I suspect I have blogged about the royal family before. At one time I seemed to be quite regularly working on television documentaries on their tax affairs. But today that is not my concern. I am interested in the fact that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are seeking to withdraw from royal life.
Quite what that means for them, and who is upset or not by their decision, really does not worry me. What is of interest is the bigger question that this poses. What this decision suggests is that these two cannot work within the royal system as it has been developed by the Queen and the fiction-mongering media.
I stress: I am not speculating as to why they have decided, and I do not really care. I note it as a fact. And that fact suggests to me that we are heading for a crisis when the Queen does eventually cease to reign, whether because she dies or because she decides to appoint Charles as her regent.
The absurdity of being a constitutional monarchy has been maintained in this country because the Queen has survived from what is very clearly a bygone era. The power structures surrounding her, and the mythology that has been created around them cannot endure now. My point is that even the royal family can see that. This latest decision is evidence of that point.
I noted my disagreement with the rhetoric and tone of Rebecca Long-Bailey with regard to fighting the establishment yesterday. I stand by that. But that does not mean that the structures of power in this country do not need reform. And the mythology of monarchy has survived because it has suited part of society - and most especially the upper echelons of the Tory party - vey well. Nothing suits their style of government more than the exercise of the royal prerogative.
My suspicion is that very soon the royals may no longer be willing, or even able, to play this game. It's a simple statement of fact that never again will there be a monarch displaying quite such abnormal personality traits as the Queen has managed over such an extended period. And as a result the whole charade is likely to collapse.
The wise thing to do in that case is to imagine what happens next. Harry and Megan can do what they wish, without much consequence. Their decision does however suggest a coming crisis that few have prepared for.
What is the future role for the head of state in whatever the UK might become? That is a question that needs to be asked. And at the same time the question as to who might have that role, and why, needs to be addressed. The assumption that it should be a royal seems, to me, to be naive.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I’ve thought for a long time that there will be real problems when the Queen dies. It will be more than the end of an era.
I think even hardened republicans respect the Queen for her contribution to public life; even if they fundamentally disagree with the concept of a monarchy (I would say I am 75% against it).
Whereas public respect for Prince Charles is not there. He is not liked. He also lacks the restraint of the Queen and there has been much written (or leaked) about his desire to poke his nose into and attempt to influence political and societal matters.
I don’t blame Harry and Meghan for this; the crap he has had to put up with growing up, and now the abuse he and his wife get. The latter being remarkable on account of her racial and class background. It’s repugnant. Compare the way that Kate Middleton is portrayed with Meghan. It’s like the difference in media coverage that Johnson and Corbyn got during the election
So you’re right, there is a crisis incoming for the Royals. A smart move (for the family as an institution) would be for Charles to skip being King and to pass it on to his son. Fat chance of that happening though, really.
It’s all part of a big debate that needs to be had, on urgent basis, about the governance of the UK. Electoral reform, reform of the Lords, reform of the Monarchy, a written constitution; all needs to be sorted out!
We are on a wavelength
It will be interesting to see who will follow the Queen. Completely agree Benz0 with “I think even hardened republicans respect the Queen for her contribution to public life; even if they fundamentally disagree with the concept of a monarchy (I would say I am 75% against it).
Whereas public respect for Prince Charles is not there. He is not liked. He also lacks the restraint of the Queen and there has been much written (or leaked) about his desire to poke his nose into and attempt to influence political and societal matters.”
I think Charles succeding her will only exacerbate the growing divide in UK society between the Brexit voting, insular, (largely) right wing little Englanders, and the more progressive elements of UK society. The Brexit mess will not go away, whatever Johnson and his acolytes say, so the discontent of progressives with our current arrangements is going to get even worse. Add to this the complete lack of any integrity in this government and their incompetence, and, I suspect, the inability of Labour to effectively oppose them, and the question of genuine reform becomes ever more urgent.
And if Meghan and Harry have had enough of their treatment by our disgusting tabloid press and are bowing out of their royal duties, and going to be supporting themselves financially, good for them.
Would it not be worth while to consider how other prosperous, stable, mixed economy (though admittedly smaller) European nations such as the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Sweden manage a constitutional monarchy? In the 17th century, the Dutch House of Orange very kindly lent us a co-monarch (William III) when the sitting Stuart monarch demonstrated, not uncharacteristically, that he wasn’t up to the job. And we then changed the process of succession to acquire a German monarch so as to avoid the almost inevitable disaster of another male Stuart ruler. So we have form in this area. Indeed, given the extent of the divisions in our society, we might also be able to learn something from how the Belgians and Spanish manage their constitutional monarchies.
While being instinctively republican, I see some continuing merit in Bagehot’s separation of the “dignified” and the “efficient”. The Queen has dignity in spades and the public respect and affection it deserves; those coming after her, not so much. So a slimmed down Royal Family makes sense and the slimming down should take place each time the direct line of succession is extended.
However, there is a continuing huge demand from a mulitude of civil society and quasi-official organisations (Burke’s “little battalions”) for royal patronage and this appears to require a largish Royal family to supply the patronage to meet the demand. A slimmed down Royal Family probably requires a slimmimg down of the demand for patronage. That may prove difficult to achieve.
But again our European neighbours might be able to offer some insights.
Paul Hunt,
As to what will actually transpire I think you might be on the right track there Paul. The main reason that monarchies survive in the current era is that, in a peaceful country, it is so hard to find a replacement model for a new republic, or at least one that people can broadly agree on.
So the likely outcome will probably a more modest form of monarchy such as those in Scandinavia. Not because it would be ideal but because it would be easier and less controversial.
Ireland has had no difficulty at all with having an elected head of state, and no, it is not an entirely ceremonial position. The President’s signature is required for legislation to be enacted and it’s not a rubber stamp formality. The President can refer legislation to the Supreme Court if there’s any question as to its constitutionality, and this has happened in the past.
Ireland has made a success of this
@Samuel Johnson,
Ireland simply replaced the Governor-General representing the Crown while it had Dominion status within the Commonwealth with an ageing, harmless, academic Protestant Gaeilgeoir as President under the Constitution of 1937 performing broadly similar constitutional and ceremonial duties. Canada, Australia and New Zealand could do the same with similar limited impacts if their peoples opted for a republic.
In Britain, in addition to the normal constitutional and ceremonial duties, there is a popular demand for some pomp and pageantry, an organisational demand for royal patronage and a huge media demand for royal gossip. Coming up with a process to appoint or elect someone other than a hereditary monarch to perform the constitutional and ceremonial duties should not prove too onerous, if that was what secured the consent of a plurality of voters. But who would meet the additional current demands on the Royal Family?
Hmmm. Ireland does provide an interesting example. Australia’s failed republic referendum in the 1990’s might have done better if the republicans there had proposed the Irish model or something like it.
It is quite clear that the British monarchy is a feudal irrelevance and should be disbanded. The racist innuendos of the gutter press concering Megan is a disgrace and makes one ashamed to be British.
I’ve never quite understood why we seem as a nation to have such respect for the Queen as a person.
I’ve never met her, but she seems humourless and unimaginative in her public appearances. A very distant and aloof figure of doubtful relevance.
In constitutional terms the monarch remains the pinnacle of social hierarchy below God and as such for many people, (perhaps most, I’m not sure) the hierarchy is already headless.
To be sure, if we were to remove the monarch (or the monarchy was to abdicate en masse), we would be left with some serious thinking to do about the essential structure of our society.
Agreed on all the above, but I have to add in the worry about what will be made of the Queen’s death/effective abdication.
In a 5-year Parliament, the chances of a nonagenarian dying are very high. What a gift to an unscrupulous, incipiently Fascist, government to bask in reflected glory and lachrymose sentimentality.
Far more useful even than winning the World Cup that mightily assisted Harold Wilson in 1966. It’s a chance for Johnson to be absolved of all his sins and faults, and be effectively canonised.
The World Cup win in 1966 did not assist Harold Wilson. The election took place 4 months before the World Cup final that year.
I am honestly not sure if I see can see a crisis caused by the death/abdication of the Queen happen.
In theory, she has vast constitutional powers, in practice, they are meaningless. Not even lying to the Queen to dissolve parliament under false pretenses to achieve a major constitutional change without public scrutiny had any significant consequences.
For decades, the Queen has cultivated a policy of complete non-involvement in politics, to the point that on almost every major issue, we can only guess where she stands. I am certain that any monarch following her who attempted to take a position would soon be told in no uncertain terms that they can either shut up or be legislated to irrelevance. The Crown, as a massive bundle of capital and land, will thunder along no matter what – too many people’s salaries depend on it. Most likely, whoever gets to wear the crown next will stay just as silent as she has, whatever happens to the country, and get to play along with all the privilege and pageantry for the years to come.
The Sussexes are doing well to leave the whole circus, but I doubt they’ll be left alone.
Would you rather have an elected president? Just as a figurehead, with all executive powers vested in the prime minister, as is effective currently the case – compare Germany, or Ireland? Or one with real executive functions (France, US)? And would it be accompanied by wider-ranging constitutional reforms – PR, elected second chamber, written constitution, constitutional court, federalisation of the home nations, English regional devolution, etc?
I am pretty sure the Queen will carry on for as long as she can. She took a sacred oath. Charles is in his 70s, and while he has good genes (mother 94 in April, father 99 in June, one grandmother reached 101 and the other 84, grandfathers reached 64 and 56) he might not survive his mother at all or for long. But he will want the job, having waited and waited. Prince William will not have such a long time to wait. And then there is George.
Which is why Harry is getting out now – his role as the “spare” has withered over time, and he won’t want to end up as superfluous to requirements as Anne, Andrew and Edward. And Meghan is used to living in the real world, and does not seem content to spend the rest of her life as a voiceless smiling mannequin.
Surely this is all part of the bigger picture, that of a rotten “constitution”, unfit for purpose?
I agree with all comments. The monarchy sits at the apex of a system that thrives on inequality, entitlement, expectation, nepotism, unearned privilege, and creates subjects instead of citizens. Like the HoL it should have been swept away decades ago.
Which reminds me, when did proposals to reform, if not actually abolish, the HoL first see the light of day? At least a century ago. I remember an interview with David Steel a few years ago in which he said he wanted to abolish the HoL – while wearing his ermine. There’s the nub – too many vested interests, too many powerful people recipients of monarchical patronage – and don’t they do such sterling work and aren’t they a great tourist attraction. And republicanism wouldn’t work here, not in Britain, where we do things differently.
If we can find a way to change kind of politics we have in the UK, then perhaps.
I would happily dispense with the monarchy. There is no meaningful constitutional role it is entirely symbolic…and the House of Lords as well, what a joke of an institution that is. Full of fat, idle wasters, full of their own self importance quaffing on taxpayers funds..just awful
My suspicion is that it is already agreed that William will be the next king. But he has a young family and probably doesn’t want the crown now. So the queen is hanging in there and Charles is ready if the queen dies before William is ready.
The fact is William and Kate are quite popular in the country, more so than Charles and camilla with all that Diana stuff hanging over them. They must know that their chances of survival as an institution are quite slim and they need to minimise any upheavals.
I’m sure plans in some quarters will involve our soon hearing “The Queen is dead – long live King Boris!”
Loved as she is (for reasons I don’t entirely understand) I suspect the Queen’s failure to abdicate may ultimately come to be seen as a mistake, though probably not a fatal one for the institution. I suspect Charles will have been sensible enough to have seen that, and not want to go on too long himself. William will be king in 10 years, and not much will change.
I rather think the idea that there’s going to be an opportunity for reform is for the birds. Brexit culture will be very much against it.
I still see a role for the monarchy after the Queen. As an institution it is anachronistic and it appears to prop up an upper class hierarchy of earls, dukes, and many minor and irrelevant royal good for nothing except the society pages of the Times and the Mail. However, I just wonder whether letting go would be another act of self harm so soon after Brexit… at least perceptually, around the World? Things have to change: royalty needs slimming down, there should be greater efficiency in its finances, some of its wealth needs to be re-apportioned. We should further reform the Lords and the honours system (drop ‘Empire’ at least). However, I look at us and say ‘what makes the UK different in the league of upper-middle ranked nations, what makes it unique’; and although royalty is not unique, our royals are uniquely well known and highly regarded and we can surely mould it slightly so that we get all of the positive trappings and remove as many of the negative as possible. I shudder to think at the possibility of an elected head of state if someone like Nigel Farage wins the election (i.e. it becoming political) or, I don’t know, Ben Stokes, Ross Kemp or Mel C. wins it (i.e. celebrity driven).
Given Charles has already been confirmed at a Commonwealth Conference as the person to succeed the Queen then I’d be tempted to let it be, and you never know, he may do ok, or at least hold the reigns short enough (and not do too much damage while gripping them) before William takes over. I’m not ready to ditch the monarchy just yet, but I’d be amazed if it lasted the century.