Republicans get the last laugh

The Guardian ^ | Thursday May 9, 2002 | Roy Hattersley

[David Hunter]

The outrage is understandable. The astonishment is absurd. Anyone who imagined that the Queen Mother's estate would be subject to the usual level of death duties was suffering from another aspect of the delusion that has infected this country since the old lady died. The monarchy is a package deal. When, at the end of the funeral, Garter King At Arms read out the styles and titles of the dear departed, he was marking the passing of someone who could not possibly subscribe to the same tax code as the rest of us.

The discovery that the Treasury is to be denied its proper share of the £50m fortune has ended the taboo that, for the past six weeks, has prevented a rational examination of the monarchy. The silence has, in part, resulted from the behaviour of republicans who - believing that the Windsors should be deserving of the same sympathy as any other bereaved family - treated the Queen Mother's death with far more respect than it received from those royalists who exploited it to revive interest in the Jubilee. It would be unreasonable to demand much sensitivity from people who applauded the vulgar extravagance of the obsequies. But they should not mistake good manners for capitulation.

The rational argument for a republic is built on four related truths. None of them is connected with the Queen Mother's character, but all of them were illustrated during the days that followed her death.

A monarchy is built on the idea of a hierarchical society with the sovereign at the apex of the social pyramid as the result of an accident of birth. Because it is based on the hereditary principle, it encourages the nation to look backward to its glorious past rather than face an uncertain future. It promotes values that a civilised country ought to deplore and it forces sensible people into doing and saying silly things.

Almost everything that happened between the death and the funeral was a demonstration of the belief that the Windsors are inherently superior. No doubt the Queen Mother was as admirable a woman as the newspapers claim. But the pipes and drums of the Scottish regiments are not paraded to mark the passing of every nice old lady. Some of the commentators actually spoke of a funeral fit for "the last Empress of India". The troops turned out because she was wife to a king. Walter Raleigh was wrong about death being the great leveller.

The Koh-i-Nor shone out of the crown that was carried on the last empress's coffin. That diamond was stolen during the Raj that so pillaged the subcontinent that invisible earnings from India kept the ailing British balance of payments in surplus for four generations. My complaint is not that we were encouraged to drool over the memory of an evil empire. For good or ill, that empire is a thing of the past. The compulsion to live in the shadow of imperial grandeur is the most debilitating of all the British psychological diseases.

Yet one newspaper claimed that the crowds on the streets proved that Rule Britannia had replaced Cool Britannia. Cool Britannia was always an infantile idea. But Rule Britannia is the most geriatric of political expectations. The newspapers that brought the people out on to the streets, briefly to relive the age when the sun never set on the empire, hoaxed as well as patronised their readers. They used the Queen Mother's death to evangelise for the values of a bygone age.

Part of that long-dead past was a monarchy that played at being soldiers and sailors. The dukes of Edinburgh and York, like the Prince of Wales, were once the real thing. But the only possible explanation for making minor royals dress up for the funeral as commodores and commandants is the notion that there is special virtue in the martial life. A monarchy encourages that sort of philistine nonsense. At Westminster Abbey, the Queen Mother's colonels were much in evidence. Her librarians were notable only because of their absence.

In the weeks that followed the Queen Mother's death, simple decency prevented criticism of either her conduct or character. It did not, however, justify the expression of blatant falsehoods. We were repeatedly told that a woman, previously famous for her financial extravagance and love of luxury, identified with the common people. Dissembling is an inherent aspect of monarchy. When sycophancy is impossible the monarchy is threatened. That was the lesson of the abdication crisis. For six weeks the royalists seized their chance to resuscitate deference. The tax break has made it possible to tell the truth about the monarchy.

Of course the tourists and the London crowds turned out to see the coffin go by. But emotions fade as quickly as they blossom. The parade has passed and now perhaps reason will prevail. The failure to pay death duties has allowed us to start explaining again where logic lies.

[David Hunter]

Am I the only Briton who feels dread at the prospect of a bank holiday weekend filled with the media's wall to wall coverage of the Royal Jubilee?

God, how I wish Britain had an elected head of state and fully elected Houses of Parliament. A written constitution wouldn't go amiss either.

Now we have reached the 21st century its time the British were citizens not subjects. Up with the Republic, down with the Monarchy.

[Torie]

It is in Britain's best interest in my opinion to keep the fiction going for as long as possible. It is good for the tourist industry, and still gives Britain a certain cachet.

[Paleo Conservative]

Am I the only Briton who feels dread at the prospect of a bank holiday weekend filled with the media's wall to wall coverage of the Royal Jubilee?

God, how I wish Britain had an elected head of state and fully elected Houses of Parliament. A written constitution wouldn't go amiss either.

Be careful what you ask for. The Canadian constitution that was rewritten in the 1980s undermines many of the right such as free speech that the US Constitution guarantees.

[goldstategop]

There may have been once upon a time something exalted about a Republic. But after seeing the likes of Clinton, a monarchy sounds better. The U.K and Canada are lucky to have a Golden Jubilee to celebrate this year. If only we Yanks had someone we greatly revered around for 50 years...

[goldstategop]

Yup. While the Charter of Rights is wonderful, leaving it up to the courts to enforce it has made Canada even more P.C than it should have been. In such circumstances one pines for the old days when Parliament had the last word on the state of the law.

[Tomalak]

Yeah, how about Tony Blair writes it himself?

We, the People of the United Kingdom, in order to form a more Politically Correct European Union, do hereby ensure the following principles are ground in law:

Britain will never again be allowed her own currency.

Abortion is a human right, and any challenge to this will be a hate crime.

Capital Punishment can never be restored.

The Conservative Party is now The Official Opposition, and will remain that way, because they are not permitted to form another government, ever.

Her Majesty will be replaced by Her Real Majesty, Cherie Blair.

Gerry Adams is now President of Northern Ireland.

Gays have the right to marry, adopt and respect. Refusing to pick up their soap in a shower is a hate crime.

Income tax shall never be reduced....

*Shudders* I think we will leave things as they are, thank you.

[Capriole]

It is in Britain's best interest in my opinion to keep the fiction going for as long as possible. It is good for the tourist industry, and still gives Britain a certain cachet.

I agree. I think that sometimes you British don't realize that you have the best of both worlds in your royal family. The royals cost you some millions of pounds each year, but they're an investment: you get a lot more out of them in terms of tourist dollars than you put in.

You must know that Americans are completely addled on the subject of royalty, to the point of doing stupid things like curtseying at garden parties. We are a nation of Hyacinth Buckets, however much we prate about equality and democracy, and many Americans go to England to see over the great houses, catch glimpses of foxhunts, see the Changing of the Guard and the Beefeater and all the hackneyed things.

And Americans aren't the only ones; tourists from all over the world come to spend their Euros and yen and what-not there. The foolishness and sex scandals just make it better. You've got a goldmine, and they don't even impose a lot of ideas on you as if they had any real power, so it's ideal.

Mark you, it wouldn't work as well if the royals were dispossessed. You'll note that no one is falling all over himself curtseying to the pretender to the French throne or the Russian throne. Otto von Hapsburg is a lovely guy but too jess-folks, and no one screams when they see him. You have to actually have a current title and live in the castles before tourists are interested enough to fork over thousands in airfare.

I can't disagree about the written constitution, however. But do bear in mind that if you got yourself a written constitution now it would be written with all sorts of silly leftist nonsense in it and so would be worthless instead of the document of beauty and power you long for.

[Tomalak]

Oh, and Roy Hattersley has some nerve writing about how much the Queen Mother costs the country. He was one of the worst ministers in by far the worst British government in the last 60 years. The Labour Government of 1974-1979 cost the country more than a dozen monarchies.

[RichInOC]

Best of luck. All you need are leaders of the same high caliber as the gentlemen who fought in our revolution, drafted our constitution and first served in our government.

Oops.

[gitmo]

I recall on my first trip to Great Britain having a discussion with a local. The British lady commented that so-and-so "is Royalty, if I'm not mistaken."

I was shocked that this person actually believes this stuff. That there was some tangible difference between people descended from ancient kings and lords and such and other people. I obviously wasn't unaware of the British crown, but that anyone actually took Royal lineage seriously was surprising.

[CatoRenasci]

For good or ill, the monarchy is the only thing Britain has besides Magna Charta that captures any American imaginations, and Magna Charta appeals only to those few who know what it is. To loose the monarchy would end Britain's special relationship with the United States within 5-10 years.

[Tomalak]

So if you found out George Washington or Thomas Jefferson was your great-great-great-Grandfather, you wouldn't be at all proud of it?

[David Hunter]

There may have been once upon a time something exalted about a Republic. But after seeing the likes of Clinton, a monarchy sounds better.

The British monarchy may look good from California, but you try living under it. Even the discussion of a British Republic is officially taboo in the House of Commons. The British are treated like children. They can be prosecuted for defending themselves and are expected to look up and admire the Queen.

Clinton may have been a sleaze, but at least you can get rid of him. If it hadn't been for Edward the VIII falling in love with Wallis Simpson and abdicating, then we would have been stuck with a king who sympathised with Hitler and believed that Britain should sign a non-aggression pact with him. What would have become of us?

The U.K and Canada are lucky to have a Golden Jubilee to celebrate this year. If only we Yanks had someone we greatly revered around for 50 years...

You assume we revere it, perhaps you Americans do, but I don't and my Father who served in the British army doesn't. In fact, many British soldiers don't and prefer to ignore the part of their oath of allegiance which says "for Queen". Usually they tell themselves that they are serving for their families and friends.

Personally, I'll celebrate when the House of Lords are gone and we can choose our own head of state. Of course, a written constitution would have to be drafted carefully. But I'd rather have some rights set down in stone than have them eroded whenever the British government has a good excuse.

[gitmo]

So if you found out George Washington or Thomas Jefferson was your great-great-great-Grandfather, you wouldn't be at all proud of it?

First, I'd be shocked if President Washington was a progenitor of mine (since he was childless). But yes, I would be proud of ancestors who accomplished such noble and wonderful things. Same for Ben Franklin or Edison. But I wouldn't consider myself superior for that fact. And if my ancestor was some unaccomplished president I would find that an interesting fact but nothing more.

By the way, my great-great-grandfather was George Washington. But he was not related to the first president.

[Tomalak]

If it hadn't been for Edward the VIII falling in love with Wallis Simpson and abdicating, then we would have been stuck with a king who sympathised with Hitler and believed that Britain should sign a non-aggression pact with him. What would have become of us?

Nothing Edward VIII could have been involved in. Besides, if he hadn't been the sort of man to abdicate then he wouldn't be the sort of man to support the Nazis anyway, so I don't think this hypothesis matters too much. I just don't see what it is the Queen does that some greasy politician could do better.

[David Hunter]

I just don't see what it is the Queen does that some greasy politician could do better.

I believe the fact that a President would be accountable to the British people, because we could vote them out after 4 or 5 years, would help.

Also if we did have a a written constitution then we would have certain unalienable rights for all time.

The right to peaceful demonstration has been eroded in Britain, as has the right to own firearms. The Government can change our rights at will, whenever there has been a suitably well publicised incident.

Abolishing the House of Lords so that it can not veto policies passed by the elected House of Commons, would also be a definite improvement.

[Draco]

Your perspective is one I seldom encounter but have long suspected. Take with a grain of salt those Americans who tell you that the U.S. should have a monarchy. We have a psuedo-royalty here with Hollywood; there is the scandal, but Hollywood still lacks the class and trappings of royalty. And you can thank us Yanks (or heaven) for Mrs. Simpson. Best regards.

[Tomalak]

Where do you get the idea that the right to bear arms would appear in any modern constitution? You'd get the right to use the NHS, the right to promote homosexuality in schools, the right of the BBC to demand a £100 poll tax and all manner of awful things that would be impossible for any government to reverse.

[David Hunter]

So if you found out George Washington or Thomas Jefferson was your great-great-great-Grandfather, you wouldn't be at all proud of it?

These were great men, of course someone would be proud if one of them were their ancestor.

However, the British royal family and what is left of the aristocracy are not necessarily descended from people who were great or brave. Instead they are descended from people who like them were born into the club, not people who actually earned their status and fortune.

[Draco]

Edward VIII's NAZI sympathies were a concern to the British and U.S. intelligence services. The British royal family dropped the Germanic Battenberg from its name and substituted Mountbatten (I think I spelled that right). The British royal family is closely related to German royalty; indeed, Prince Phillip is a close relative of the Russian royal family. (So close they used his DNA to verify the remains of the last Russian royal family.) There was much to worry about. Remember Hitler's adjutant Rudolph Hess? He parachuted into the English mainland during the war. Hitler himself hoped to install a friendly and compliant member of the royal family on the British throne. Winston Churchill ordered certain WWII intelligence records sealed forever. There are too many "conincidences" to dismiss the Edward VIII/NAZI links.