Can I avoid the topic of the moment? I fear not. I watched over an hour of the Megan and Harry interview last night. And I believed they were credible witnesses, with real fears for their own well-being and that of their family, whose fears went unheard by the organisation they worked for, which meant they quit.
Of course, they are also two highly privileged people. And yes, of course, in some sense the hype is media inflated. But that does not mean that I doubt the trauma that they faced is real. Nor do I doubt the suggestion of racism.
Candidly, what they do now is not of much interest to me. But I do wish them well. They look like survivors of a pretty traumatic experience. Privileged or not, they are still human. And trauma is trauma. Of course I wish for their recovery.
But I wish more for real change in our society. And I happen to think that this requires that the role of the royal family must change.
It is hardly surprising that the institution and practices of royalty are so impossible for those given the task of trying to fulfil them. Royalty requires that this family believe that it has a literal God given right to rule, and to head the Church of England. Whether many have an actual faith is open to doubt. But they still have to believe in that right.
Then they have to believe that their genes, alone, give them a right to rule. And that what happens to their family determines that God given outcome, without their having free will on the issue.
They have too, in that case, to believe that they are naturally different, superior, and preferred.
They also have to believe they have a duty to reproduce, and to deliver the heir. The possibility of being gay, lesbian or of other orientation that might suggest a desire to live in a manner inconsistent with the establishment view of the heterosexual relationship is not permitted. No wonder they feel an impossible demand.
And none of this is compatible with any sincere belief in the values that now underpin our society. The stereotype that this family must uphold whilst simultaneously supposedly projecting itself as modern, caring, integrated and embracing is almost entirely incompatible with having any chance of good mental health. Simultaneously having to believe you are superior and ‘of the people' would be a demand too much for almost anyone,and quite reasonably so. And any sane person would feel trapped by it.
Worse though, any sane person in this role would realise that they are being used as the embodiment of privilege that perpetuates a system based on the eugenic belief that there is a class system - which surrounds and supports all that the royals do and are - that is intended by its very existence to make clear that this is an unequal, unfair and profoundly anti-meritocratic and deeply misogynistic as well as racist society, of which they, through no choice of their own, are representatives. Of course that sane person would want to quit.
And what should a rational reaction to this be? There is but one answer, and that is that the role of the royal family should be completely changed, and with it our constitution.
It is incompatible with the twenty first century that we have a monarchy, and all that it implies.
Nor can we have a hereditary head of state.
And I do not believe it in any way acceptable that the pretence that royalty have a constitutional role be perpetuated any longer. The idea that some have a natural right to rule that the role embodies should have no continuing place in our society.
Necessarily that requires a new head of state, and I am quite sure that role needs to separate from the role of prime minister. But this in turn would require a constitution, checks, balances, and safeguards, which are of course all the things the current government wants none of.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can achieve these goals by leaving the Union. Sane people would think it the right thing that they do that. The system of government that England perpetuates is at the very heart of its problems, and the demise of its influence.
But for England, what is there? Only a choice, I suggest. It may continue to tug the forelock. Or it is time to break free from the shackles of an absurd institution and all that they represent, and move on to become a modern state fit to face the challenges we have. That is not a choice really, but England could still flunk it.
As for the royal family? Leave them with their money. Allow them their patronages. But more than that? I am not sure. And I bet they would be mightily relieved.
The time for change had arrived. Let's get on with it. Long live the republic and its citizens, who will no longer be subjects.
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:
[…] are countless issues of significance in this country that need to be addressed right now. As I have suggested this morning, these include pressing issues of constitutional significance. There is also the very obvious need […]
Brave stuff Richard! I fear a pile on. But that will be because too many people have a visceral, unhinged love for The Royal family that has no logic and therefore is indefensible.
More power to your typing fingers. Good luck.
It certainly seems to me that the big argument in favour of abolition of The Monarchy is the effect it has on the members of The Royal Family who are in effect prisoners in a gilded cage
It is obvious the monarchy has not learnt the lessons of the English Civil War despite the “Glorious” Revolution of 1688. Not that I am advocating regicide but a republic would be much healthier for our democracy (despite the goings-on in Washington sometimes). Clearly, the firm and establishment backing it up are racist, intolerant and deeply undemocratic.
Agree. As a 50-something woman my only place in their vision of England is to make the sandwiches for the cricket team, and clean up their messes. It’s no wonder productivity in this country is so low, as one cannot invest in a system designed to keep one in one’s place.
Well said. Leave them with their money? Ok, but not ‘their’ land. The entire Crown estate, and the private estate owned by the Royal family should be returned to public ownership. Land reform is essential to undermine the power of the feudalistic establishment that still controls this country. But can I see it ever happening? Not a chance! Anyone of influence, or any political party that was serious about land reform would get taken down by the establishment – they’d get the Corbyn/Markle treatment.
Correct, Scotland is trying and that, alongside everything else, is under attack by the establishment and their media mouthpiece.
Totally agree, Jim. The big question is what happens to all the land. The shameless robbing cronies of the elite would be jostling for a position at the front of the queue. It would be used to buy loyalty to the current group in power – just like it was when it was stolen off the people centuries ago.
I’m an out and out republican and have been against monarchy since I was a child. We need a way of determining what is “theirs” and what is the State’s, or “ours” – and not decided by the “great & good” sycophants.
In the meantime there should be a way of enabling those, like Harry & Meghan, to leave the “firm” and become ordinary citizens, giving up all their entitlements, privileges, titles, patronages etc and making their own way like the rest of us. It would of course be something of an illusionary “ordinariness”, but you have no choice of the circumstances into which you are born.
And neither have the poor that choice. A decent government could, should, fix both.
Nicely put, I quite agree. Especially on not caring about the pantomime, but being sickened by the human cost of maintaining it.
On the “leave them with their money”, there should be some balance, but obviously the Crown Estate should remain with the govt. I would suggest that much of the Duchies and Balmoral should also be repatriated — leave them enough to continue a life of (reduced) privilege, but return to public ownership the swathes of countryside that are only “privately owned” by the royals because of historical coercion and public funding. Legally though, this is probably a terrible minefield.
I agree re the Crown Estates etc
I didn’t watch the programme. It is a matter of regret when private family disputes are played out in public like this. It will turn into a “he said, she said” situation, and everyone will end up worse off. The institution of the monarchy has evolved and adapted over the years, and Harry and Meghan presented an opportunity to continue that evolution into something more modern and relevant. It is pity the institution seems to have been unable to adapt take that opportunity.
Balmoral is an interesting case. I understand it was originally bought by Albert using money bequeathed to Victoria personally by John Camden Neild, so there is a good case that it really is (or at least was) private. George VI had to buy it from his brother, and I suspect there was some assistance from the public purse then.
Sandringham was bought by Edward VII (while Prince of Wales) using money from the Duchy of Cornwall, so there is a better case for it to be considered “public”. It also had to be bought back from Edward VIII.
I didn’t watch the programme, and the reports this morning don’t deal with constitutional implications.
But I agree that the time has come for a formal constitution: that has become more and more obvious in the last couple of years from the way our elected Parliament and governments have behaved and in particular the callous way in which Johnson has ignored unwritten constitutional conventions.
My mind is confused about the monarchy, it is anachronistic and indefensible – except that it has to be massively better than President Boris Johnson.
The Australians and Canadians gave Governors General appointed, I think, by the Senates. The Germans involve their lander or states. This would make President Boris Johnson unlikely, especially if it were elected by PR.
Yes, time for the Royal Family to step down….. but this has to be part of broader electoral reform in the voting system and the House of Lords. Indeed, voting reform is the priority and given the bizarre attachment that so many have to the “royal soap opera” I am prepared to live with it if we can get proportional representation in the House of Commons.
The Irish seem to manage quite happily with an elected President – but again, I suspect that this has a lot to do with the Single Transferable Vote system they use.
Clive – I agree. The more pressing issue is House of Lords and proportional representation (PR) – Get PR right, then HoL reform could progress quite well. Alongside that the Royal Family may see the writing on the wall and decide to reform too (i.e. slim down over say a 10 year period).
Due to unintended consequences I would not want too many changes all in one go as you do need to take the people with you – and we could end up with Johnson as president, or Gove…
In our house we usually vote Princess Anne to replace the Queen.
The UK is only a partial democracy, and cannot be a full democracy with an unelected hereditary head of state and a totally unelected parliamentary second chamber. In 1963 the Prime Minister Harold Macmillan and the Queen chose Lord Home to replace Macmillan as Prime Minister. That was an electorate of 2. Home renounced his hereditary peerage and became Sir Alec Douglas-Home. But he was PM for nearly 3 weeks, until he won a Commons by-election, without being a member of either the Commons or the Lords.
Thinking about it, it seems to me that the worst possible scenario is that The Royal Family ‘implodes’ and we end up with a Republic without proper discussion and agreement on what happens
The Queen has had 70 years to introduce reforms & I can’t see that she’s done anything about it . She was even forced to pay some tax !
And don’t mention how the great fire of Windsor Castle was financed,
She even keeps Charles dangling when he could easily taken over the reins ( reigns ?) of the firm
Norman Baker has an interesting book on the Royal Family ” ,,,,, and what do you do ?”
and now —Back to more important matters !
I have twice today read reference to the possibility of a “President Johnson”, if we become a republic. One reference was from a relative, who is no fan or the monarchy, and the second reference is in comments above.
It’s a common ploy by monarchists to suggest that the only alternative to a monarch as head of state, is the horror of a Trump, a Johnson, a Farage, or even a Savile (!).
This ignores the difference between a ceremonial head of state, which is in my view, all we would need to replace the monarch, as the monarch’s constitutional role is rightly very restricted. We would not need a radical change to a US style constitution with its presidential chief executive.
There’s a petition here: https://www.republic.org.uk/petition
An excellent piece Richard. For me it hits all the right notes. They may be – and indeed are in one sense – privileged, but I always thought how dreadful it would be to be born into this family and thus be effectively deprived of any real life choices. High time for change – but I’m not optimistic. Maybe it’s the Royals who need to revolt?!
The big take I got from the interview was when Harry said that the Royal Family are in fear of the MSM/Press.
Harry didn’t expand on it, but the fact is that the Royal Family exists because the public at large want them to. If the public turns against the Royals then they are finished.
The Press has the power to turn the public against the Royals and from what Harry said, the Royals know it!
I feel sorry for the children to be honest – it’s not their choice to be born into this bunch of ‘cling ons’. And I appreciate that Richard has treated the royals in his blog as human beings.
My main bug bear is the extent to which I suspect that the royal family has been encroaching on democratic politics for far too long. Why do we have a Privy Council? It’s got to go.
I was very angry with Elizabeth Windsor because she basically allowed Boris to prorogue parliament in a way that she knew would harm her ‘subjects’ and because of course she knew her own family were rich enough to weather the effects of this (and also ensured that that would remain the case).
I also cannot get my head around the fact that people who are on the civil list so to speak are it seems to me allowed to be racist and then its treated as a ‘private matter’. If this had happened in the Civil service at any level there would be more accountability.
All in all I agree – it’s a poor show. We have a constitution designed I feel for more honourable times. I see no honour anywhere in politics these days (with a few exceptions).
regarding the money…
It doesn’t seem right that the crown owns all mineral rights , the shorelines, the sea beds and vast tracts of territory of the UK in their personal capacity.
It was brought home how valuable this is when the Crown estate secured rights to the proceeds of wind farms and puts a more sinister slant on the debate about the significance of fishing rights. Instead of the principles being how best to share the proceeds of the commons the argument in the UK is how best to maximise returns to the owners.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/17/offshore-wind-auction-could-raise-millions-for-queen
By all means pension them off but strip them of their assets.
Agree, long past time to abolish the monarchy.
But we do seem to need something to replace it. Evidently we need more than a prime minister.
This government is riding roughshod over the ideals of democracy, and it seems that nothing can be done to stop them before the next election – and maybe nothing then either.
First past the post has spoilt our democracy; evidently some form of Proportional Representation is needed.
Can a written constitution help protect us? Who is going to write it? Not Johnson, I hope!
A head of state without power is pointless, but how can an aberration like Trump be prevented?
The money saved with abolishing the monarchy could be used for the NHS. Would Johnson write that on the side of a bus?
Richard, I watched the interview too for an hour then headed to bed. I don’t disagree with your sentiments but I am so against turning this family row which to me is the nub of it and which looks like its permanent schism into a UK constitutional crisis as our various elites fight over the options looking for an opportunity to turn things to their advantage. God knows we have had enough of this infighting with Brexit. Lets leave the Royal Family the “Firm” to get on with it by which I mean trying to reach an amicable settlement that shuts down this publicity/cultural war crap which is an a huge distraction from the challenges the country really faces.