I am aware that the Queen is, for her age, in seemingly remarkably good health. But, at 96 anyone in possession of all their faculties knows that their days must be numbered. The chance of many more birthdays, let alone major anniversaries, becomes ever smaller.
I am no royalist. If I had my way we would have a republic. You will not, in that case, find me out celebrating this weekend. But in any event, this whole jubilee feels more like a valedictory event than a celebration to me: the sense is that the era is very definitely ending, as inevitably at some time fairly soon it must.
But that does also lend urgency to the question I have also asked this morning in the context of Boris Johnson's inevitable demise, which is what next?
For centuries the response has been ‘The Queen is dead, long live the King'. Many make the assumption that this will happen again. But the disquiet with the monarchy now seen on every royal tour, whoever now does them, also exists in the UK. How can a eugenic symbol of British imperial exceptionalism really be relevant now?
The challenge is for us all to answer that question. The challenge is for politicians to respond. And as yet there is no sign anyone is.
We face many uncertainties. This weekend does, to me, mark the opening of another by effectively marking the end of a reign. I hope the Queen enjoys the fuss. The questions are not for her to answer. The rest of us cannot avoid them.
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:
A platinum jubilee is a rare thing. Louis XIV survived his for two and a half years.
What next? When the inevitable happens, by default, if nothing changes, we will be replacing a woman in her 90s (or older) with a man in his 70s (or older). William will be 40 in a few weeks. So we can expect two transitions in relatively short order, and it is understandable that the next two in line are taking more of a role now, just as Elizabeth did during her father’s illness from 1949.
It is also understandable that other nations with a legacy of empire are looking to take control of themselves and replace the last vestiges of colonialism. I don’t see the appetite for that yet in the UK, nor indeed much yet in Canada or Australia, but perhaps once the long service of the queen no longer exerts a magnetic pull, the whole edifice of monarchy in the Commonwealth and the UK will fall apart. I don’t have strong feelings between a figurehead monarch of the sort seen in several European counties, or a figurehead elected president like Ireland. I’d rather not have an elected president with significant powers, and that suggests that the powers of the prime minister (or the government more generally) could only increase. So we’d need a wider realignment with stronger checks and balances, including I expect reform of the House of Lords. I don’t expect to see that any time soon, but replacing FPTP with PR would be a good first step.
No problem with that
I would prefer the Irish model
I took a liking to the Irish model but she wouldn’t return my calls.
Ha ha
Andrew wrote “It is also understandable that other nations with a legacy of empire are looking to take control of themselves and replace the last vestiges of colonialism. I don’t see the appetite for that yet in the UK,”
I do see that appetite – here in Scotland anyway.
Just now talking with a neighbour who was back from work this morning in a well-known High Street store who remarked she is not taking any of the holidays and colleagues are calling it ‘the English holiday’ when discussing it.
Not much sign of bunting in my city.
Also note that today billboards have gone up in Scottish towns announcing “Make Elizabeth the Last”.
I think we’ve had enough anyway but I certainly was recently scunnered to hear HMQ has interfered ( I’m guessing at the prompting of advisors in the circle – doubt if she’d know/think/scheme to do it on her own ) with the running of the Scottish Government. On more than one occasion.
Not a good look.
The challenge is to produce a system that returns a Head of State with sufficient public support, intellect and bravery that a PM who went rogue might be thinking ‘Can I get this past President Murphy (Or one of the other contributors to the comments on this Blog)’
I disagree with you that the future is not for her to answer
The Queen has had 70 years to plan for the monarchys & our future ( role )
Shes done nothing
Isn’t that the problem though? She’s done nothing.
That’s her job. 🙂
Of all the ‘royals’ Liz has done what is required of her and nothing more.
And that takes some doing in this day and age.
She has not caused a ripple I think of controversy compared to other royals – think about her sister Margaret for a start of which all sorts of rumours abound. Look at the behaviour of her children as well and a husband who too often opened his gob and thought about it afterwards.
The people who we should really be worried about are the machinery behind the house of Windsor who rely on the whole superfluous edifice for a living and a reason to live.
I have seen reports recently of Andrew wanting to re-enter public life. If Charles and Anne and younger royals are not interested then how would you like to see Andrew as our new Prince Regent.
As repugnant as it sounds (and I bet he needs the cash) it could happen if Boris gets his way and remains PM in this most septic of isles where the things we have already witnessed have exceeded most of our worst nightmares already!
In the perfect world where there was a UK Constitution, defining the role of the Head of State would probably be one of the easiest parts. As you say something along the lines of Ireland, with mostly formal and non-discretionary powers. From what I can see the only substantive executive roles of the Irish President are confirming the constitutionality of any laws passed (the power being to refer to the Supreme Court for advice) and managing the situation following a no-confidence vote in the Taoiseach.
It wouldn’t matter that much if a similarly defined UK Head of State was by popular choice hereditary rather than elected. It would only need defining a retirement age instead of elected terms; in either case there would need to be a process for terminating office in the case of incapacity (whether medical or failure to comply with the Constitution). There would be no basis for any formal role (and payment) of a large extended family.
To my mind there are much bigger challenges in writing a Constitution. Possibly the most important are defining citizens’ rights in terms which allow clear resolution of legality challenges of proposed laws or of Court judgements. But obviously the electoral system, and a robust definition of Parliamentary and executive powers would be another core. And then the difficult question of an Upper House: is one necessary and if so how is its make-up and duties distinguished from the Lower House. To my thinking it would be a shame to lose the main clear benefit of the current House of Lords, that many members are there because of their expertise (and eminence) not because of political affiliation, but they need some sort of democratic accountability.
There must be a very large number of constitutions that we could look at for inspiration.
The problem is simple as I see it.
Our institutions have increasingly become fronts – hollowed out edifices of their former selves – now just being used as props to con us into thinking that the old standards and ethics endure when in fact they have been badly defiled by a mixture stupid intellectually inferior ideology and latterly politicians acting like avatars for more malignant external forces.
The issue presented by our monarch is that she is maybe popular and even maybe looked upon warmly and with fondness too, but you cannot say that about the rest of her brood. You are right to draw attention to this therefore. This could be a sticky moment full of risk, which no amount of pageantry or bank holidays can hide.
The Queen, with a mixture of job design and (it has to be said) admirable personal self control is the only edifice really who can stand up to scrutiny. In my view, the rest of them cannot. And whilst I would not underestimate the ability of the Windsor clan to refurbish their public reputations, when Liz has gone, she is gone and a lot of goodwill might very well go with her.
I hope.
I tend to share that view
I suspect I’m on much the same page. Not a monarchist but a healthy respect for how Elizabeth has fulfilled her role. Given the quality of our current politicians, a touch uneasy about what might be elected as a president.
A bigger question might be how our monarchy has failed to have any impact whatsoever on a rogue and corrupt prime minister. It has exposed deep weaknesses on the system.
Re the last, agreed
To @Pilgrim Slight Return & Richard, I also agree
My street is having a hastily arranged party on Friday, BYOB and food, some union flags put up. So I’ll be putting up some bunting tomorrow for this ‘celebration’.
So I’ll be getting an extra bank holiday, on which I’ll be able to drink excellent local real ale in the sunshine. Hardly an onerous task.
But apart from that, there are serious questions to be asked in the light of the growing crises at home and abroad, one of which, especially given the disastrous government we now have, is political reform. And the position of head of state is part of that. Even I regard the Queen with a certain amount of respect, but that’s tempered by her total lack of action recently in dealing with Johnson’s undermining of the rule of law, Parliamentary sovereignty, and democracy.
If she has the power to sack him, as she did Gough Whitlam, why didn’t she do it? And if she hasn’t, then what is the point of her (and her successor?) as head of state? If what Hazel said is true, these questions are being asked in Scotland, even if not here in England.
1975 is rather old history now, but to what extent (if any) was the Queen involved in the decisions taken by Sir John Kerr as the Governor General to dismiss Gough Whitlam and appoint Malcolm Fraser as prime minister of Australia, so he could call a general election?
As I understand it, Whitlam was unable to pass finance bills, but declined to call a general election, leaving the Australian federal government in deadlock.
Fraser won the general election in 1975 by a landslide, breaking the deadlock, and won again in 1977. Kerr and Whitlam retired in 1977 and 1978 respectively.
For good or for ill – probably for ill – Johnson’s party still has a substantial majority in the House of Commons. Any blame for the situation we are in currently lies squarely with the Conservative Party in selecting such an unsuitable person as their leader, and continuing to keep him in that position.
As you say the removal of the elected Australian Labour Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, by the Queen’s unelected Australian Governor General is relevant and is a story that should be better known in Britain.
With the knowledge of hindsight it now looks like the first outing of Murdoch’s “Fake Sheik” strategy where a fake mysterious super-rich foreigner is used to entrap and destroy the credibility of an individual either in the pursuit of political power or money. For Rupert Murdoch essentially the same thing.
Like other comments on this blog I think the model of the Irish presidency represents a good way forward but I would be interested to hear Irish thoughts on this subject and contributions from other European countries where they still maintain a monarchy.
For what it is worth, Sir John Kerr was an Australian lawyer, serving as a Chief Justice of New South Wales before he was appointed as Governor General on the nomination of Gough Whitlam. He was not the Queen’s placeman, parachuted in to stymie the elected government: that same elected government had put him in place.
As far as I am aware the Queen played no role in the crisis. Kerr made his own decisions, and exercised the powers that he had as he saw fit. Whitlam could not get his legislation through, and he lost the next two general elections.
Richard Murphy’s point is kind of what the Sex Pistols were saying way back then.
Each jubilee is kind of like the Pistols and Groundhog Day combined.
I like it
murphy and the pistols are polar opposites, even more so in 77
You didn’t see me at the Stranglers in 78 then
If that is the real Glen Matlock I’ll eat my knotted handerchief!
Let’s start with the essentials: PR first and establish a democracy in Britain where the marginals mainly elect the government.
E2 might have dutifully done all the pomp and ceremony stuff, but she has shirked the one big function that is supposed to justify her position. Everything her governments have ever passed to her has received Royal Assent, no matter if it was blatantly against the national interest, unconstitutional or even illegal. There would have been an enormous uproar, had she ever said No to anything, and she would probably have faced some negative personal consequences. So it would have taken exceptional courage and principle to have stood up for her subjects. History has shown that she did not have quite enough.