasn’t stuffy, because she didn’t lack spontaneity, and because she showed feelings (and thus, never really fitted into ‘the firm’). She was also very beautiful and glamorous, and apparently kind, and being married into the family, she had public exposure. And after her tragic death, which has scripted her as a victim, the public were willing to ignore her many flaws. However, a brief flick through the magazine stands will show that there are plenty of people offering glimpses of luxury and glamour. With only half a brain and an ounce of charisma (that, of course, rules out the Beckhams) and enough consistent exposure and enough charity and good causes, some of these people too could become princesses and princes ‘of our hearts’.
It would take a brave politician to make moves towards a Republic at the moment, but it may become more tempting once the present queen has died, and once the reform of the House of Lords has been completed, and once the Church has finally been separated from the State. I suspect that in 100 years time, many people will be asking why the monarchy was tolerated for so long into the twenty-first century.
I have always been a royalist at heart and if the idea of a republic was such a good one why did we not keep the one we had when we had the chance. After deposing Charles I we did not keep good old Oliver very long. Couldn’t wait to get back to court after the stark puritanical line.
Back to modern times. Of the choice beween having someone like George Bush as our president or the queen;give me good old Queeney anyday. There is no-one in my view that comes anywhere close.
The difference is she was born to the job and gives her life to it with firm rigour, dedication and conduct. Unlike a modern day statesman just waiting for their rich pension and a retirement ranch to go to, after their brief reign of glory and power.
Long Live the Queen! That what I say. I know minor royals may not be so great and we do need to look at their wealth, jobs and expenditure. However, overall I think it would be a sad day if the royals were no longer part of the British constitution.
I wonder if you would feel the same if the post were occupied by a less worthy incumbent?
Regardless of the merits of any particular incumbent, what is the case for maintaining the present institution? You write: “I think it would be a sad day if the royals were no longer part of the British constitution.” I really don’t understand your reasons for thinking that. Of course, if it is just an emotional response to the present Queen (rather than a rational argument), I can understand that, but if you think objectively about the set-up, regardless of particular individuals, what can you say in the institution’s defence? The fact that the present incumbent may be a good one is no argument for keeping the institution alive.
We have a constitutional monarchy based on democracy. Now, supposing we depose the monarchy, for example in history, the french revolution. What would happen after that?
Yes, we could simply replace one monarch with one overall head of state. But what happens when democracy starts to fail and dictators start to take over.
Look at the countries where monarchs have been deposed, for example the Shah of Iran or in India with the decline of the British Empire.
My fear is you could pave the way for dictators, Napoleon was one and anarchy or political instability could result; such as we have seen in the middle east and Africa.
We have to look at our reasons why we would wish to become a republic, which may also be emotional. Are we saying that the monarchy simply costs too much to keep. If that is so then I would favour a more scaled down reformed monarchy.
All countries need a head of state, so you could argue, well why not just have a Prime minister then? However, one man in total charge could be extremely dangerous and their government open to curruption.
All I am saying is you just have to look at the countries where monarchy has been overturned. The French Revolution became ” The Terror” as more and more people became the enemy with Robespierre ousting rivals Herbert and Danton. He was eventually overthrown by the french convention and sliced. Where does it end once the ball is rolling.
So I don’t think my arguments are purely emotional, though I admit I like H.M and this has no doubt partly swayed my view.
Why did we return to the Monarchy? I think the history books explain it pretty well. Just because a political decision is taken that has long term effects doesn’t mean it was a good decision. Personally, I think taking the monarch back was a very bad decision indeed.
I can never understand why people cheer and celebrate the royal family. Don’t these folk ever read a newspaper or listen to news reports and thus learn how badly and stupidly these royals behave? Can you really see one redeeming feature in any of them? I can’t.
There is a big fuss at the moment about the sums of tax-payers’ money being spent on faith schools. What about the sums of tax-payers’ money being squandered on the royal family and the royal hangers-on? Their personal fortunes were also acquired by filching from the nation.
We should make a clean sweep and get rid of these drones once and for all.
onethoughtfulwoman: As far as I understand it, the difference between now and all the examples you cite is that we have a democracy in place, with all it’s checks and balances. They didn’t. They went from powerful monarchy to some form of chaos because they had no alternative form of government.
We have an impotent monarchy and a powerful government system in place. If we were to get rid of the impotent monarchy, the government would continue to rule as it does. Nobody, apart from a few royalists (and employees in the Royal Households), would bat an eyelid.
Personally, I don’t think that having an impotent monarch in place would stop a revolution or anarchy or even a dictatorship. Our democracy already does that.
But when can a democracy has the potential to destabilise and stop being a democracy? Just because it is one does not mean it will always be this way.
OK, take Charles I. I see your point. He ruled by the “Divine right of kings”. He believed himself to be directly appointed by God and the people deposed him because he resisted government reform. There was a parliament in place but they wanted a lot more say than he was prepared to give. I can see why he was booted out.However, my point is why did the monarchy then return? What was missing that the British people wanted? Possibly because the alternative was just as rigid, impotent and with flaws.
If you replace one instituition with another there is always the possibility of corruption and bad government.
As I understand, the Americans love to visit Britain because of our rich cultural heritage and see the outward display of our royal family. They admire the Queen and what she stands for. They are a republic but love what we have.
This is a personal view now, but I just believe the monarchy is part of our rich and solid fabric of who we are as a nation.
It is a part of our identity of what this country is. The argument could therefore be, if that if is the case how then does the monarchy best serve Britain?
The monarchy is a powerful ambassador in our relations with other nations. While it directly does not hold any balance of power in decision making, (when it comes to policy change), its influence can not be underestimated.
Other countries and their rulers do hold the Queen in high regard and respect her. This influence does I feel have a direct effect on our relationship with those countries.
When it comes to public relations the monarchy does hold credibility. I just don’t believe that good old Tony and Cherie could come anywhere close to having the same diplomatic decorum that only monarchy represents.
With respect to the former as people, they do not have the status and clout that the Queen and other senior members of the royal family has.
Sadly, the mystic of the monarchy has been damaged by press publicity and scandal and this is indeed tragic. Monarchs have fallen fowl before and will do so again as they are still humans and not God.
So, I still would wish to see the monarchy remain: reformed yes, accountable yes, and more cost effective, Yes. But still a monarchy representing this country.
The idea that monarchy somehow protects us from dictatorship is nonsense. Spain was a monarchy and became a dictatorship and that is but one example. In the past, of course, monarchy was the local dictatorship. It only ceased being so under duress.
As for “constitutional monarchy”, well, really, what is the point of it? It exists because those rightly opposed the power of the monarch couldn’t quite bring themselves to demolish the monarchy altogether. Had they done so, the matter would be done and dusted and we wouldn’t be having these silly debates about it.
Do you think France, the US, Germany, etc. somehow regret not being monarchies? Do you think they somehow long for the monarch to return. Of course they don’t. Nor would we. The monarch is an embarrassment and a waste of time and resources.
Are you afraid that if Britain were a republic it might suffer political instability? Why should it? Look at the countries of Europe: do you see instabilities caused by lack of a monarchy? Of course you don’t. Political instability has political causes and (we hope) political remedies. The presence or absence of a monarch has no relevance to that.
Belief in the monarchy is akin to belief in religion. It is an archaic and irrational belief that having a hereditary head of state is somehow a good thing when experience and intelligence tell us that our best interests are served by selecting as our leaders those most capable of the job, irrespective of birth.
Going back to my first point I did use two words, potential and possibility rather than actual as far as any country turning into a dictatorship is concerned.
As far as the last point goes:
“experience and intelligence tell us that our best interests are served by selecting as our leaders those most capable of the job, irrespective of birth.”
I know then of one country which must have lost its brains altogether, but then that is a personal view also.
For me I think the debate here with all its respected and individual views suggest that that this is a very contentious subject with swinging opinions for and against as we hold on to our own thoughts and beliefs.
I respect other views completely and think carefully at everything said, as I am sure everyone else on here does.
This is the good spirit of blogging and may it continue.
My own statements on here however remain the same BUT always open to change.
This is my last reply for this particular debate.