I spent some time yesterday telling myself that I really did not need to write anything about the conduct of the Queen. However, in the end I failed to persuade myself.
I am, of course, pleased that the Queen managed to attend the memorial service for her late husband. It was good that she could.
Her decision, and I am sure it was her decision, to be accompanied to it by her disgraced second son was simply appalling. I know, of course, that he has not admitted to any offence, but has simply paid what is reputed to be many millions to avoid doing so whilst being stripped of all his royal duties and ranks in apparent admission of his wrong doing. To then have him act as escort to the Queen as she arrived at the service was simply astonishing.
Not one member of the royal family can have doubted the message being sent. Women everywhere were trolled. So were all the supposed subjects of this family, who put on a combined staggering display of indifference.
I think we can safely conclude that this was a collective decision because given the predilection that they all have for dressing up in the most absurd military regalia the fact that they did not do so on an occasion when it might have been expected just so that Andrew's current inability to do so was not highlighted was further indication of support for a man who should have slipped in very quietly, at best.
The recent royal tour of the Caribbean was a disaster.
This was another massive error of judgement.
And, like it or not, with the Queen now very obviously frail, the question of what happens regarding a succession is now relevant. That's not insensitive if you make jobs hereditary, to be passed on death.
I am aware that there are large numbers of royalists in the UK, and even elsewhere. I am mildly bemused by their passion. But I contrast that with my objection to the ideas implicit in the notion of a hereditary head of state who is also deemed to be leader of the Church of England and defender of the Christian faith, whilst being given a quite peculiar constitutional role that is undertaken behind a veil of secrecy.
I cannot forgive the eugenic logic in this supposed right to rule.
Nor is it right that in a supposed democracy the head of state is beyond the reach of accountability.
And the idea that this person might be appointed by God, still implicit in their role in just one of the many churches and faiths in this country, is simply offensive as well as contrary to any reasonable reading of the New Testament.
If I object to an hereditary House of Lords, and I do, then I have too to object to an hereditary monarchy. Neither, with the embedded implication of superior status for an elite selected by birth that grants a right to rule has any place in modern governance, even if the baubles of a past age appeal to some. That this family shows such insensitivity on so many fronts is just further indication of the absurdity of their role which no one could reasonably undertake in the modern era of continuous scrutiny.
My suggestion is that it is time for the discussion on succession to begin.
Let Charles be King, if necessary. But first strip all the constitutional and faith roles from the position. If ‘Head of state' is to remain make it clear it is symbolic alone. And end the farce of them playing a part in foreign affairs by ending the role of this family as providers of the head of state in so many other jurisdictions around the world. It is time to end the vestiges of empire and the opportunity to do so is coming sometime: no one lives forever.
Then use this opportunity to ask the necessary question about what we do want from a real democracy, from proper representation to full accountability, and the right to remove a prime minister who commits offences whilst in office.
The royal family is doing its very best to prove it lacks the judgement to undertake its supposed role. Let's permit them their baubles and bangles. But let's also move on. Surely, the time is coming when that is what we must do?
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:
The fundamental problem with the House of Lords is that it is unelected. That makes the UK not a democracy, but only a partial democracy.
To me, Andrew’s inclusion was either pure sentimentality or the action of a mind that is very tired, weak and easily badly advised – which if it was the truth makes it all the more appalling as all it is an old lady who has been taken advantage of. You can forgive a parent standing by their progeny as a child is forever and not for Christmas but that support should be private not public.
The courtiers and advisors are only thinking about their own future.
It was a none event – I kept hearing of Philip’s ‘sacrifice’s’ knowing full well he’d never had to worry about having the central heating being on or making choice between not having a breakfast or a lunch like many of his wife’s subject’s have increasingly done since 2010 in the search for ‘better productivity’. He always looked well fed and warm to me.
His sacrifice was to walk behind his wife and not have a surname he could use
‘Sacrifice’?
It sounds more like a contract to me.
Abolish them without keeping them. This is all about the institution. They can live as private citizens and make an actual contribution to the country or emigrate to America to seek their fortune
“If ‘Head of state’ is to remain make it clear it is symbolic alone” with which I agree.
However, moving in this direction raises some interesting land ownership questions. Kevin Cahil in his book “Who Owns the World” notes that the ultimate owner of land in the Uk (& in Commonwealth countries with Qeenie as the HoS) is… The Crown. Freehold is defined in the Land Registration Act of 2002 as “an interest in an estate in land in fee simple”. “Fee simple” as Cahil notes is a medeival term for the sum paid – in fact freehold is a tennacy – with the monarch as the ultimate owner of the land. Various lawyers I know tend to shrug at this with the remakr: yeah I know – we learn that stuff in the 1st year at Uni.
In the case of Barbados becoming a republic – Mrs Queen no longer owns the land. There are those that claim this is a technicality. I’m not so sure. Page 45 of the book notes that prior to the 2005 human rights act – there was little to prevent the UK gov acting in the name of “the crown” from seizing land (e.g. in WW2 – with little/minimal compensation). The HRA (which the tories are attemptiong to overturn) ended the possibility of seizure without proper compo.
Maybe the Uk needs to emulate Barbados: become a republic. Unlikely, but who knows.
That would be my preferred route
Mine too. Sooner the better.
It is certainly true that all land in the UK belongs to the Crown. So how did they come to own it? Very simple. They took it from those who occupied it before them. Therefore, it is all stolen property and those making enormous fortunes from their ‘ownership’ of this stolen property should be dealt with by the law and their ill-gotten gains confiscated.
Well, I can dream, can’t I?
I think the whole concept of land ownership needs to be revisited. It should be couched far more explicitly in terms of stewardship. In return for some additional rights to land you must be good stewards of that land, which includes things like environmental responsibilities and much better access rights than we have currently.
Andrew behaved appallingly. But, sadly, so have plenty of other men and you haven’t felt the need to blog saying they should be excluded from their parent’s memorial service. I think this particular occasion is one where it is difficult to find the line between what is humane in terms of family remembrance, and right in terms of attending a national event.
I agree totally the constitution needs to be made relevant to a contemporary democracy, and codifying. The aspects you mention will need to be at the centre of the debate, though there is no guarantee a democratic process would end up with the solutions you propose. Even more fundamentally there need to be checks and balances to ensure democratic processes can’t be overridden in the way our current government tries to do.
Other men do not have state memorial services for their fathers
I can spot the difference
A number of states have a President whose role to formally appoint, open big events and the sort of things royalty do.
Australia, Canada and New Zealand have Governor Generals who have that role , in theory on behalf of the monarchy. Denmark and the other Scandinavian monarchies have almost no political role.
There is a need, it seems, to have another position of authority other than the Prime Minister. We could have no monarchy and a President of that sort that Ireland has, or a purely symbolic monarchy with a Presidential figure to carry out the political role. Not sure if that could work in the UK although it is the case in Canada and Australia.
Thank you for deciding to write this . It needs to be said . And the monarchy in general needs to be said too – and abolished hopefully.
If you are a republican I think the main question is do you argue for a one step wholesale abolition of the monarchy to be replaced by a democratically elected president, in which case you present the deniers of Climate Change and the deniers of the failure of Neoliberalism with the perfect Culture War story to drown out all other debate.
Or, do you argue for reform of the monarchy for example, only the monarch to have any role in public life so no Royal family circus, limit the monarch to a town house and country house, retirement at 65 and an Act that specifically defines role, ownership of assets, limitations and responsibilities of the Head of State.
Pessimistically, I tend to think that both alternatives would waste huge amounts of reforming time and energy that could be used for more urgent democratic reforms like proportional representation, an elected second chamber and a recreation of Local Democracy with the power to tax to provide for local need.
Agree. I believe we need a directly elected head of state free of party control maybe as in Ireland. There was a need after Brexit and indeed will be during the cost of living crisis to come for someone to give moral leadership away from any political bias. The current incumbent and the proposed future one can only do this from the shadows and that is not appropriate for a modern democracy
just as well Harry and Megan did not attend, the gutter press would have had a field day.
It seems Iran and UK are the only ‘theocratic’ states?
So exhausting to contemplate how this could possibly be sorted out. Presumably even just stripping down King Charles’ ‘monarch as head of state’ role to a ceremonial minimum would need some kind of constitutional study and report. Removing universal land ownership from the monarch would be part of it.
The country would seem to be incapable of managing even a discussion of the possibility of becoming a republic , never mind actually seeing it through in practice.
Your last point is why I raised the issue
I used to be fairly agnostic about the monarchy. I kind of swallowed the whole “above politics” thing, accepting that if push came to shove the queen would do the right thing and put the constitution and the people about the politics. This was shown to be a complete lie in the face of the proroguing of parliament scandal. It was then that I realised that the queen is worse than an unelected head of state, she’s an unelected head of state who is fundamentally unable to execute her constitutional duty.
I absolutely agree with you 100% on this.
Comprehensive constitutional reform is long overdue. The unelected House of Lords must go, as must the Monarchy in its present form, and the current “Honours” system, with its stench of empire. Parliament and all local authorities must be elected on a Proportional Representation system. We must rejoin our European neighbours in an economic and, ultimately, political union.
I have reached state pension age, and I can’t remember ever feeling as despairing about the state of this country as I do now, not even during the three day week of the 70s or during the Thatcher era. I don’t expect any of the changes I wish for to actually happen in my lifetime. But I can hope.
Do more than hope
Shout about it
Well said Richard! I totally agree with you.
What an excellent piece Richard. How likely it is that the misbegotten Caribbean tour might awaken the Royal’s handlers to the fact that dressing up in that absurd military regalia only serves to recall the warlord past of British monarchy. A not so bygone past of colonial plunder utterly unfit for present purpose. If you ever decide to take your republican cause on the road you might wish to consider Shabaka Hutchings’ Sons of Kemet for your opening act.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=YEpziXD-SDk
The obvious issue that has never been raised in my view is the effect that being in The Royal Family has on its members, both in the UK & Abroad.
The Queens father, George VI was basically killed by the kingship, her sister, Princess Margaret had her life ruined by it, Prince Harry clearly wasnt happy, abroad The Japanese Imperial Family have had problems, as have some European families.
But as ever what do we want to replace it with?
It seems to me that it has to be part of a proper constitutional settlement which includes a constitution and reform of The House of Lords
What we want from a real democracy is surely that the people are sovereign rather than the Crown in Parliament. Everything else flows from that. In the English constitution the people exist to serve the state rather than vice versa. That makes the people essentially cannon fodder which is where you get the mentality that resorts automatically to herd immunity. accepting high casualties in return for the survival, or even the convenience, of the state a.k.a the Tory Party. The Establishment is steeped in these attitudes.