I am not greatly interested in royalty, usually. The last twenty-four hours has interested me much more than usual.
Firstly, the Ghislaine Maxwell verdict clearly has implications for the claims against Prince Andrew, which he does of course deny.
Second, it was drawn to my attention yesterday that Twitter seemed to be particularly excited about unsubstantiated claims about the state of Prince William's marriage.
I do, rather obviously, have to point out that there is as yet no confirmed evidence of either of these stories being true, and I am not offering opinion on that issue. To again state the rather obvious, I would rather that both were not, for the sake of all involved. Instead, what troubles me is that in what passes for a constitutional settlement within the UK the decisions of some people as to how they will conduct their personal lives might have implication for the conduct of government. Prince William, in particular, is second in line to the throne and his father will be well into his seventies if he does ever become king. In that case the succession rests pretty heavily on his shoulders. Like it or not, public confidence in his conduct matters whether you are a monarchist or not.
I know that the royal family has suffered periods of unpopularity before. The 1990s were not exactly good for it, and it recovered. That said, it was damaged, and that is still reflected in the popularity of Prince Charles. Prince Andrew might be a sideshow, albeit a deep embarrassment, but the same cannot be said for Prince William. His marriage is the supposed fairy-tale on which the myth of royalty is built. Tear that asunder and is there anything left for many people to believe in?
Leaving aside that this is a wholly unreasonable demand to place upon anyone, the simple possibility that such a loss of faith in one of the supposed unwritten lynchpins of the UK constitutional settlement might happen is a cause for debate. At the very least those engaged in UK politics should be considering what alternatives there are to the current arrangement in the event that confidence in it is lost, as would seem all too easy once the Queen inevitably passes.
This is a matter of particular significance for those in independence movements in Scotland and Wales, for whom consideration of the role of the future head of state is significant. But, no one anywhere interested in the politics of the UK can now ignore the risk that a loss of confidence in the royal family might create, most especially when the reigning monarch is 95 years of age and literally irreplaceable in terms of the loyalty that she inspires.
Do we need a different head of state?
Would that require a written constitution?
How would they be chosen?
How would power be distributed I there was a functioning rather than a titular head of state?
If the monarchy fell, could the Lords survive?
It is easy to see how these questions can snowball, and few have really tried to rehearse answers to them.
My question in that case is a simple one, and is to ask whether we should be considering this issue? That is not because of any current issue, but because in the modern era it is simply absurd that we base any part of our government on hereditary entitlement, not least because of the pressure that brings to bear on those who assume such roles whether they like it or not. That has to be an abuse of their own human rights.
But how do we get out of this neo-feudal mess? And what do we put in its place?
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:
As far as Scotland is concerned, my belief has always been, assuming by that time we are an independent nation once again, is that we should have a referendum on the issue.
Canada and Australia have similar constitutions, and have a Governor-general who serve for a few years. One arrangement could be to have an elected or partly elected Senate in this country would would appoint someone to the largely ceremonial role.
Similar arrangements sem to suit other European countries.
But it goes deeper than the head of state. The film, ‘The Spiders Web’ drew attention to privilege of the City of London. Even the Queen has to ask permission to enter the City and it has its own police force.
There are pockets of privilege and entitlement which continue to influence our politics. They need to be considered too.
Constitutional reform is needed in many directions, not least an elected House of Commons that reasonably reflects how voters voted. The House of Lords has been an anomoly for ages and open to corruption through patronage and political bungs, or just happening to have a daddy whose daddy’s daddy et al did some long-dead monarch a good favour or was victorious in battle. One anomoly, however, is that the qualities of wisdom and judgement, and the willingness to ask awkward questions is less often found in the lower house where climbing up the greasy political pole means that the positive attributes of the upper house are rather absent at times. I don’t yet see how to create an upper house that is constitutionally and electorially responsible that does not mirror most of the deficiencies of the lower house–Any wisdom, Richard?
Look at Ireland – who seem to manage thus much better than we do
The debate about abolishing Seanad Eireann and what to put in its place, if anything, has been going since God was a lad. The latest attempt to do it came unstuck in a referendum in 2013 that was narrowly defeated:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/result-has-undermined-taoiseach-s-political-authority-1.1551762.
It may be a more democratic chamber than the House of Lords but it doesn’t pass that test with flying colours. Members are either directly elected through a mix of functional constituencies or nominated by the Taoiseach, which gives the opportunity to have senators that have particular expertise but aren’t interested in running for election. However, many of the nominees have been politicians who failed to get elected to the lower house or people who have contributed to public life but have no intention of taking part in the Seanad’s work – our version of an honours system – and their nomination doesn’t require them to. The electorate doesn’t include all citizens either. County councillors, TDs and some, not all, university graduates etc. Sinn Fein, who, if an election was held tomorrow, would be the majority party in the next government (which, incidentally, is another seismic event that is getting little or no interest in the UK, especially if SF win the NI election in May first), have their own reform proposals.
Anyway, that’s enough about how Ireland’s upper house of parliament works when your post was about the UK.
But it was welcome Ralph, so thank you
You are right re SF. We have come a very long way from the days when they were banned from being heard on the media.
In short, the ‘royal’ family should be nothing more than an interest-piquing entry on the pages of history books. We have in place an unelected group of people given almost carte blanche treatment who also appear to still enjoy having the ear of government (individuals have used their position to gain special treatment and apparently, even influence policy) while using some rather government-esque style ‘leaks’ to influence the public mood on subjects (Brexit for one) all the while being in receipt of vast sums of public money.
Its hardly an uncommon event for some swivel-eyed right-winger to invoke them in whatever bit of logical fallacy they are attempting to employ to bamboozle people with – and they are often (and unsurprisingly) a major focus of dangerous nationalists. Like a religion (and look how deeply tied they are to that) the existence of the monarchy is a well-played card used to distract and influence at least some portion of the public.
The lords could indeed survive but no longer in their current mode – if someone wants to keep a silly title and they have enough bootlickers around them to maintain this anachronistic farce, all I can say is fill yer’ boots. However, that heriditary title should be nothing more than just that: a title. No more voting on policies or sitting in the HoL. To enjoy those benefits only those with life peerages conferred upon them (which should by public vote, not awarded by government) ought to have such privileges. I think certain persons should be excluded from being allowed such an honour: no celebrities or politicians – I’d actually exclude anyone that has or still works in the media. I’d also argue that people of great wealth (yes, this would require a specific definition) should be barred from holding this kind of title. Too much opportunity for conflicts of interest to arise for those belonging to any of these groups.
As for a head of state, I can only honestly comment in the subjective in that I don’t feel or see the need for one. The PM heads the government (well, supposedly) so there is no real use for a figurehead, while such a position seems to be little more than a public pacifier in celebrity form. Time to get rid of the pedestal and the false idols we place upon it.
A written constitution would be a fine thing, but who could be trusted with penning such an important document today? I suspect that choice in itself would prove as divisive as any of the most recent polarising events.
For me it is the anti-democratic manoeuvrings of the Johnson Conservative government that has made it clear this country needs a proper written constitution. As part of that I would expect the requirements and role of the ceremonial head of state to be codified, and even if the historical tradition of a hereditary monarch were to be maintained there would no doubt be close scrutiny about the position of the wider family.
As you say, Prince Andrew is a side show, he has long been recognised as shallow and we now know he has made close friends of criminals. But he doesn’t matter. I have seen nothing in the newspapers to suggest Prince William has become legally ineligible to assume the crown when his time comes, but the monarchy will always attract gossip of variable veracity.
What if the papers are barred from telling you?
Yes, we should discuss it.
40 years ago I thought the answer was simple…… but now I am uncertain, the arrogance of youth is a fantastic thing!
The current system should go but I really don’t know where it might lead or how we might get there. All I would say is that House of Lords reform matters more than who sits as Head of State (as long as the Head of State has extremely limited powers).
the Guardian did a recent editorial on this
cant say i was that interested
now
about that double-entry transaction on money creation in Govts books
THAT does float my boat
You need to be careful that you don’t encourage a debate that will make Brexit seem like the last word in rational discussion. Now is not the time, I am sure. First, it is necessary to win the debate over wealth disparities and to espouse corrective policies. Inevitably, this raises the holistic question of elites, their privileges and roles. This should be the scenario out of which a discussion of a republic emerges. Let me be clear I regard a republic as a no brainer, but that does not blind me to the utter impossibility of raising this politically at the present time. The dear old lady is much loved and can do no wrong in the eyes of, I suspect, a minimum eighty per cent of the population. The fact that she is head of a family comprising a brood of dysfunctional mediocrities appears irrelevant to most people’s perceptions. That is the real politik of monarchism in the UK (sadly, not just England this time) in 2021.
The Windsor’s are dug in like ticks in our society.
They learned a long time ago that their survival and privilege can only come from this country as it is set up. They and their lackeys will resist change and defend their position.
Only a truly root and branch reengineering of our democracy will get rid of them once and for all. But I feel it would be like the equivalent of digging out Japanese knotweed from your garden.
I cannot see it happening in my life time. But I would not make any room for them in any re-organisation of our democracy.
A ‘head of state’ should be our values as a country – not a person. A Government would then be required to behave to those values as part of the constitution upheld by a constitutional court maybe (yes – I know that these such bodies can be toyed with).
OTOH I could forgive the State supporting the Windsor’s if it offered as much more support to ordinary people.
But it doesn’t. It keeps taking it away.
And what goes round will come around as far as I’m concerned.
Spot on PSR, although I lack the faith to believe that your last statement will prove correct – I would thoroughly enjoy being wrong!
You ask “But how do we get out of this neo-feudal mess? And what do we put in its place?”
Here are some ideas from an organisation dedicated to providing a way forward:
https://www.republic.org.uk/a_new_head_of_state
Thanks
I agree we shouldn’t let discussion of the future of the monarchy distract us from the real issues such as Covid, climate change, inequality, and all the other disasters lurking around the world. Cromwell tried and after a civil war, there was still a restoration with Charles 11 and a privileged aristocracy weighing down on the peasantry and workers. The French had a successful revolution getting rid of both the Bourbons and the aristocracy but had to put up with a return to monarchy a couple of times in the 19th century. Russia got rid of its Tsarist dynasty and its replacement may not have been all that could be desired from the ideals of the original Bolsheviks. Maybe a much-toned-down monarchy such as in Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Norway, and Sweden would be preferable if a republic is not favoured by the majority of people in England. Charles 111 may be a better King if he sticks to his concern for nature and climate and refuses to sign and give consent for any legislation that is damaging ecologically or socially harmfull..
I think a lot of people seem to believe that the queen is going to live forever, and thus we will never have to have the difficult conversation about whether we like Charles, and whether we are happy with all our money and stamps being reprinted with his head on them, or whether all the other overseas realms will fancy doing the same.
I suspect a lot of people don’t like him very much, and won’t like these changes, even if they would have a hard time saying that before the event. Monarchists loathe change in my experience.
It’s possible William will soon follow, but I imagine we’ll get a few years of Charles first.
It’s possible the queen will make it until her platinum jubliee next year, but it’s not a given, with the state of her recent health. I think it’s quite likely the country will be forced soon to have this debate, whether we want to or not.
When that happens, as a staunch republican I will be getting my pitchfork out. Plenty of privileged people are riding on the coattails of the status quo – once it changes, all bets are off to where things will go. The future is open to debate, once we get away from the happenstance of our current monarch being likeable.
The challenge of course as happened in Australia is what to replace it with, cearly the Australian public ‘saw through’ what the proposed replacement for the Monarchy would be like and rejected it.
If I were however to make two points, firstly an obvious objection to The Monarchy is the effect it has on the members of the Royal Family, I certainy feel sorry for Prince George who had his life mapped out for him at birth and of course his Grandfather and the obvious frustration he suffers.
Certainly the Japanese Imperial family has had its own troubles in recent years with members becoming mentally ill possibly as a result of the stress of being born within the family.
Secondly the Royal Family has proved very astute at hanging on to power, witness George V’s refusal to allow theCzar to come to the UK in 1917 & his treatment of the first Labour Government. They may well continue to be able to respond to events to stay in power.
Clearly when the Queen dies, you will have to be over 70 to have been born when she was not on the throne and over 90 to have been an adult under her fathers reign. Also of course she will be a hard act to follow so I suggest that we may be in for interesting times.
Interesting, in the worst possible sense. Most likely, in the great British (née English) tradition, there will be a furious attempt to carry on as normal, in face of overwhelming pressure to change. The change, when it comes, will be an unceremonious, back-of-a-fag-packet mess that pleases nobody but retains power within the wider Eton-Oxbridge establishment.
In terms of Scotland post-independence, I would take inspiration from the “Union of the Crowns” period (1603-1707), where the head of state, while the monarch was in London, was the Chancellor (equivalent to the Speaker (HoC) or Presiding Officer (Holyrood). I believe that the Presiding Officer (or whatever the position is called by then), upon successful completion of their term, could be elevated to serve as head of state (President, Chancellor, whatever). This would ensure that the HoS is someone who has commanded the respect of both their peers and the public, has a limited term in office, without introducing any further plebiscite for people to get fatigued with (a la USA).
That would excite John Bercow
Abolish the monarchy and house of lords… a bad president is better than a good king since the people that give them power can take it away.
A written constitution is necessary. Reduced the size of the house of lords and make each lord (senator) accountable to a constituency that elects them and can recall them if they are not worthy.
A simple principle should underpin all thoughts on new constitutional settlements: when democracy fails the only cure is more democracy.
Surely the principal duty of a constitutional monarchy is to act as a backstop/safeguard against the executive taking advantage of our unwritten constitution and going rogue.
In 2019 the monarchy illustrated what a waste of space it is when it failed our democracy by rubber stamping Johnson’s unlawful prorogation of parliament.