It was with sadness that we learnt of Vera Lynn’s death earlier this week at the age of 103. An iconic figure during the Second World War, her songs, most notably ‘We’ll Meet Again’ captivated and inspired those in the forces abroad and individuals waiting at home. During the height of the coronavirus lockdown, it was Queen Elizabeth who echoed this message of meeting our families and loved ones in the near future. For many, that was the motivation that meant they abided by the lockdown restrictions. The thought of being able to meet those we cared about soon guided people through lockdown and has been a highlight as restrictions have reduced.
It is therefore not strange that thoughts of Vera Lynn guide me towards the monarchy. The two are linked: parts of the UK’s tradition and history that will endure far into the future. Both Vera Lynn and Queen Elizabeth were involved in the war effort, doing their part to ensure democracy and liberty triumphed over tyranny. Yet, while both Lynn’s songs will be sung for decades to come and Queen Elizabeth will pass away as Queen, I wouldn’t be so sure about the monarchy’s long term survival. The Queen has been a model example for how an unelected head of state should behave. Given that our system is a constitutional monarchy, the Queen has never once given her own political opinions. She has recognised that her role is unelected and hereditary and therefore has acted appropriately. While the Prime Minister of the day has met her every week without fail, she has never advised them to follow a certain political path. Her role - whether honouring worthy (or unworthy individuals), meeting representatives and being a figurehead of the Commonwealth - has been performed with grace, gravitas and great dignity. The Republican cause, which campaigns for an elected Head of State, has therefore been left small and marginalised. It is a principled cause, one I don’t (yet) agree with, that believes that anyone should be entitled to become the Head of State. Within the group there are various differences: some are fine with a Royal Family provided it is self funded, others believe the family should do more within the community, a chunk of the group believe in an elected President. For years I have been against abolishing the monarchy. It is not because the cause is fringe or marginal. Anti-racism campaigns used to be on the fringes; those who had the courage to support such causes at those times were brave and deserve our gratitude. My opposition towards a removal of the monarchy is what replaces it. An elected President would evidently come into conflict with the Prime Minister and their government. Similarly, it is often far harder to speak against an elected Head of State abroad for fear of criticising one's country. With the Queen, there is no such opposition to her and thus it is easy to criticise the Prime Minister without losing international clout. Furthermore, I believe it goes against the UK’s history. Many other countries - America, French, Russia - are based around revolution and dissent. The common orthodoxy for ruling was removed by the people and replaced by supposedly more ‘democratic’ forces. That hasn’t been the case in the UK. Apart from the Civil War between the Cavaliers and Roundheads, the monarchy has remained a constant. Removing the monarchy would no doubt require a codified constitution and years of political wrangling. Given all the other pressing issues, I believe now is not the time for political capital to be wasted removed a Head of State which does little harm. My main reason for supporting the monarchy is that they remain above an involvement with politics. If the monarchy today was that of the monarchy in the 1700s, I would be the staunchest Republican you had ever come across. An unelected individual shaping or directing policy has no place in a modern democracy. That, by the way, is why I oppose the unelected House of Lords. Yes, the Salisbury Convention exists and they can only delay legislation for a year. But peers can still introduce, scrutinise, amend and ultimately shape legislation that affects the lives of millions. Who put them there? It certainly wasn’t the public. However, I fear for the monarchy’s survival after the Queen passes away. We regularly hear about how the BBC do practice rehearsals for announcing her death to ensure upmost professionalism is maintained. I imagine obituaries have been written, ready to send to the printers at a moment’s notice. It sounds horrible to think about, but newspapers will probably have a collector’s edition reflecting on Her Majesty’s life. Biographies of the Queen are waiting to be published, their authors updating them chapter by chapter as events take place, again, ready to be published barely a week after her death. Those events will no doubt happen, ‘Zadok the Priest’ will be sung and Prince Charles shall become King. What will the nation make of his tenure? He is different to his mother in many ways. On the surface, that is no bad thing. We shouldn’t simply be models of our parents. Inevitably, his tenure as monarch will be far shorter, given he is already 71. Similarly, his personal life, not least his marriage and divorce to the late Princess Diana, received huge amounts of attention. The Prince is clearly an intelligent individual who has been involved with a significant amount of political issues, not least the environment. These must cease once he takes the throne. Heirs to the throne generally have a tough time, relative to other members of the Royal Family. Life is far easier for those who will never reach the throne, as was the case for my favourite Royal: the late, great Princess Margaret. Heirs are constantly aware of their upcoming authority and level of power that will fall upon them. While their place on the throne is guaranteed, their previous life will no doubt lead the public to form some kind of judgement. The monarchy only survives - a revolution towards a Republic - is only prevented by public support. Prince Charles then has faced a difficult judgement. Aware of his future responsibility, he has wanted to lead a life championing different causes and gaining influence where he can. Whether in relation to faith, protecting the planet, opening different centres or presenting Classic FM programmes, his influence throughout the nation and recognition through the world is widespread and well known. While he may champion these causes, his position of influence shouldn’t allow them extra authority than other organisations. As Queen, Her Majesty has remained restrained about which causes she gets behind. The same must be the case for Prince Charles and future monarchs. There must be no demands to minsters, telling them what areas of policy to focus on. Prince Charles shouldn’t lobby for certain groups but instead use the knowledge he clearly has to answer any inquires of the respective Prime Minister. If he were to involve himself in the political system, it would tip me, and I imagine many others, into the Republican camp. Individuals will always exist who dislike Charles but loved the Queen. They alone won’t be enough to remove him. But a broad coalition that saw an unelected monarchy interfering - in the same way the EU was viewed - could be enough to swing the pendulum. The Royal Family has been through enough turmoil over the last few years to last it a lifetime. Whether it’s Harry and Meghan jetting off to the States or Prince Andrew embroiled in yet another controversy, drama follows the Royals like children following the Pied Piper. This hasn’t prevented the Royals from retaining international clout and influence, especially by many individuals who have no interest in the UK political system. But when Prince Charles inherits the throne, the aspect in which he must follow his mother is in impartiality and distance from Westminster. If he fails, it will be his successors who fail to meet the throne when their turn arrives.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|