Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

Why we need the Queen

What's unusual is the role the monarchy plays as part of the national brand.

By Nelson Jones Published 30 May 2012 11:12

A Queen Elizabeth II portrait is displayed during a photocall at Asprey. Photo: Getty Images

The Queen, we are told, is more popular than ever. And why shouldn't she be? Thanks to her longevity (and her father's premature death) there's an extra holiday next week. And cake. The streets are festooned with bunting. There are spectacular spectaculars for us all to enjoy: river pageants, horse-drawn carriages, a concert featuring Jools Holland, Gary Barlow and even Shirley Bassey, who has been around for almost as long as the Queen has. Which is to say, forever.

In such an atmosphere of innocent merriment, it seems churlish to point out that awarding great privileges and pseudo-medieval deference to members of an otherwise undistinguished Anglo-German family ill befits a nation that wants to see itself as democratic, meritocratic and modern. When pressed, many people can trot out what sound like good arguments for the monarchy. It's said that it guarantees stability, that it provides a unifying symbol above party politics or that the Queen and other royals do a "good job", turning out to cut ribbons, launch ships and wave at cheering crowds.

No one seriously pretends that were the country to be invented from scratch it would be as a monarchy. It's often claimed that other countries envy us our hereditary rulers, our inhabited palaces and occasional jubilee glitter. But if that were really true, the French, Germans and Americans would be clamouring to introduce or restore monarchs of their own. Fairly obviously, they're not. There was actually a referendum in Brazil around fifteen years ago on restoring the monarchy; the proposition attracted very little support.

On the other hand, recent history suggests that a well-established monarchy has to be quite spectacularly stupid or unlucky to get itself abolished. Japan's emperor Hirohito managed to survive presiding over a genocidal military dictatorship, losing a major war, mass starvation and having his country nuked by the Americans. Queen Elizabeth II's crises have been on a lesser scale. Her worst moment came in 1997 when some tabloids thought she was a little slow coming down from Balmoral to acknowledge the crowd's grief at the death of Princess Diana. Prince Charles has been more divisive and controversial. What his critics tend to forget, however, is that when he talks nonsense about architecture or alternative medicine he makes himself more, not less, popular.

What is most striking about the British monarchy is not that it exists, but the extent to which the country has come to be defined by it. British royalism feels different to what is found in places like Denmark or the Netherlands. It is bound up with how the country feels about itself and how it presents itself to the world. Republicans in Britain can find themselves in a situation similar to that of atheists in the USA, being widely seen as eccentric or obsessive, or even as downright disloyal.

This is a relatively recent phenomenon. After all, Britain was the first major country in Europe to depose and execute its king, and ended the 17th century with one of the most limited monarchies around. The Hanoverian kings were all, to varying extents, objects of suspicion, indifference, pity or contempt. The Times began its obituary of George IV in 1830 with the observation that "there never was an individual less regretted by his fellow creatures than this deceased king." Even Victoria experienced periods of enormous unpopularity and had to contend with republican movements far more serious than anything seen during the present queen's reign.

But whatever the unpopularity of individual monarchs, it was during this period that the monarchy became an expression of national distinctiveness. I would single out some key events. In the 18th century, it was the limited nature of the British monarchy, in contrast to the absolutist regimes of continental Europe, that seemed worth celebrating, rather than the monarchy as such. Then came the French Revolution. As France went from absolute monarchy to violent republicanism and then military dictatorship under Napoleon, Britain's "stable" constitutional monarchy became a point of differentiation as well as pride. The events of the Civil War were by that stage a long way in the past, and the Whig myth of harmonious constitutional progress had become well established.

To that, the Victorian age added empire. The 1897 Diamond Jubilee was first and foremost a vast imperial pageant. I suspect that for imperialists, 19th century British expansionism seemed a little less aggressive and self-interested when it was being carried out in the name of a little old lady. What Victoria didn't do - hated, in fact - was pomp. The glittering processions and magnigicently choreographed ceremonial which we think of as being typically British and intrinsic to our monarchy was largely a 20th century invention, set to music by Elgar.

By the time the present queen came to the throne, the collapse of other major monarchies and the use of the royal family as a rallying-point in two world wars had cemented the institution's position in national life. Ironically, the end of empire may have strengthened the monarchy, and not only because of the Queen's desire to play a world role as Head of the Commonwealth.

Put simply, the monarchy is what Britain has left - along, perhaps, with a couple of nuclear warheads and a seat on the UN Security Council - now that the empire has gone and economic pre-eminence is a distant memory. Having a monarchy helps the British differentiate themselves from the Americans (as not having a monarchy once helped the Americans differentiate themselves from the British) and from the French. Hence the unshakeable belief that our monarchy is somehow bigger, better and grander than any other in the world. Hence, too, the fervent conviction that it is a great national asset, attracting business and tourists to these shores and exciting envy in foreign hearts.

At times like these, when Britain's place in the world seems more uncertain than ever, celebrating the Queen is, first and foremost, a way of telling ourselves that we are still special.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Monarchy

More from Nelson Jones

View the discussion thread.

23 comments

Sun, 2012-06-17 04:02 — Paul Zerzan (not verified)

Monarchy is (by definition) the antithesis of democracy. It symbolizes the worst elements of medieval society (social stratification by birth etc.). It simply has no place in the modern world. I rather like the personalities of the current monarch, all I ask is that they be elected. Entitlement -by-birth is simply inexcusable for any job.

Mon, 2012-06-04 02:58 — Jacquelline Spellman (not verified)

Thanks God for the long time living of the Queen. Britain really needs a Queen and I know for sure everybody is excited for the Queen's Jubilee.

Bifolding Doors

Sun, 2012-06-03 08:47 — STEVE LOCKETT (not verified)

I hoped more than expected that the article would be a sentence along the lines of "we don't" so didn't read on. Just skimming the comments I guess it was a wise choice.

Fri, 2012-06-01 21:44 — hugh markey (not verified)

Over the years it has been quite easy to lure the unwary monarchist into espousing monarchy as a constitutional fix for those nations unlucky enough to be bereft of royal rulers.
Of course it wouldn't do for Canada to have a monarch independent of the King or Queen of England etc. Same goes for the rest of the Commonwealth and the Empire before it.
Did the English(British) monarchist support the Kaiser, the Austrian-Hungarian monarchy, the HIgh Kings of Ireland, the Emperor of Nippon and whatever Royals ruled in India, Malaya or Siam? Or the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire? And the Royal Family were decidedly lukewarm to the Tzar of All the Russias, when he was alive.

The English(British?) naturally tried to become top dog and impose their monarch world-wide. OK, so it didn't work. No harm there. Almost everybody's tried and failed.
Can you imagine a world in which aging unelected monarchs acted as heads of state?

Grimms Fairy Tales

Thu, 2012-05-31 11:19 — Robert Taggart

NJ - is there nothing you will not do to gain a 'gong' ?!
This Republican wishes Betty well and hopes she goes on to break the record held by Vicky. After Betty ? - a right 'Charlie' - if all goes to plan !!
Time for us progressives to be thinking up a way to 'put a spanner in the works' !!!

Wed, 2012-05-30 22:33 — milk monitor (not verified)

Jones, you are such a little creep. Milksop.

Wed, 2012-05-30 19:51 — one night in bangkok (not verified)

NS readers might be interested in considering that it's proud republics like the USA which have amongst the highest levels of inequality and lowest levels of social mobility in the western world, while many European monarchies are far more egalitarian in nature. It's not as though the Queen actually rules over a sort of real-life Downton Abbey, and in fact it's certainly arguable that monarchy is one of the few things preventing an untrammeled plutocracy.

If Britain did away with the monarchy, it would be more like the country envisaged by (republican) Rupert Murdoch than anything you want.
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/1887/

Wed, 2012-05-30 21:10 — willoyen

'NS readers might be interested in considering that it's proud republics like the USA which have amongst the highest levels of inequality and lowest levels of social mobility in the western world, while many European monarchies are far more egalitarian in nature. '
yes, but Britain isn't one of them. It's more like the US. Britain is the second least socially mobile country in Europe, (after Portugal), the most socially mobile being Austria, which hasn't been a monarchy since 1918. As for inequality, Britain is the third most unequal after Portugal (again) and Italy. The most equal being Denmark, admittedly a monarchy, though not in the British mould.

Thu, 2012-05-31 18:26 — one night in bangkok (not verified)

This is true, but my point is to dispute whether abolishing the monarchy would make Britain more equal or meritocratic. As I alluded to towards the end (but didn't elaborate on- it being too soon after dinner for such exertions) a republic would be even more like America, in which the rhetoric being used is that anyone can be president, anyone can "aspire" to rise from a council estate to the very top, and if you don't make it it's your own damn fault.

I simply dispute one of the central claims made by republicans as to what Britain would be like without a monarchy. Our elite have no interest in emulating Austria or Denmark and every interest in emulating America.

Wed, 2012-05-30 19:19 — philodoc (not verified)

I live in West Wales (Carmarthenshire) and not only have I not seen any bunting, but in the many years I have lived here I have only twice seen a Union Jack, and that was two on the same building.
The media and the celebrity bandwagon are working hard to present a false national image of the importance of the monarchy, and, looking at the web and BBC etc. they are doing a good job. But what are we celebrating? In the last 60 years Britain's place in the world has declined; Germany is economically stronger than we are; the class divide in this country is now bigger and nastier than at the end of WW2; we celebrate ex drug addicts turned pop stars with gongs; our state education system has got the pox, and increasingly the top jobs go to the privately educated and well connected (several of whom were also weaned on drugs)
The only purpose of the monarchy is to hold together and develop the hegemony of the priviliged class (the 1%?); the rest of us suckers are their playthings.

Wed, 2012-05-30 13:50 — Scurra

My sole counterpoint to the Presidential proponents is two words: Boris Johnson.
I think that's evidence enough, personally.

I am not an ardent "royalist" in any way but I can see the considerable advantages to having a well-trained figurehead who is not seen as any sort of political figure (heck, even Charles hasn't really got involved in anything actually, you know, important.) Most other countries let their "head of state" get tangled up in politics, and that's a real mistake.

Sun, 2012-06-03 08:53 — STEVE LOCKETT (not verified)

Well trained! - I bet they heard my snort of derision in the next street. Charlie boy is actively working behind the scenes on many fronts trying to use the family name to interfere where he has no business.

Thu, 2012-05-31 11:24 — Robert Taggart

You obviously have little faith in your fellow electors...
A President Johnson or worse - Livingstone - would only come about if a majority of those who voted actually voted for such.
At least such a leader would have some semblance of democratic credibility - Betty has zilch !

Wed, 2012-05-30 13:39 — Barrie J (not verified)

Quote:
At times like these, when Britain's place in the world seems more uncertain than ever, celebrating the Queen is, first and foremost, a way of telling ourselves that we are still special.
So by pretending that 'we are still special', we can ignore the fact that we are a sh#tty little island off the coast of Europe, all but bankrupt, with uneviable levels of drug taking, teenage pregnancy, obesity, childhood poverty, debt, crime, cost of living etc., etc.
All the while allowing a corrupt and incompetent administration to further dismantle what few real treasures we can lay claim to.
Please, give us a break and that goes for the utterly sycophantic BBC too.
This woman and her dysfunctional family effectively provide the excuse for the state support and toadying up to of Lords, Barons, Baronets, Earls, Dukes and Duchesses and all those others who believe they 'have a God given right to rule'.
Hardly a day passes without the BBC allowing us to gaze in awe and wonder at the magnificence of a Humphrey Repton landscape or a Grinling Gibbons decorated stairwell.
Mostly paid for by the sweat of others' brows and the rents from lands they never paid for.
Parasites all and as for 'tourism' , France manages to attract visitors to its Royal Palaces without Louis XXV in attendance and lunch with the Queen usually involves being at the very least an unelected head of some country with a particularly poor record of human rights. If you happen to be of the cannibalistic persuasion, the meal might disappoint but you'll be unlikely to be made to feel unwelcome.

Maybe a complete lack of any confidence in the future, urges us to live in the past
Well if Nelson Jones fancies a return to 'Upstairs, Downstairs', it's not Downton Abbey he needed to be inspired by but the words of the servants who lived it.
Were my mother still alive she would certainly have put him straight.

Wed, 2012-05-30 13:21 — DMyers

"The streets are festooned with bunting." Where? I live in Edinburgh and bunting is conspicuous by its absence. I was in London for a long weekend and saw it on ONE little side-street in West Kensington yesterday - nowhere else.

The monarchy is little more than an outrageously expensive anachronism. Since the Tories are so fond of trotting out variants of this line in their every attempt at divide-and-rule: why should my taxes go towards funding the outrageously lavish and privileged lifestyle of a family who have nothing to do with me and who certainly do not represent me? I can't think of a good reason, so let's just get rid of them. No need to send them to the guillotine or anything - we can just remove their titles, and the vast subsidies they are paid, and the huge palaces they live in, and these can be turned into tourist attractions which people can pay to go and see. If they wish, they can work in them as tour guides and start earning a living. Surely that's not too much to ask?

Wed, 2012-05-30 13:42 — Barrie J (not verified)

I don't know of any planned street parties either and the only bunting I've seen is in Poundland.

Wed, 2012-05-30 20:58 — New statesmanship (not verified)

Embarrassingly, there's some in ocean terminal. But everything about that place is am embarrassment so maybe not a surprise. In silverknowes where I live there is bunting and a street party. The idiocy of the people around here knows no bounds. (At uni and have had to move back in with parents. 27 years old.)

Wed, 2012-05-30 20:58 — New statesmanship (not verified)

Wed, 2012-05-30 12:51 — Steve AM (not verified)

The Queen nor any other monarch is going away anywhere soon. The British public are in favour of a monarch immensely. This doesn’t mean that the monarchy as a whole shouldn’t be reformed because it should. The model that the Scandinavian countries have with their monarchies should, in my opinion be adopted. The UK does not need all the other princes and princesses, Dukes and Duchesses.

Wed, 2012-05-30 12:15 — Aidan_F (not verified)

"Nelson Jones
.... disbelief and beyond belief"

pretty much sums up what i've just read here. Pure and utter sycophancy.

Mrs Windsor and her family are both powerless and pointless.
The 'Queen' does nothing an elected president could not. Frankly it's embarrassing that in 2012 intelligent people, 'journalists' even are still doffing their caps to a bunch of ordinary people who represent the very worst of Britain - snobbish, elitist and utterly out of touch with the rest of the country.

Liz Windsor and family are the most extravagant benefit scroungers in UK history. The hacks at the likes of the daily mail like wail incessantly about benefit cheats with large families raking in thousands for doing nothing... and on the following page will be an impassioned argument for why it's a fine idea for the already squeezed tak payers to fork out for a new royal yacht.

The monarchy costs over 100 times as much as the Irish presidency, yet it is somehow exempt from freedom of information laws...

"Put simply, the monarchy is what Britain has left - along, perhaps, with a couple of nuclear warheads and a seat on the UN Security Council - now that the empire has gone".

Speaking as someone who still lives in a part of your diminished 'Empire,' - greetings from Belfast! - if the Monarchy is all you have to feel special about being British, then you have must an extremely lower of opinion of yourself and your fellow countrymen.