Somewhat inevitably, Friday's Royal Wedding has spawned another round of discussion surrounding the position of the Royal Family in general and the Queen, as Head of State, in particular. This hoary old chestnut, the question not the Queen, never seems to leave us for very long as the assorted ragbag of rabid republicans uses every opportunity to bring it to the fore. A discussion on the BBC's 'The Moral Maze' last week was the latest to cover the same old ground.
The arguement for the Monarchy seems to me to be a very simple one. It works, and has done for hundreds of years; it is apolitical and provides stability in the midst of the political maelstrom, and it is infinitely more desirable than having an elected President who would almost certainly be a former political leader. Additionally, the real powers of the monarch are extremely limited and are only those conveyed by the elected Parliament, but the international esteem in which the Monarchy is held is enormous and worth a very great deal to this country.
The arguement against seems to be based as much on envy, jealousy and class warfare as on any logical basis. Republicans argue that the Queen is the worst manifestation of privilege and the aristocracy that they so abhor; they argue that it is wrong for the head of state to be determined by heredity and they despise the grand style in which the Royal Family lives, 'at the expense of the people'. They argue that it is anti-democratic for the head of state to be an unelected member of a privileged family that has little or no connection with ordinary people.
The anti-monarchists appear to be oblivious to, or simply ignore, many points that could be set against their stance. An elected President would, most likely, be a former Prime Minister or similar political figure and would enjoy a lifestyle similar to that of the Monarch; they would surely expect the same privileges and, in time, there would build up a cadre of former Presidents and their families which would form a new elite at the top of our society.
Given that the Monarch has few real powers, the arguement that it is anti-democratic for the head of state to be unelected is, surely, fatuous. What would be so beneficial about spending a fortune on regular election campaigns to choose the likes of Tony Blair or David Cameron to be a ceremonial President rather than executive Prime Minister ? It would be even worse if the electees were less well known figures, perhaps of the ilk of respected writers or scientists, as these would create little enthusiasm amongst the electorate and would probably be elected by a vanishingly small percentage of the population. Another alternative would be for the head of state simply to be chosen by Parliament - how democratic would that be ? Or, of course, we could do away with the whole idea of a head of state separate from Parliament and just make do with the Prime Minister; this would mean that all the powers of the state would be vested in one individual, hardly an enticing proposition.
That there are aspects of the Royal Family and its life that are open to question is undeniable. Whether it is really right that there is an entire family that enjoys a lifestyle the rest of us can only dream about is clearly debatable; the behaviour of some of the 'junior royals' has sometimes been unacceptably boisterous, to say the least, and might be considered to have been that of rowdy, over-privileged yobboes at worst. That the current crop have been involved in numerous divorces and other marital scandals has not helped, and the long-running saga of the death of Princess Diana has been another cause for concern. While the vast majority of the people have nothing but admiration for the Queen, Prince Philip has been an occasional figure of mirth and Prince Charles has proved to be somewhat less than a 'man of the people'. Why they need large and expensive 'houses' all over the country - Buckingham Palace, Clarence House, St James' Palace, Windsor Castle, Sandringham, Balmoral and more - is debatable, and their general landholdings and wealth are a clear cause of envy.
Even given all of the negatives from the foregoing, why does 'putting things right' as the republicans would have it mean getting rid of the Monarchy ? Our Monarchy has evolved over the generations, from an initially absolutist dictatorship to the position today in which the Queen, as a constitutional monarch, is one of the most revered people in the world; even many Americans, who fought so hard to rid themselves of monarchical control, love the Queen, the Royal Family and all of the pageantry that goes with them. The Monarchy brings enormous kudos to Britain and does no harm.
Some elements of the Monarchy undoubtedly need to be reviewed and may need to be reformed, but do we really want a President ? In my opinion, categorically we do not.
No comments:
Post a Comment