In memoriam, the Queen Mother

A million people line the streets for the Queen Mother's funeral; thousands queue for up to ten hours to view her coffin; commemorative supplements walk off the news-stands; and a poll for the Independent finds that only 12 per cent want the monarchy abolished compared with as many as 34 per cent a year ago. Worse, the same poll shows that those aged 15 to 24, once the bright hope of republicans, have become more monarchist than their parents. Reverential Dimblebys, triumphalist Heffers, elegiac Motions, pompous Lord St Johns, gushing Bonds and Sewards dominate the media. This, on the face of it, is a rout for republicanism.

The reality, however, is that royalty is revealed, more than ever, to be no more than a branch of the entertainment industry. Like grief over the death of the Princess of Wales or denunciation of Prince Charles's adultery, worship of the late Queen Mother - or rather, perhaps, of her longevity - will pass in weeks, if not days. This month, monarchy is the latest retro fashion, enjoying a revival as flared trousers do from time to time. Along with other pillars of the old British establishment, such as the Church and the armed forces, it has put on a fine show this past fortnight. It was always likely to, since this was the most predictable and straightforward of events with none of the shocks, ambiguities or sub-plots that surrounded Diana's tragic end. There was no precedent for her; the Queen Mother, by contrast, was the last Empress of India, and royalty has buried her like before. Heads would surely have rolled at Buckingham Palace if the court had blown this one.

Far from being of comfort to monarchists, the past few days should ultimately strengthen the arguments for republicanism. Only the British do a thing like this so well, people say. From that, it is a short step to observing that this is the only thing the British do well. Alongside the creaking train system, the gridlocked roads and the struggling health service, a superb royal pageant simply reinforces the image of a country preoccupied with its past. Even the most egalitarian democracies still have an elite of sorts, but few put it on show as brazenly as the British, parading their Garter Kings of Arms, their Mistresses of the Wardrobe, their High Stewards of Westminster and other aristocratic relics before the television cameras, and inviting the forgotten princes of Liechtenstein and Hanover to make up the numbers. All the fuss about the colour of ties and respectful attitudes simply reinforced the point that these people, and their cheerleaders, still believe that the lower classes should know their place and should be smartly cast into a Tower dungeon if they don't.

The arguments for a republic are undiminished. They have never resided in the conduct or popularity of individual members of the present royal family; and they only partially reside in the case for a more democratically based constitution, which could be achieved, Scandinavian-style, while preserving a slimmed-down monarchy. The main argument has always been about how this country thinks of itself.

It is precisely because British royalty is so special, so splendid, so embedded in our history, that we need to escape from it. The monarchy, as its supporters so often tell us, is a symbol. But what it symbolises is a lost world that, because of its association with a period of now unimaginable British power, is all too tempting to look back on fondly, as though our best days were gone. Royalty stood at the apex of a hierarchical society, which ruled a worldwide empire and saw non-whites as a lesser breed. Those values - of imperialism, of race and class superiority, of opposition to democracy in any proper sense of the word - are inseparable from the diamonds and the gilded carriages we saw last Tuesday. We have buried the last empress; it is time to bury what she stood for.

Israel in peril

The American government's double standards in the Middle East remain extraordinary. It is all very well for President Bush to call on Ariel Sharon to withdraw immediately from the West Bank, where Israeli invaders arbitrarily kill dozens of Palestinians and prevent medical aid from reaching wounded civilians. But where does he send Colin Powell, his secretary of state? Not to Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, but to a series of Arab capitals. The president apparently believes that the suicide bombings would stop if Arab leaders were to take, as the Washington Post puts it, "concerted and visible action". It is hard to know what such action might be. Perhaps President Bush expects King Mohammed VI of Morocco, Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt to form a human barrier at the Israeli border.

Like Mr Sharon, the US administration appears not to grasp that the real border and the real battleground is in the hearts and minds of young Palestinians, willing to sacrifice their lives in the cause of killing Israelis; each day of Israeli military occupation represents another defeat on that border. It is true that Yasser Arafat has shown in the past that he can call off the murderous activities of militant groups (he arranged for the Black September terrorists to be married off), but it is not clear that it is within even his powers, let alone Mr Mubarak's, to halt all the present bombings.

The best service that any friend of Israel can perform now is to cut off aid. The Palestinians will get no significant Arab military support and a new oil embargo is unlikely. Yet world sympathy gives them greater moral and political strength than at any time in the past 50 years - a strength that now grows daily. They have convinced much of the world that the peace offer that emerged from Camp David was a sham, that the West Bank Jewish settlements betrayed Israel's true colonialist intentions. The peril for Israel now is that they persuade the world to question the very existence of the Jewish state. Israel needs to negotiate, and soon.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website