Even for a hardened old
republican like me, it is clear that last week marked the end of an era. TV
news references to “The King” felt a bit like watching crackly old
black-and-white Pathé newsreels, and similar references in the print media felt like being
trapped in a newspaper archive. The very word "king" seems out of place and out of
date, reflecting those same attributes back onto the institution of monarchy in
a way that references to “The Queen” somehow never did. The sense of
anachronism is heightened by the arcane rituals surrounding the succession –
the fancy dress, the archaic wording, the trumpet fanfares, the displays of
subservience – coupled with what feels like an attempt almost to compel people
to mourn, and the rush of politicians to take a wholly unnecessary renewed
semi-feudal oath of loyalty. The BBC’s coverage seems designed to suggest that
the only thing that has changed since the last time it happened, at the
beginning of the 1950s, is the more ubiquitous presence of cameras. In truth,
however, very much more than that has changed over the past 70 years – a reign
being presented as one of stability and continuity has actually occurred in
parallel with the fastest period of change – technical, social and economic –
in human history, even if none of that change has had anything much to do with
either the institution of monarchy or the person of the monarch.
In any rational world, the end
of such a long era would be an ideal time for reflection about the future (rather
than just about the past, which is where most of the coverage seems to be stuck);
the future, after all, is where we are all going to be living, no matter how
much some would apparently prefer to live in their own, somewhat rose-tinted,
version of the past. Many have questioned whether the new king should really
have rushed into ‘giving’ Wales a new prince. Whilst that questioning is an
entirely rational response, it ignores the reality that rationality has no role
here: the point about a hereditary monarchy is that what the people choose
doesn’t enter the equation. The mechanics of primogeniture have a logic of
their own in appointing the monarch, and the dispensation of titles thereafter
is solely a matter for the monarch himself. The idea that ‘Wales’ – whatever
its collective opinion might be, and however that is expressed – could choose
whether to not to have a new prince, let alone who it might be, would undermine
the whole principle of a hereditary monarchy. That also explains why the
institution could never allow the end of one era to become an opportunity to
discuss roles and purposes: merely asking questions about its role and purpose
endangers the institution itself, since it would struggle to justify its
existence on rational grounds. Instead, the imperative is to rush on, and do
what they can to ensure that what happens is presented as an entirely natural
and normal phenomenon, to which there can be no challenge. The unwritten constitution
declares that the monarch is appointed by God himself, and not just any old god
at that: it is very much the Protestant God whose divine will gives Charles his
status and powers. That is illustrated by the fact that the coronation is a
religious service in which an archbishop of one denomination of one of the
world’s faiths anoints the monarch in the name of his god, whilst members of
another denomination of the same religion are barred absolutely from the throne
because of a religious dispute which occurred more than three centuries ago.
Does it matter? At one level,
no, not really. I’ve always been clear in my own mind that independence means
that sovereignty lies with the people and is expressed through a democratically
elected parliament rather than with the monarch on whose behalf parliament
exercises it, and as long as the transfer of power does not lead to any
retained ‘royal prerogatives’, it is the practicality of where power lies which
is more important than the constitutional myth underlying it. At another level,
though, it does matter. Hereditary power and influence based on the assumption
of a divine right to rule is a negation of the concept of popular sovereignty,
to say nothing of the idea of a meritocracy. For those who rather like the idea
of a divine right to rule – and that includes not only the monarchy itself, but
also the political rulers who depend on the power that it gives them – now is
not the time to debate the issue. But that’s hiding behind the events of the
day – there will never be a ‘right’ time as far as they are concerned; there
will always be some excuse to postpone any discussion.
The English/British
establishment are proceeding on the basis that the succession is done and
dusted; there may be a few ceremonials to follow over the next year or so, but
the accession of a new monarch is now safely accomplished. I doubt that history
will record that things are as simple as that: they confuse affection – or, at
the very least, acceptance – of an individual with affection for the
institution itself, but there is a significant gulf between the two. The
unravelling will be slow, and is likely to start outside the UK itself as the
various dominions and possessions begin to question how independent they really
are if someone else appoints their head of state. The process of converting to
republics is likely to accelerate; for those states which will need to change
their constitution to reflect the accession of a new monarch, the opportunity
for that conversation is both immediate and pressing. The bad news for Charles
III is that there is little he can do to stop the inevitable drift towards
republicanism; the good news for him as an individual is that at least the
process will not require the separation of his head from the rest of his body
as happened to the first monarch to rule as Charles as well as many foreign monarchs. There are suggestions that we should
not even discuss such issues out of ‘respect’ for the deceased queen. But there’s
nothing at all disrespectful about noting that change is coming, whether they
like it or not – or in hoping that her successor will enjoy a long, happy, and preferably
early, retirement.
1 comment:
Watching the government, ruling elites, others with vested interest and a big chunk of the populace get into a frenzy over the last few days is an education. The country is by common consent in difficulty with crises in the energy/fuel markets, the general cost of living, its internal politics crumbling and its international relations creaking at several points. Yet the consensus seems to enable a waste of resources on yet another pumped up circus only months after the platinum jubilee. Pavlov's dogs were never this intensely conditioned.
Post a Comment