Monarchoskeptical thoughts on a jubilee

I used to think that the response illustrated was a bit OTT. But attention-getting.

More regular visitors here may have picked up that I'm no royalist. My reading of scripture feeds my natural skepticism about accumulation of power in human hands. So you can imagine I'm a less than whole-hearted celebrant of this jubilee weekend in GB (which I'm now avoiding calling 'UK' for the same reason). Sometimes when people discover my monarchophobia, I get asked ...

... "So, if we had a republic, who would you vote for as president, Tony Blair?",

When I was first asked it, I was a bit gobstruck: why would we want to do that? Frankly I'm concerned that such an interlocutor thinks (a) that Blair might stand and (b) most people would vote for him. However, that's not a snappy answer. So there are some good ripostes, I thought, in some recent Guardian correspondence.

answer, "No, the Queen, she'd be rather good at it." They never know what to say.

I think that that's definitely a good 'wind out of the sails' riposte. on the same lines and even better put:

 If, when the Queen dies, British people were offered the chance to vote between the option of King Charles, with the continuation of the royal succession, or President William Windsor as the first elected head of state, how would they vote?

Which is very like one of my scenarios for a transitional arrangement: first an elected monarch, then opening the candidature to a wider field... just a thought. Anyway, the sneer card also gets played in the correspondence:

 ..The way I look at it, I'd prefer a titular head who belongs to a bunch of benign, horsey, fancy-dress freaks (who bring in a few quid from tourists) to a President Blair, Cameron or (God help us) Johnson.

This seems to me to be actually rather unpleasant as politics: it suggests a contempt for the electoral choices of the people and that suggests a hidden contempt for democracy. Admittedly democracy is merely the least bad system of government (Winston Churchill's bon mot, I believe). What is actually being said here is that the British people can't be trusted to elect a head of state that the correspondent approves of. That's just thinly disguised elitism; the next step is to tell us some people are genetically more capable of governing ... It might be fair to let them have candidates from family lines that have traditionally made or accepted that claim on their own behalf: if they can persuade enough of the electorate ... but I would bet that no-one made that their election manifesto: "vote for me: I'm born to rule".

I found the most interesting comment in an article by Andrew Rawnsley, here:

The oddity of monarchy is that it is an institution embodied in a personality. In a democracy, it survives only by popular consent and that depends on the character of the incumbent. If republicans want a straw of comfort, then it might be found in polling that indicates that only 39% of the public want the crown to pass on to Prince Charles, more preferring it to go to Prince William – which demonstrates that most Britons either have an infirm grasp of the principles of hereditary monarchy or not much respect for them. The Queen may pass on the throne to her heirs and successors. What they can't inherit is her personal popularity.

That puts the matter quite nicely, I think: the irony that even monarchists in our not-quite-yet republic don't really believe in the hereditary principle -and therefore not monarchy. Rather, they believe in a person who has managed to ride the waves of celebrity very cannily.

But there may be one further thing to be explored. As a Church of England clergybeing I can only hold office if I make a declaration which says, inter alia,

... I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.'. 

I think that 'faithful' and 'true allegiance' means that I I will support her government in a way that is appropriate in a parliamentary democracy (that is her form of government, after all; I don't think we're being asked to prefer a less 'constitutional' arrangement) which means that there is room to exercise loyal opposition. That includes proposing and arguing the opinion that the government would be best if it were a republic. It means that I do not propose to further that opinion by any illegal means and in the meantime (before 'my' preferred constitutional arrangements are in place) I will support HM and her government by loyal constitutional subject-hood (which I would like to convert into republican citizenship). Heirs and successors? Yes -'according to law' -I hope that we might secure a change of the law so that hereditary succession to the head of state position would be replaced by a more democratic method. I do not advocate overthrow, merely an orderly and legal change to the principle of succession. I do so out of no animus against the persons of the monarch and likely successors under the hereditary principle. I simply do not believe that it is right and good for them to be in that position or for us to continue to allow it (and some of my reasons show up in this article where two biblical trajectories are mentioned one of which -I think the predominent one- is monarchoskeptical). It is not good and right that we put people in the positon they hold. The present Queen has done about the best anyone could do with the situation. We cannot guarantee that any of her progeny will do so and we should not, out of pity, ask them to.


I do not believe that the declaration (some take it as an oath) is meant to force one to be an ardent monarchist --unlike, arguably, the precursor version which starts "I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the Queen's Highness is the only supreme governor ..." which seems to require more conviction, though in recognising a fact is capable of allowing one to support a change, I suspect; it's real target, of course, was those who in conscience thought that the Pope had the trump card in supreme governorship. The amendment allows RC's to take up office, and with it allows greater lassitude for others to imagine and to propose alternative constitutional arrangements.


So all in all, I think I'm sanguine about this: "MPs back proposal to change name of east tower at the Palace of Westminster despite republican protestations"
I realise that I'm not a hardline republican when I see that. I can't really see the harm in it. Especially as I note that they are proposing to call it the Elizabeth Tower rather than the Queen Elizabeth Tower: I think the implicitly republican naming is a bit of fun really! The objection has been "Republic has criticised the proposal as "crass and profoundly inappropriate given that the tower in question is a landmark of our democratic parliament"." -but then see me previous remark. That said, I think the group in question, in general, should be heard, so if you've read this far, have a look.