|
|
|
| HOME | Atheism | Fiction |
Gay World |
HIV |
Opinion |
Reviews |
|
Ten year lease 7 June 2002 I'm sorry, I can't resist. It's the Golden Jubilee; every other columnist is writing about the monarchy and I'm going to join in - even though my mother always said that just because everyone else jumps off the end of the pier doesn't mean you have to. (It was an old harbour entrance at the mouth of the River Tay. The water was dark and definitely cold. I could imagine thick fronds of seaweed and slimy, squelchy tentacled things waiting to grab hold of me. I have avoided pier-jumping ever since.) I'm a monarchist by instinct. Deep under my subconscious, in the very foundations of my personality, half-way between my sexual identity and my naïveté, stands my Britishness. I interpret my nationality both negatively and positively: we have a tendency to drop litter; we are highly tolerant of others; we were once the world's greatest innovators and are still one of its more fascinating nations. The monarchy, which can be traced back fifteen hundred years, is integral to our identity. Some argue that replacing Her Madge with an elected president is much needed cosmetic surgery, but to me and millions of others the cut of the knife would be not only life-threatening but totally unnecessary, the equivalent of ripping out a lung because all the neighbours are asthmatic. (I know, today's metaphors are laboured. They stop here.) It's difficult, of course, to separate the institution from the person, and if I had lived through the thirties, seeing one king die, another abdicate and a third diffidently take his place, I might feel differently. Or if Elizabeth had popped off early, leaving Charles as an inept king. But for longer than most Bits have been alive, Ms Windsor has been the queen.. I suspect she is not very intelligent, although others dispute that. In her public appearances she always looks stiff, half way between suppressed panic and boredom. Her vision of the world must be both broad and limited. In other words, she is a fallible human being, but one who has performed her duties unfailingly, without complaint, with poise and without embarrassment - a record that few other Brits can boast. So the queen's longevity and dedication imbues the monarchy with much of its sense of identity and cohesion, in a way that elected president never can. After all, other than the natives, who can name the president of Germany (Rau), Ireland (McAleese) or Israel (Katsav)? (A brief reminder: a British president would be head of state, not of government - a Katsav or Rau rather than a Bush, Chirac or Mugabe.) But let's return to principle and examine the idea of the monarchy, rather than the monarch herself, and look at the arguments put forward by British republicans. Most of these are irrelevant, having either long been resolved in other European monarchies or are close to resolution in the UK. The class argument, for example. We are told that the monarchy underpins the British class system. Huh? Five hundred years ago, when the first Elizabeth had the power to create peerages and the peers had the power to influence the daily lives of the citizens, yes, there was a class system with the monarchy at its heart, but that class system has long ceased to exist. A few people today stick Lord or Duke or Sir in front of their names but only a few snobs and inverted snobs pay the aristocracy any attention. A few sit in the House of Lords, which the current Labour government is afraid to reform, and a few, in common with others who have no title, are immensely rich. But their existence has no impact whatsoever on the important things in life - earning potential, freedom of speech and travel, the right to vote, access to health care, beliefs, individual personality or relations with other human beings. Class exists in Britain, of course. It's based partly on accent and education, but, in common with almost every other country, it's based far more on money and celebrity. It has nothing to do with the monarchy, except in the minds of the paranoid and unimaginative. Abolishing the monarchy would have absolutely no effect on British class structure or our attitudes to wealth and power. Then there is the argument that under the monarchy we are all subjects, not citizens. Again, huh? I'm a British citizen. Full Stop. ("Period", if you're reading this with a US accent.) I may technically be a subject, but it's another irrelevance. I do not do the queen's bidding, and I doubt she wakes up in the morning asking herself which of her sixty million subjects she is going to order around today. The fact that we are British subjects is a piece of symbolism which should probably have been laid to rest years ago. Okay, if it makes republicans happy, let's abolish it. Someone can pass an Act of Parliament or make an official proclamation that reassures those who are losing sleep over the matter that, irrespective of the throne, holders of British passports are no longer subjects but citizens. And when we've got that over and done with, let's get back to the real world. Next point? Democracy and royal prerogative. This is the suggestion that E Windsor or her son or grandsons are today toeing the line, signing every law and appointing the people's choice as prime minister, but tomorrow or the next day, she or he will spring a surprise and refuse to sign the fox-hunting law or chose the leader of the National Fascist Party to be dictator. Please! Can we bring some reality into this argument? The fact is that for at least the last hundred years and, arguably, for three hundred before that, the monarch has only done what s/he has been told to do, and when s/he has refused, s/he has been sent packing. Indeed, from James VI of Scotland, who was invited to become James I of England, through James VII and II, who was expelled because of his Catholic views, George I, who was invited to take the British throne, and Edward VIII, who abdicated because the government would not allow him to marry the woman he wanted, through to Elizabeth II (of England) and I (of Scotland), British monarchs have owed their position to the will, if not of the people, then of the people's representatives in parliament. In other words, not only is the monarchy compatible with democracy, but the monarchy only exists on the sufferance of democracy. Another argument is that the monarchy is anti-democratic because s/he is not chosen by the people. Actually, the fact that the people don't vote for the monarchy does not mean they do not choose it. Democracy is not only a question of placing a cross on a ballot paper and when the people decide that the monarchy should go, go it will. Besides, there are times when the ballot box fails. Imagine (I'm speaking to the Brits) the terrifying propsect of having to vote for either M Thatcher or T Benn as our national representative... And even if we were offered more appealing alternatives - such as K Clarke or F Dobson - the very act of voting implies that the winner would not be the choice of almost half the nation and would have less legitimate claim to represent the whole nation than a hereditary monarch. Yet although I am unconvinced by these and other republican arguments, I still support the abolition of the monarchy. I have only one reason for doing so: my unwillingness to sentence any individual or family to a lifetime of servitude. Physically comfortable servitude it may be - castles and palaces, good food, chauffeurs, foreign trips etc - but servitude it nevertheless is. As Charles once said, the fact that you are going to become king slowly dawns on you with a ghastly awareness. The operative word is ghastly: you have no freedom, relatively few opportunities to relax. Your every public move and statement are either dictated and recorded and commented on. You cannot even piss when you want to. In the twenty-first century, as we continually try to move towards a more humane society - the death penalty is on its way out, physical and psychological torture are rejected, and the concept of human rights as the guiding principle behind law and human relations becomes stronger. No society is justified in condemning one particular family to a gilded cage. Republicans argue that all they have to do is abdicate, but that's a naïve comment that shows little understanding of human psychology. Minor royals may have more freedom, but if your whole life has been geared towards one particular goal, it is impossible for you to turn aside from that goal without immense damage to your psyche. The Windsors cannot quit, partly because they are unable to do so, and partly because we Brits cannot let them go. They are too much a part of us. So both nation and royal family have to learn. Together we have to put in place a mechanism that gives us both enough time to prepare to separate amicably. I suggest a formal but simple ceremony, held every ten years, where the monarch publicly announces whether s/he intends continuing in the post. There would be no obligation to stay or go, only to state the intention. When the monarch dies, the tradition continues. Awareness of the upcoming ceremony would regularly force the queen or king and their heirs to not only assess the mood of the country - are they loved / wanted / needed - but their own concerns. over time the idea of the monarchy as an option which the incumbent can accept or reject will have integrated itself into the national psyche and the royals and at some point, perhaps sooner rather than later, the break will come. When the Windsors go, they will be replaced by the monotony of a presidency, but the nation will have had time to prepare. We will have lost an important part of our heritage, but we will no longer hold a family hostage and they will be free for the first time in generations.t of what may be many secrets. As soon as I feel my balance begin to feel I stretch even higher and, if necessary, lean slightly further back. That pulls my centre of gravity inwards and upwards and reduces likelihood of unwanted weight pulling me over. Thirty breaths is my next goal. Hundredth birthday, here I come! Back to Opinion |
|
|
