9.5
(4 votes)
| Rating | Rated by |  | | 8 | Unknown | | | | 10 | Unknown | | | | 10 | Unknown | | | | 10 | Unknown | |
You must login to vote
|
|
|
The muted public response to the death of Princess Margaret raises some interesting questions. Her death marks the beginning of the end for the last generation of Royals who, when given a choice between duty and happiness, would choose duty. In Margaret’s case this choice led to the abandonment of the man she loved in an attempt to protect her sister’s image and to fulfil the wishes of her domineering mother. The Queen’s choice was to erect a façade of reservation that she would not even let down for her children. The effect that loveless upbringing had on their later must have brought its own unhappiness for her. The younger generations have had no such qualms and the examples of their discretions are too numerous to catalogue. Yet despite the sacrifices Margaret made – later scandals undoubtedly stemmed from her unhappiness – the public seemed to care little about her death.
This could signify a couple of different things. Firstly it may just mean that the distasteful outpouring of hysteria that greeted the death of Diana is over. The tragic death of a young mother – albeit a media savvy, public relations tornado – was hijacked by tabloid editors who felt guilty about their supposed culpability and a Prime Minister trying to prove himself as a statesmen. That she was grossly unsuitable for the popular canonisation that she received did not enter the minds of a British public caught up in an unprecedented collective grieving. Charles, struggling with duty to his position and his duty as a father, was in a no win situation. Strangely, however, the public anger at the monarchy dissipated almost immediately after the flag was half raised at the Palace. As revolutions go the Diana affair was peculiarly half hearted – possibly because enough people realised that this manipulative woman was not worthy of being the centre of constitutional change.
If the end of the Diana phenomenon is the only reason for the apathy of the public then the Windsors have little to fear. The second possibility, however, may cause ‘The Firm’ more than a few sleepless nights. The less the public care about the Queen and her family the stronger the arguments for a Republic shall become. Indeed, for many the arguments seem strong enough already. The very idea that a head of state can earn their position through birthright is laughable. Sit down and think about it rationally. How can it possibly survive? True the Queen may have few real powers but in certain constitutional eventualities she can have a huge influence on events (hung parliaments being the most obvious). Even if those powers are only called on in exceptional circumstances the principle remains and, at the very least, a debate about the monarchy should be held.
The time does seem right for just such a debate. The Queen Mother, with the greatest of respect and despite all the evidence to the contrary, cannot last forever. Far from being the loveable great granny of yore the Queen Mother is cold hearted, calculating, stubborn and a fearsome opponent of change. Indeed, it was she who pressurised Princess Margaret into choosing duty over love and is, therefore, culpable in the unhappiness of her daughters future life. It is, however, understandable that any moves to modernise would be difficult for as long as the Queen Mother’s feelings needed to be protected. After that, however, certain possibilities present themselves. If, as many feel likely, the Queen chooses to abdicate then Prince Charles could become King on a caretaker basis. If he were to be crowned as the last monarch (the timescale could be based either on his lifetime or his mothers, if she were to outlive him) then we would have ample time to adopt and perfect a new system.
Many people ask whether or not a new system would be worth the hassle. What a typical British question that is. Certainly, it would be an upheaval but, more importantly, it would also uphold the principles of democracy. I have no definitive answer on what the system would be but it would surely dovetail with a complete overhaul of the Lords and the end of the honours system. A financial settlement would have to be drawn up to provide a clear demarcation of what could be considered state owned and what would be family owned. It is doubtful, however, if any of the Royals would live in fear of penury. The palaces, castles and stately homes would, of course, continue to draw tourists. The straw clutching claims that tourism would suffer are unfounded. How many tourists actually bump into Charles or Andrew as they browse in the souvenir shops? The decommissioned Britannia gets visitors because of a past not a present Royal connection and, I believe, Versailles is still rather popular in France.
The current unpopularity of elected politicians should be no reason to run scared of change. The whole point of democracy is that you can kick them out if you don’t like them, if they are flawed or if they are incompetent. On the other hand the Windsors, who have proven themselves to be a mixture of all three, are in jobs for life. No wonder people see Britain as a joke. Other countries (Ireland, France et al) have adopted other systems and made them work. If Britain were to take the leap then it may inject some much needed stimulus into our tired political system. If it was handled properly it could be bloodless and harmless. What a very British coup that would be.
|
