The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

In defence of monarchy

The revolution will not be televised – but the Queen’s Christmas Message will.

By Sholto Byrnes Published 24 December 2010 9:40

Tomorrow, as every December, I will fail to take part in a ritual that is dear, sacred even, to the hearts of many Britons. I will not join them when they make their annual act of implicit homage to a higher authority to whom, for most of the rest of the year, they pay little material allegiance.

The language involved in this ceremony is arcane, the accents and pronunciation frequently antique, and to those not brought up with due reverence, it seems bizarre, not to say totally irrational, that anyone should bow their heads in obeisance to this mystical, regal presence. Still millions will clear time from their day to be faithful to this time-honoured practice.

I, on the other hand, will not be watching the Queen's Christmas Message. Neither will I be buying any of the tastefully designed porcelain and china already being produced to mark next year's wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton. To me, the most sensible attitude towards the monarchy was summed up succinctly by the late Leslie Nielsen in the first Naked Gun film. Nielsen's character, Lt Frank Drebin, is asked to explain at a press conference how the Los Angeles Police Department will deal with a forthcoming royal visit. "Protecting the Queen's safety is a task that is gladly accepted by Police Squad," he says. "For no matter how silly the idea of having a queen might be to us, as Americans we must be gracious and considerate hosts."

It is, indeed, a silly notion that an accident of birth should endow anyone with the hereditary right to be a head of state, and even sillier that the holder of that office should therefore be paid any particular respect, or even attention, because of his or her unearned position. Nevertheless, one of the batches of WikiLeaks had me entertaining what is, for a republican, a heretical thought: should we be glad to be reigned over by the House of Windsor?

The subject of the US embassy cable to which I refer was the Crown Prince of Thailand, the prospect of whose ascension to the throne caused several very senior figures to express concern. The members of the Thai Privy Council supposedly quoted did not, however, suggest that the Thai monarchy come to an end when King Bhumibol dies; rather, that it would be better "if other arrangements could be made". This was thought to mean that the Crown Prince's sister would make a better successor.

In a country that has alternated between fledgling democracy and military dictatorship, republicanism is a minority taste. The constitutional monarchy that replaced the absolute rule of the king in 1932 is widely regarded as having been pretty much the only stabilising factor ever since.

The fate of neighbouring Burma might well have been different in the decades since 1962, when the generals took over, had the British not exiled the last king, Thibaw, in 1885, and formally annexed the country to the Raj the following year. As Justin Wintle wrote in his biography of Aung San Suu Kyi:

The British may have done Burma a disservice by arbitrarily getting rid of its throne, however rotten it appeared both to the outside world and to many of its own subjects. With the throne went an entire societal matrix that at least held the Burmese people together. As in Thailand, in time this might have furnished a broader cohesion.

Instead, the only national institution left in Burma is the armed forces, the Tatmadaw, which are both the country's oppressor but also the vessel of its pride, having been founded by Burma's greatest hero (and Suu Kyi's father), the independence leader General Aung San.

This is not to say that there have not been many cases of kings or princes acting in bad, repulsive or even illegal ways. But as Bernard Lewis, the distinguished (and controversial) historian of the Middle East and Islam, told me when I interviewed him a few months ago: "Of the democracies that have been democracies for a long time and continue to be so, most are monarchies."

Such continuity is obviously a virtue. Yet couldn't we in Britain manage perfectly well to retain our democracy without the Windsors? Couldn't we have an elected head of state? While the late Roy Jenkins was still alive, we had the perfect candidate – witty, urbane, statesmanlike, with cross-party appeal, and a man who could be relied on to impart due gravitas to the ceremonial aspects of the job.

Who, though, would we end up with if we elected a president as figurehead today? It is hard to imagine a situation in which the winner was not either terribly divisive (Tony Blair – with New Labour hold-outs plus his natural constituency, the conservative vote, he'd walk it) or ludicrous (President Brucie? Don't count it out in this age when being a celebrity is all that counts).

Some readers will doubtless find even such a limited defence of monarchy unpalatable. I would argue, however, that it is in the true Fabian spirit, if not quite that of the NS's founders, Beatrice and Sidney Webb. For the Roman general after whom the movement was named, Fabius Cunctator – the Delayer – won his sobriquet for his habit of not striking until victory was assured. Ridding ourselves of the monarchy, only to find we ended up with something worse than the Windsors, who may be dull but have at least mostly been fairly worthy on the throne, would be just the kind of Pyrrhic victory the Cunctator would have avoided.

This kind of gradualism is, in fact, a very deeply ingrained British trait. And that is why tomorrow, and on Christmas days to come, the revolution will not be televised – but the Queen's Message will. I trust you will join me in not watching.

Tags: The Queen

More from Sholto Byrnes

18 comments

Mon, 2010-12-27 12:03 — Daniele1

Charles:
You are seriously mistaken there. The present queen has NO link with British history whatsoever. She comes from a German Aristocratic family and has no British pedigree.Her husband is from the Greek royal family. I even visited his palace of birth in Greece this summer.
To the extent that the family's german name had to be changed to the more english sounding name of Windsor, the name of their castle, during the war as they rightly thought it could be a problem for the king to be associated with the enemy. It didn't stop him from becoming a Nazi and collaborate with the Germans.
So much for tradition and stability.
I can't believe a Canadian cannot see the absurdity of British royalty. But there you go..

Tue, 2010-12-28 15:25 — Charles Stafford (not verified)

Daniele:

I think you have spoken hastily, and your anti-monarchy passion has led you into error. Certainly, Queen Elizabeth II is descended from the German Houses of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Her great-grandmother, Victoria was the granddaughter of George III, who sat on the British throne before and during the American Revolution. The Hanovers were invited to the throne in 1714. Before that, the Scottish Stuarts were the Royals for awhile, but William and Mary of Orange (Germanics from Holland) preceded the Stuarts.
Yes, Phillip is of the Mountbattens, another branch of German nobility that became the Royal Family of Greece. Phillip is also a descendant (as is a high percentage of residual "royals" in Europe) of Victoria. Phillip is no more of Greek heritage than was Jacqueline Kennedy.
The change of name from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Victoria's husband Prince Albert's surname, with which Victoria was forced to be closely-associated because of anti-female "Salic" laws of the German royals) came about in WW 1 as a shrewd move, mainly because there was a German bomber model, known as a "Gotha", which had attacked London. Since the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha group had been associated with the castle of Windsor, and by this time were thoroughly English in attitude and patriotism, they disowned their former name to become the Windsors. As far as not having a "British pedigree", you'll have to define your terms a bit more: a British pedigree includes Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Scots, Normans, Celts, Picts and Vikings -- Elizabeth II can claim British pedigree and royal heritage through several lines, particularly that of her Scottish mother.
What is your point about her Nazi- sympathizing Uncle Edward? He also abdicated a perfectly good throne to take up with an American divorcee, and so at least was a true romantic, even though he was a silly little man. The celebrated American, Charles Lindbergh, also was a German admirer. You must remember that no one knew about any of the nasty death-camps at that time, many Brits and Americans were anti-Jewish, and any admiration for Hitler was due to his apparent incredible ability to rally the German people after a horrible war and the war-provoking Treaty of Versailles -- he gave ordinary Germans "hope" again, but betrayed them later on. Hitler's contribution to German economic recovery was not much different, in practical terms, from what Roosevelt did for the Americans during the "Dirty 30's". He just liked flashy uniforms, and unfortunately held that Jewish bankers and capitalists were the authors of German misfortune; every revolution needs a scapegoat, it seems. (And, if truth be told, Hitler and Emperor Hirohito did provide the military provocations which pulled the Western economic engine of out of Depression.)
Excuse the mini-history lesson, Daniele, but you must get the older facts straight before you can talk about any newer facts that flow from them.
And speaking of "tradition" and "stability", would you rather have the Gibraltar of multinational corporations, banks and government figures from which to draw your respected figures? In case you haven't noticed, they've been busy setting themselves up as the new de facto "royalty", while being laws unto themselves.
I don't know whether you're British or not, but for you to assume that it is somehow logically absurd for a Canadian to support British royalty, tells me that you know very little about Canada OR Great Britain. Elizabeth II is Canada's Queen as well, and is titular Head of State of Canada. She is a mostly ceremonial figure, as will be her descendants. But Liz has CLASS, unlike the bully-boys that have recently clawed their way up various corporate ladders to become our modern-day Norman invaders and all that follows. Good luck in your studies.

Tue, 2010-12-28 17:56 — Radric CHAN (not verified)

When it comes to the defense of monarchy it is a difficult chore especially when presenting the arguments to republicans. It is also proven difficult for republicans to make their arguments accepted in the wider British public to implement their goal. But whenever I hear an argument made by a monarchist or a republican, I'm not all that impressed. I already heard every argument in the book from both monarchists and republicans. Some convincing and more valid than others but not to change my plan.

I only have preference of a (hereditary) monarchy for reasons such as an interest of mixed government, convenience in untapped potential, and better separation of powers. So the fact that they're hereditary and "undemocratic" doesn't bother me. In fact it is a plus point for it can give a structure for such mixed government and for such potential, they can actually help democracy. I also reject the notion that just because you are elected that means your democratic and legitimate. But I do dislike many archaic and anachronistic ways of monarchy (which can be removed) and dislike that they're currently only used as ceremonial figureheads and seen as irrelevant.

I also love republics and republicanism for it's political structure, institutions, and culture as well as citizen empowerment. The only problem is: I don't take the notion of an elected head of state. It's not an issue of choice, nor the intelligences of the public or who has what. I also want a parliamentary system with an elected prime minister.I just don't partake in the notion.

So to solve my dilemma, I combine my attributes of both these governments. I call this (and also to refer a 1998 independent article) a republican monarchy. I want to end this old dichotomy and prove that contradictory things can work better in reality. You may not agree with this for whatever reason, but this is something I've been thinking about for the longest and just want to share it with you.

Tue, 2010-12-28 19:07 — Daniele1

Charles;
What a patronising, pedantic prat you are!
In fact,I don't have to demonstrate detailed knowledge of the British royal family to you or any one, to maintain that it is an anachronistic and primitive system of government, not to mention its profoundly anti-democratic nature.The queen's pedigree is quite frankly totally irrelevant.
I am prepared to bet that the British, not to mention the Canadians and the Australians, will realise this soon enough when the cute little old lady is no longer with us and an irrelevant,interfering and unattractive old man has replaced her as king and his horrid old mistress is called queen.
Monarchy will suddenly become even more ridiculous than it is now.

Wed, 2010-12-29 03:24 — john verticchio (not verified)

That the monarchy as an institution should be abolished is a self-evident truth that every thoughtful,critical thinking,decent person will agree is very long overdue. The shameful reality that this is not the case is a sad commentary on the thinking processes of homo sapiens.One more reason for the advanced civilization of aliens looking down at us from outer space to continue laughing their heads off.

Wed, 2010-12-29 03:35 — john verticchio (not verified)

That the monarchy as an institution should be abolished is a self-evident truth that should be recognized by all rational and critical-thinking people the world over. The embarrassing fact that this is still not the case is one more reason for the advanced civilization of aliens looking down at us from outer space to be laughing their heads off.

Wed, 2010-12-29 04:48 — john verticchio (not verified)

The monarchy as an institution should have been abolished a very long time ago.This self-evident truth has been realized by many rational and critical-thinking individuals down through the various ages of humankind. The rather embarrassing fact that this has yet to occur is yet one more reason why the advanced civilization of aliens looking down at us from outer space is laughing their heads off.

Fri, 2010-12-24 10:24 — swatantra nandanwar

Woy Jenkins??? You're having a larf! They'd not understand a word he's saying down our way. Gawd Bless You Maam, and Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year!

Fri, 2010-12-24 11:44 — Peter Knight-Barnard (not verified)

Interesting piece, apart from the suggestion that Roy Jenkins would have made a good head of state. If you're seeking celebrity candidates for the monarchy, I would recommend Simon Cowell. He would make a great queen.

Fri, 2010-12-24 13:16 — Simon (not verified)

Well i will be watching the Queens message as i have done for many years and everyone should.

God save the Queen.

Fri, 2010-12-24 13:33 — Benjamin J.R. Cook (not verified)

The push for an elected head of state is not about the Windsors, it is about freedom and rights.

Should Tony Blair or Bruce Forsyth be put put forward as candidates in a British Presidential election, I would expect to have the freedom to vote against them. Even if they were elected, it would have been by a majority of people, in a democratic manner. However, as the situation currently stands, there is no choice, we have no vote.
If the Windsors do a bad job, we cannot vote for another candidate, we just have to suck it up, and when Charles becomes King, this will become even more apparent.

By the way, nice inclusion of a wikileak about the monarchy of Thailand, ignoring the wikileak about Prince Andrew, one of the "dull" but "fairly worthy" Windsors.

Fri, 2010-12-24 13:52 — Simon (not verified)

Republican nonsense from Mr Cook. We have a parliamentary democracy, if you dont want Britain to have a monarchy vote for a political party that wants to abolish it.. like the greens. In the same way as if you want to leave the EU, vote for UKIP. That is what democracy is all about. About 95% of the vote in May 2010 went to parties that support the monarchy continuing.

A directly elected head of state in this country would be a disaster. The monarchy is a unifying force, how can a politician half the country dislike for political reasons be unifying?

How can a politician who belongs to a political party or gets the presidency thanks to a single political party be impartial in the way our monarch is able to as the Queen has support from all different types of parties from the right wing to the left.

This constant attack on our monarchy, traditions and way of life really does have to be dealt with, sadly we have incompetent government that refuses to address the problem. And its these incompetent politicians republicans would give the palace keys to as political parties seek to control the office of head of state.

Head of state in Germany, France and the USA belong to the same political party as the head of government. How is that a good thing? Between 1997 and 2003 we would have ended up with a labour politician. What better reason not to want an elected head of state? lol

Fri, 2010-12-24 13:52 — Neil1

I do not believe in gods, nor in hereditary privilege and power. Most countries in the world manage very well without a hereditary Head of State, and so too would we in Britain. As one correspondent has said this debate is about much more than the rather mediocre Windsor family.

Fri, 2010-12-24 14:13 — Daniele1

As you say yourself,Sholto, what a foible excuse to say we've got to have a queen because no one would be better in the role of head of State.
How can you call yourself a republican when you come up with crap like that. Sorry but it really annoys me. it is lazy and cliche to suggest we might end up with tony Blair or Bruce Forsyth.WHY? Are you saying there is NOBODY in the whole country who is honourable enough to be that person? Why do people in britain ALWAYS come up with this stupid argument when the idea of a elected president is aired? I don't get it.
There are countless countries who are republics and have presidents. It works for them. Why on Earth couldn't it possibly work for Britain??Again, Britain is presented as a unique place with weird traditions and special people who couldn't possibly act like other people in other countries.
First of all you could have a head of state who also runs the country, like in France or America,and this way you save a lot of money and pomp and the president will be a proper politician, chosen by the people.
OR you have a symbolic head of state, like in Ireland who could be a public and respected figure, preferably a politician or some one who has had an international standing at the UN or or other respected body, like Robinson in Ireland.How about Mandela in South Africa?
The idea that the queen just cannot be replaced by somebody elected, is just too ludicrous for words.
And Nobody in the world has elected a pop or film star for president yet. (apart from the Americans when they elected Reagan of course, but the he called himself a politician by then).
It is time for this Nation to mature and become a true Democracy with an elected head of state and for the British to become true citizens as opposed to subjects of an old woman.

Fri, 2010-12-24 15:16 — Emilio (not verified)

It's interesting that you say the Thai monarchy will "come to an end when King Bhumibol dies".

Many Thai people are very supersticious and they believe in the "Chakri prediction" made by the very first "Rama" (Thai king) who said that the current dynasty would only last 9 generations.

The actual king, Bhumibol Adulyadej, is the 9th Rama of the Chakri dynasty, and many Thais believe he will be the last.

Add to this bizarre historical prediction the unpopularity of Prince Vajiralongkorn, lese majeste law, an authoritarian military junta, and you have a recipe for disaster in Thailand.

Fri, 2010-12-24 17:36 — Lester

It's an insult to the people of this country to suggest that we are incapable of choosing someone to be head of state, and even more insulting is the inference that there is no one, save a Windsor, who might be suitable.

And Simon, as you well know, people do not vote for parties on the basis of their stance on the monarchy. That is an absurd claim to make.

Fri, 2010-12-24 17:57 — Kevin Hind (not verified)

This article reminds me why I don't read the New Statesman.

Your only reason for supporting the monarchy is because you do not trust the people of this country to elect someone who isn't divisive or a celebrity. Sidney and Beatrice Webb never credited the trade unions or the working class with much intelligence and this is a continuation of that tradition.

Please try to support your case with sensible arguments instead of what you might say over a glass of champagne at a dinner party.

I do support the gradualist position, only because the French have never managed to throw off the vestiges of aristocracy: their president has too much power and their legislature is weaker than our parliamentary system. This was De Gaulle's legacy to the French people.

When Labour come back to power I hope they establish a fully-elected second chamber and abolish the remaining prerogative powers as a starting point.

Please stop insulting the intelligence of the British public.

Mon, 2010-12-27 01:07 — Charles Stafford (not verified)

Oh, come now: whatever its past excesses, British Royalty is a lovely bit of treasured bric-a-brac that harms no one, and benefits not only Britons, but other members of the Commonwealth, including my country, Canada. Elizabeth II is a living link to our history, pedigree verified and preserved, unlike the unheralded matings of the rest of us. God save the Queen and British Royalty!