The British have a love-hate relationship with their monarchy. It is an archaic and mysterious institution, part pomp and pageantry and part soap opera. The ceremony associated with the monarchy is part of our national identity and something we have a reputation for doing well - changing the guard, trooping the colour, the State opening of Parliament, and beating retreat are all colourful and exciting spectacles, packed with historic symbolism, theatre and meaning. Rolling out the red carpet for formal state visits by world leaders is impressive and has, over the years, done much to bolster Britain’s relationships with countries across the world. Traditionalists and tourists love the monarchy but there is no avoiding that it also smacks of elitism and privilege which can feel strangely out of place in the 21st century. Opponents of the monarchy question how Britain can ever be a truly democratic, equal and inclusive society whilst the top rung of our social ladder remains in the permanent grip of a single family and the Head of State is determined solely by dint of birth. However, the case for republicanism has never gained much traction in Britain and it would take a significant swing in public sentiment to bring down the curtain on the House of Windsor.
Members of the Royal Family on the balcony at Buckingham Palace following Trooping the Colour on the Queen's Official Birthday in June 2018. L-R Prince Andrew, Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, the Queen, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, Prince Charles, Harry, the Duke of Sussex, Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, Princess Charlotte, Savannah Phillips, Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge, Prince George, Estella Taylor, Isla Phillips, and Eloise Taylor. Photo by Lorna Roberts on 123RF.
There are a number of reasons for this. First, there is a deep reservoir of respect and support for Queen Elizabeth II. She succeeded her father in 1952 and at the age of 94, is now the longest reigning monarch in history. Her devotion to duty and public service is undoubted. The Duke of Edinburgh has been by her side throughout her reign and also has a special place in the nation’s affections. In times of unprecedented change during which politicians have come and gone, the Queen and Prince Philip have been a constant and predictable presence throughout, providing a focus for national unity, albeit the quaint, deferential, olde-worlde kind. When it comes to the wider Royal Family, however, opinion is far more divided. Maintaining the Royal household and infrastructure does not come cheap and could be harder to defend for its less popular members, or, indeed, a less popular monarch. Members of the immediate family assist the Queen with her State and national duties, such as banquets and receptions, garden parties, visits, commemorations and festivities. The Royal Family also supports a wide range of public sector and charitable bodies, with around 3,000 organisations listing one of them as patron or president. The way that the Royal Family is funded is through a mix of public and private money: the public Sovereign Grant, and the private Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. Most of the annual expenses of the Queen, Prince Philip, their children, grandchildren, and their spouses are paid from these sources. Private income, including inherited wealth, real estate portfolios, and other assets, is excluded but is taxable in the same way as everyone else. In 2019-20, the Sovereign Grant of £82.4m (including a dedicated amount of £33m for the reservicing of Buckingham Palace), averaged out at £1.23 per person in Britain, which does not seem much to pay to preserve this historic part of our heritage and all that goes with it. Nevertheless, some reservations persist as to whether the monarchy represents good value for money for the British taxpayer, especially when compared with other things that the money could be spent on, such as a decent pay rise for nurses.
Second, the institution has a life of its own that is not dependent on any individual, no matter how long they have reigned or how strong their personality. When the second Elizabethan age comes to an end, as one day it inevitably will, the era of the new monarch, King Charles III, will begin because there are rules and machinery in place to ensure there is a seamless transition of the Crown. The monarch is the Sovereign and Head of State of the UK and its overseas territories. However, the constitutional nature of the monarchy means that although the ultimate executive authority over the government is still formally by and through the monarch's royal prerogative, in practice these powers can only be used in accordance with laws enacted in Parliament and as dictated by convention and precedent. Today, the prerogative is used by the Prime Minister and other ministers, or other government officials, to govern the realm in the name of the Crown. The monarch, therefore, has little scope to exercise their own discretion and the role is largely limited to functions such as bestowing honours, ratifying the appointment of the Prime Minister, and giving royal assent to bills that have completed all the parliamentary stages in both Houses so that they become Acts of Parliament. The only area where the monarch seems to have some vestigial power is the Queen’s Consent, which is an ancient procedural rule requiring the monarch’s consent to certain types of legislation. Whereas assent is purely symbolic, consent gives the Queen a potential secret right of veto over certain laws, with no way of us ever knowing whether it has ever been exercised or not. Serious concerns have been raised that this right is undemocratic and should be removed from the constitution. This apart, the role of monarch is now that of a ceremonial figurehead, undertaking constitutional and representative duties as Head of State and less formally as Head of Nation, as well as being Head of the British Armed Forces and Supreme Governor of Church of England. The whole system is designed to ensure stability and continuity. Intervals or interruptions between reigns are not countenanced because they create uncertainty. Responsibilities pass smoothly to enable the various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representational duties and functions of the monarch still to be performed and life to go on.
Third, the dysfunction and rifts that afflict every family could be the monarchy’s Achilles heel but, in fact, far from undermining it, appear to be some of its most appealing features. Indeed, there is nothing that the British seem to enjoy more than picking over the bones of a royal scandal! In this respect, the Royal Family has proved to be a source of endless amusement, gossip, and speculation. In a strange, slightly warped way, it makes them more relatable. The tabloid press has mercilessly exploited this grubby fascination with the flaws of our Royals and turned it into a spectator sport. They have subjected various members of the household to vicious and prolonged attacks. Prince Andrew has been pilloried for a variety of alleged indiscretions. Following her divorce from Prince Andrew, the Duchess of York was vilified when she clearly going through a very difficult time. Princess Diana was hounded to an early grave. And, most recently, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have found themselves at the centre of a media frenzy for daring to be different. Meghan, in particular, has been subjected to sustained assaults because she is different. The vindictive treatment of Meghan compared with Kate for doing the same things (cradling their baby-bumps; eating avocados; dressing stylishly) provides stark evidence of racism in the British press. The extent of the vitriol unleashed on a person of mixed race for marrying into the British institution that is the Royal Family shows how deep this problem goes. We are seeing the tip of the iceberg that is racism in British society. If, as Harry and Meghan claimed in their interview with Oprah on 8 March, the Royal Family really do fear the tabloids, it is hardly surprising. None of them would want to find that they are the one being thrust into the spotlight and being stalked, phone-hacked or character assassinated in the interests of “scrutiny.” No one would disagree that the press has a role in holding the powerful to account but reporting has to be fact-based and fair. With the immense power that the tabloids have to destroy reputations and ruin lives, there comes the need for responsibility. Turning the Royal Family into a soap opera might sell papers but, as we have seen, there can be a very high price to pay.
Fourth, the monarchy will continue to be supported whilst it is useful to those who exercise the real power in this country. Whilst the Queen has always sought to maintain a dignified silence and neutrality on matters of politics, there is no escaping the fact that the Government and its media sponsors have realised the value of the monarchy (especially its more interesting or controversial members) in providing effective distractions from unpopular Government policies and ministerial cock-ups. The Harry and Meghan saga has been used to cover up all manner of sins for weeks, including the Covid death-toll topping 125,000, the Government voting down support for leaseholders living in flats who are facing huge bills to remove unsafe cladding from their properties following the Grenfell fire disaster, the massive reduction in exports caused by Brexit, and changes in the law to prevent peaceful protests. Even the monarchy’s traditional neutrality is being called into question by the Government dragging the Queen into the debate about the prorogation of Parliament and rolling her out to support the vaccination programme as a counter to the anti-vaxxers. It is as if the Royal Family is being held to ransom because of its reliance on public money for survival. For as long as the monarchy can be pressed into action every time there is a need to divert attention or reinforce some Government message, its future is secure. The BBC, another great British institution, finds itself in a similar position with its much vaunted independence compromised by its dependence on the Government-controlled Licence Fee. The process for making senior appointments within the organisation and its governing body has also become highly politicised. When it comes to preserving the monarchy, my guess is that the Royal Standard will still be flown and the National Anthem will continue to be sung until this, or a future, Prime Minister’s presidential ambitions get the better of them.
There was a time, in the aftermath of the death of Princess Diana, that the monarchy could have reformed itself and tried to become more of a monarchy for the people. They could have sought to lose some of the in-bred starchy, aloof, stiff upper lip and pull yourself together type behaviour and learn a bit more emotional intelligence, openness, compassion and empathy. If only they had moved with the times and reflected the shift in attitudes and values, particularly amongst the young, towards cultural diversity, equality and mental health, they could have established some credibility with those whose support will be important for the future of the institution. The Commonwealth could have provided an excellent foundation from which to promote diversity and inclusion but, apart from the occasional Royal visit, we have heard precious little about the important work it does. They could have built on the success of the Prince Harry inspired Invictus Games – Help for Heroes which has provided much needed support to service men and women and their families in rebuilding their lives after suffering physical and psychological wounds. Given that the Monarchy’s primary objective is to act as a focus for national identity, unity and pride, they might have noticed that post-Brexit Britain remains deeply divided and that inequality is increasing. This could never be clearer than in the effects of the pandemic which has caused a disproportionate number of deaths in poorer areas.
The monarchy needs to stand for something more than privilege. It may not have power but it has influence. A modern monarchy could carve a niche for itself by finding its voice on issues that matter and speaking for the people to those in power. It may be too late now to rebuild the bridges that have been burned in the row with Harry and Meghan but I hope not. An inclusive monarchy that embraces diversity would have cut the couple some slack and seen Meghan as an asset rather than a threat. The Sussexes should have been protected and nurtured as the valued members of the family they are said still to be. The fact that there were not should prompt a comprehensive review of how the team of staff that runs palace affairs (‘the firm’) operates, and the alleged rivalries between senior royals’ own teams of private secretaries. This was a chance to build more support within the younger generation, among black and mixed-race Britons, bring greater focus to the way that mental health issues are too often swept under the carpet, challenge the scourge of tabloid journalism in this country, and to do so for the good of us all. Sadly, it feels like an opportunity missed.
Commentaires