The newspapers have the photo they want this week. The Queen Mother tends to oblige, waving to her nation at the behest of a thousand photographers. There is a problem for the media next week, though. The Blairs have not been so accommodating. There will be no holiday snap this year, and the media are up in arms. “We must have our photo and then we will leave them in peace,” they insist. That is the deal with royals. That has been the deal with the Blairs.
We know the photo they seek. The Blairs have become an alternative royal family, much more robust, interesting and familial than the real one. Like the royal version, nearly all members of the Blair family do not speak in public. Cherie is as silent as Leo. But the public feel they know them in the same irrational way that they relate to the centurion waving at them this week.
The Prime Minister has a young family. That is what makes the comparisons more pronounced. His family is modern and together. The royals are old-fashioned and divorced. But the prime ministerial acquisition of the royal aura has been going on for decades, even under uncharismatic leaders such as John Major. After the shootings at the Dunblane school in 1996, it was Major who headed north to comfort the relatives. He was there before any member of the royal family. Tony Blair saw the significance of that. He made sure he headed north with Major on the same plane. At times of national grief, it is the prime minister who performs a ritualistic role. The fashion for political leaders to be at the scene of a tragedy almost before it has occurred began with Margaret Thatcher, who was herself a monarchical figure. It was “we”, not “I” who became a grandmother.
Here is the answer to the thorny question that tends to halt the republican case in its tracks – who do you get to replace the royal family? It is happening in front of our eyes. Political leaders are carrying out many of the roles previously fulfilled by the royal family. The media will ensure that this trend continues. For example, I recall being struck, as a BBC political correspondent, how often we would seek reaction from political leaders on matters that had nothing to do with them. Neil Kinnock gave 14 interviews on the day that some of the Middle East hostages were released. I happen to know because I was the 14th interviewer. He did not know the hostages, but you will be surprised to hear that he was delighted they had been released. He was performing a ritual. At times of “joy” and “grief”, we need our leaders to say a few vacuous words.
What makes the Blair family an even more potent rival is the package of constitutional reforms being implemented by the government. It leaves the royal family hanging by a thread. The removal of the hereditary peers, or most of them, means that, at the next Queen’s Speech, virtually only the monarch will be in parliament because of her birthright.
It is a shame that we have to add the quali-fication when referring to the hereditary peers, following one of the more Monty Pythonesque compromises extracted from this government – “The Abolition of the Hereditary Peers, Except For Some Of Them” Bill. Still, the implications of reforming the Lords have always been clear. Even Gladstone, something of a reformer himself, wrote to Queen Victoria warning of changes to the Upper House. It will be you next, he implied.
Blair appears to get on rather well with the current Queen, although he presides over a Cabinet with a fair number of closet republicans. Gordon Brown, I would guess, is no great fan of the monarchy. When he reflects on the nature of Britishness, as he often does, I suspect that he sees the monarchy as part of the problem. Mo Mowlam’s proposals for modernising the monarchy are a euphemism. The Windsor family and all its cripplingly traditional paraphernalia are incapable of modernisation. In opposition, Jack Straw, an important barometer figure, made some similar observations. Of all the Cabinets we have had, this one is the least in awe of the monarchical tradition.
But what of Blair? He has poured sugary, deferential praise all over Elizabeth II’s head at every opportunity. His speech at the lunch commemorating the Queen’s 50th wedding anniversary in 1997 must go down as the most syrupy tribute that has ever been made to her. Yet Blair is the prime minister who has made modernisation his theme. For his first Queen’s Speech, he walked to the Houses of Parliament, ostentatiously playing down the ritualistic horrors of the occasion. Whatever his equivocation over reform of the Lords, he has targeted the hereditary principle.
A clue to Blair’s approach comes from one of the more recent leaked memos.His view on defence emerges as surprisingly pragmatic. He wrote: “We really cannot think we have any prospect of winning the ‘Standing Up for Britain’ argument, if we appear soft on defence.” He admits: “This is uncomfortable.” So Blair’s high-spending approach to defence is partly a means to a greater end. In order to win the argument that the government is not a soft touch in Europe, it has to be seen as hawkish in the wider international context.
He seems to take the same pragmatic view on the monarchy. In order to get the other constitutional reforms through, our great actor Prime Minister needs to “appear” an ardent monarchist. This means to an end will ensure that he is trusted when implementing other radical constitutional reforms. Behind the facade he is probably, like most of his modernising Cabinet, a closet republican.
The writer is the NS political editor
Content from our partners
Related
