Can Britain's monarchy survive without the queen?


A heavy cold and a nation shivers. The cold is that attributed, last week, to Britain's Queen Elizabeth II (her formal titles would take much of the rest of this column). The shivers are those of the political establishment.

Everything of moment in the United Kingdom depends, formally, on the 90-year-old Queen. She legitimizes all laws. She appoints all ministers. Parliamentarians must swear an oath of fealty to her. Ambassadors negotiate in her name, generals fight in it. She is the monarch in more than a dozen former imperial possessions, largely uncontroversially. When, in 1999, on the prompting of a Labour Prime Minister, the Australians tried to usurp her, the move failed, in spite of polls showing only minority support for her. Now, contrary to belief, the polls have risen, to show her popularity at around 60%.

Public approval has only grown as she has aged. Shown slowly walking through official ceremonies, even grumpy republicans (of whom I am one, so beware of bias) have to admit to her stoicism and guts. She is by some way the most popular figure in the UK, and the second most popular in the world - after of course, Angelina Jolie (Hollywood royalty still has the edge; it has, after all, a bigger PR budget).

The queen's formal power is a kind of confidence trick in which almost everyone acquiesces. She does what she is told by the prime minister who comes to her once a week, bows or curtsies, and tells her what the government wants to do - policies on which she can make at most an oblique comment and which she cannot change. A little storm blew up last week as to whether or not she favored Brexit: the BBC political editor said she'd been told she had, but lacking a second source, didn't broadcast it on her employer's channels. Denials and no comments have been thick on the ground since; the Queen does not comment, whether she did or not. Brexit steams, or stumbles, ahead.

Her real job is keeping Britain together. Every age group thinks she's great - the older more than the younger, to be sure - and that the monarchy should carry on into the future - preferably with her at its head. Since that is, however, impossible, the "heavy cold'" has alarmed her country's real, much less popular, rulers.

Quite soon, a decision must be made - it may have been made already - as to whom the succession will go. It is on paper simple: to her eldest son, Charles, Prince of Wales, 68. But here's the rub. Though less unpopular than he was during the divorce from Princess Diana in 1996, and after her death in 1997, his approval ratings remain mediocre, and even admirers think he should abjure the throne for his elder son, Prince William.

Charles is a man of opinions - on the environment, on architecture and on government support for his many charities and causes - opinions he presses insistently on governments, as shown by his letters, released under the Freedom of Information Act. If, as king, he continues in this, both he and his institution will suffer for it.

Prince William, 34 last June, has, by contrast, no known opinions on public issues. He has a wife, Catherine, from a non-royal background; they have two young children, a boy, George and a girl, Charlotte. The whole family is photogenic and seem charming, though William is balding early. He trained in the Royal Air Force as a helicopter pilot, and works full time as a pilot for the air ambulance service after his short spell in the RAF. That mix of military service and aiding the sick is a potent one.

From a public relations point of view - one of the most influential in monarchical conclaves - he is a gift, in spite of the blunders said to have come from ignoring his PR team's advice. His father, though, poses the real challenge.

If Charles succeeds - it's still more likely than not - then the monarchy ceases to be an unquestionable asset, and becomes a zone of nervous image management. If William succeeds, Charles' disappointment may burst out in public explosions. Even if not, the burden on William of carrying on a tradition so long occupied by his grandmother would be heavy upon one whose political antennae are untested, in a country whose domestic and international frameworks are shifting and fragile.

So popular has the queen been that even the solidly republican Scottish National Party, which provides Scotland's regional government and nearly all of its representation at Westminster, cannily shifted towards a royalist position. But neither the son nor the grandson would command the same grip on Scots' sentiment. That, coupled with Scotland's vote to remain in the European Union, could convince waverers that the independence the SNP exists to attain was worth the economic risk.

Elizabeth had the power of the powerless - which in her case was world fame. Everyone who was anyone wished to meet her: and in her decades of rule, she met almost every world leader, most of whom she has outlived. To meet her was to touch history, a tourist destination for the global elite.

A dis-united Britain would be a weaker member of the Western alliance. Its weight as a member of the United Nations Security Council would be lessened; it would be out, or on a path out, of the EU and its international reputation as a supporter of liberal politics, trade and economics, would be further damaged.

It would, unwillingly, have dropped the pilot - a pilot who was not supposed to direct the course of the ship of state, but made its progress more stately. A former foreign secretary, Douglas Hurd, coined the phrase in 1993 that the UK "punched above its weight" in the world, especially in military operations. In that boxing metaphor, the queen was an off-the-ring trainer, a symbol of what the military was fighting for, lending a human face and example to the abstraction of the oath of loyalty.

A diminution of Britain on the passing of Queen Elizabeth will be hard to avoid. It's unlikely to be staunched by whoever is her successor. Only with the transition to a republic, might a new energy be found, a new character be formed. But that is the anti-monarchical propaganda I warned you about. And like all great schemes of change, who knows if it would work?

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017.

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

While I have grudging respect for the present Queen, I don't like having someone born to reign over me by the "grace of god." If Charles succeeds, I think that will be the end of the monarchy. He is too unliked and unlikable to keep the United Kingdom united. I feel sorry for him in way. He could have been perfectly happy in a career more suited to his talents, say fast food or sanitation, but by accident of birth he has been propelled into a situation where he has endless opportunities to embarrass himself by exposing his opinions and ignorance on every topic under the sun. He would be a disastrously interventionist, politicized king.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

People dislike Charles because they are incessantly told by the media that people dislike him. It's become a meme. The minute he ascends the throne and does something even mildly endearing, the newspapers will start pushing a new narrative about how the hated prince became 'the people's king'. It's just too predictable.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

TR: Can Britain's monarchy survive without the queen?

It's kind of early to be thinking about that. She's only 90!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

What the UK does is up to them, but I would prefer to see a New Zealander as our head of state. Guessing this will happen pretty quickly when Charles becomes King.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I actually quite like Charles. I like the fact he has an opinion. I would be very surprised if the U.K became a republic. Who on earth would want the U.K to be solely represented by its politicians, which have been a disaster for years? 2016 was proof positive of that. It would be a disaster for the U.K to be honest.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

"Who on earth would want the U.K to be solely represented by its politicians"

Who on earth would want England represented by Charles?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

As next in line Charles should be king


if he pass the crown directly to William, then we could have another long reining monarch.

Queen Elizabeth II long rein has been one of the few constant thing in the UK

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Oops! Should have said UK instead of England.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The monarchy will end with Elizabeth II, just like the monarchy has ended with every single previous monarch, who coincidentally have all died. It's a conspiracy and thanks to the extraordinary brilliance of this writer, we are all aware of this now.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Who on earth would want the U.K to be solely represented by its politicians, which have been a disaster for years?

Charles is a politician. He's continually meddled in government policy for years. Google "Black Spider Letters". As King he'd be 10 times worse. The mystery to me is why anyone takes any notice of His Royal Halfwit.

The good thing about politicians is that they can be voted out. Monarchs are harder to get rid of.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Oops! Should have said UK instead of England.

Freudian slip. But which part of England (as the rest of the UK faces separate existential dilemmas)?

Are Brexit voters - perhaps the biggest victims of govt. austerity - less likely to be republicans, and thus more accepting of the 369m sterling public cost to refurbish QE2's London residence?

Or do metropolitan and university town Europhiles, beneficiaries of free third level education (remember that?) secretly hanker after an era where everyone knew their place, and respectively doffed caps, trilbies or bowlers to the aristocracy?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I personally think we should get rid of the royal/imperial monarchy system. It has no place in a democracy anywhere.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites