Whether you're a monarchist or a republican, one has to admit that we have reached the end of a rather astonishing era. For the past 7 decades the Queen has been a constant reminder of not only who we are now, but where we have come from, a lot has happened in the last 70 years.
But for our monarchy, at its absolute barest, very little has changed. The Queens reign has certainly witnessed the evolution of Empire into what we now call the Commonwealth, but for all this time, Queen Elizabeth has largely performed little more than a ceremonial role steeped in tradition that most of us are unwilling to disband.
I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
Strong words from our (what was then Princess Elizabeth) spoken in 1947, 5 years before she became the Queen. Even her worst detractors wouldn't be able to argue that she didn't do exactly what she said she was going to do. She rarely put a foot wrong and her popularity remained very high throughout her reign.
I've long since held the opinion that having an election regarding our monarchy after the Queen passed away would be a Golden opportunity. At least then, we can put the matter to bed for a generation or 2 at least.
But lets not get bogged down in the age old argument of how much having a constitutional monarchy costs the taxpayer in comparison to how much it generates. A quick search on google would give you plenty of debate from both sides.
Many are uncomfortable with having an unelected head of state, those same voices have been even louder lately also pointing out that we also have an immediate line of succession in our constitution and it's undemocratic. Which it is, but all is not as simple as that. The best democracies are built on a system of checks and balances. A Republic like the United States has a very clear system of checks and balances (a system by which no branch of government gains too much power) The British monarchy also gives us our very own quirky example of checks and balances.
Now in Britain, every time we have a change of government (or even just a change of PM) the new PM has to seek Royal assent in order to officially declare a legal and binding government. In fact, The monarch has to give Royal assent to every major law that is passed in the UK. Its all merely ceremonial, many would consider it a carnival of sorts. But the monarchs ultimate power is the ability to deny power. Allow me to explain further.
Everyone is familiar with the rise of the Nazi's how they managed to take a country from a republic complete with a separation of power involving an elected head of state and a chancellor, to a Totalitarian one party state complete with a supreme leader (Fuhrer) within a decade. But the biggest obstacle Hitler needed to navigate was the democratically elected head of state and the only man able to remove Hitler from power, Paul Von Hindenburg. This very popular man and old war hero was the only thing that stood between Hitler and total control of the entire country. But Hindenburg was in his 80's so it was just a case of playing the waiting game and striking at the perfect moment. During his final days Hindenburg was courted by the Nazi's, almost revered by them, but it was all for show.
The day before Hindenburg died, the Nazi's passed laws merging the roles of chancellor and president and within hours of his death in August 1934 those laws came into force and the very brutal, but very legal coup d'etat was complete. A referendum was held 17 days after Hindenburg's death, and in spite of huge support for merging both roles after a campaign of voter intimidation over 4 million people still held out and voted against. Had there been a direct familial lineage this final obstacle would have still been in the Nazi's way.
Be careful what you wish for. A head of state would be expensive and would generate very little in terms of tourism. Its also very unlikely that any elected head of state would have anything approaching the popularity of the monarch. A monarch is also very useful in international matters, its evolved into a benign force, respected throughout the world.
Many could argue that the respect for the monarchy is entirely down to the Queen herself now she is sadly no longer with us, the power of monarchy is greatly diminished, it would be hard to argue against that. One must admit. King Charles III has enormous boots to fill (it feels odd even typing that out) but its not impossible. We do have a very popular Princess Anne and we also have Prince's William and Harry and their undeniably charismatic wives. If the 2 brothers can patch up their differences and complete the Royal Family in a way most people would dearly love to happen then there is no real reason that the monarchy can't continue to thrive. This will be the deal breaker for the King over the next few years I feel.
For most people in Britain the monarchy is our very identity, it is Britannia herself, a living, breathing human that is all of us. You attack that, then you're attacking the actual Country. Republicans despise the idea but they are the minority by some significant margin. The support for a republic will get stronger once the dust settles and more people will come to think of the monarchy was just a British love affair with its amazing Queen, but I still don't think it will be anywhere near enough the level of popularity to even warrant talk of a vote to abolish it.
We have a popular monarchy, one which is entwined into the very fabric of Britain and has been for 1,000 years. Yes they have enormous personal wealth, but when you see them dripping with jewels and sitting on grand thrones made from gold or galloping around huge expansive estates I have to point out that most of these trappings are not personally owned by them, they cant just decide to sell it all and retire to the Cayman Islands, its owned by the crown estate, a power given to it by the people, ie: us. Yes, we never actually voted for this system, it evolved over time and how many of us can say that voting has always given us exactly what we want from life? Despite what many may think, voting rights for the general public is still quite a new phenomenon considering the long history of this country.
Long live the King
Comments
Post a Comment