Comment: The case for sceptical royalism
When it comes to the head of state, the most important quality they can have is a lack of democratic legitimacy.
By Ian Dunt
I doubt it bothers her much, but I can’t see myself getting on with the Queen.
The thought struck me as I read journalists theorise on the likely topics of conversation at the Middletons’ first luncheon with the monarch and the Duke of Edinburgh. Horse-racing seemed the most obvious example. The Queen’s been into it for ages. The Middletons own a racecourse.
I don’t. I can’t empathise with the Queen’s interests. I doubt she has much time for eccentrics and libertarians. I doubt she can quote the entirety of Withnail and I off by heart. We live in different Englands, her and I.
But I am a sceptical royalist. I believe in the monarchy, despite recognising the obvious logic of its opponents. Of course, it’s psychologically harmful to have the lead figure in a society achieve their status not through their actions but by their birth. Of course, the royal family is irreducibly weird and bears little to no relation to the reality of life in this country. Of course it’s grating to have people in European countries and the US think of us as bizarre middle-age relics.
Yet the monarchy achieves something worth much more valuable than its faults: it makes patriotism safe.
Patriotism is a strange and unpredictable thing. When expressed appropriately, it can win wars, fuel social conscience and deliver an unquantifiable sense of wellbeing to a country. But it can also be racist, violent, hateful, meaningless and fascistic. It can be oppressive. It can be used to silence dissent.
By having a non-political head of state, Britain directs its sense of patriotism in a harmless, healthy direction. It puts something which is potentially out of control and dangerous in a safe place.
It is not always thus. Look to the US to see the consequences of having a political head of state. The tenor of political debate in the States is so intensely hateful, so emotional and downright rude, that Europeans are often astonished by it when they arrive. Critics of the government during George Bush’s time in power were branded anti-American. That’s what happens to the other half when you make a head of state political. Now, opponents of Obama reach previously unheard of levels of apocalyptic rage fuelled, in part, by their sense that this man whose politics they object to has usurped their patriotism. This is the consequence of allowing the emotional world of patriotism to intersect with the rational world of politics.
Compare that with the UK, where everyone treats the government as a tedious necessity but, in general, expresses warmth and tolerance towards the Queen. The level of political debate is substantially less shrill and emotive. People’s sense of patriotism is understated but more inclusive.
None of which is to say that we should tip-toe around the monarch. I remember the gasp of a Japanese friend when she saw jokes on TV about the queen. Similar sentiments would never be expressed towards the emperor. That sense of humour, that relentless need to mock even the vaguest bit of pomposity, that’s an intensely British characteristic.
Perhaps it is entirely unrelated to the monarchy, but I prefer to think that that flippant attitude comes from a supreme national confidence. It’s a confidence that comes from knowing that patriotism is safe here, that it is not rigid and dogmatic.
The hereditary principle seems appalling and unjust, but in fact it is an extremely useful mechanism. As soon as democracy comes into it, a section of the population is alienated. As soon as people pick, some people did not pick. When it comes to the head of state, the most important quality they can have is a lack of democratic legitimacy.
There are alternatives, of course. We could establish a panel of eminent scholars or national treasures and let them pick a monarch every generation. We could do it at random. We could educate a random child from scratch, surrounding them in charity work and public duty lessons, like some Platonic philosopher king.
The question is: why? The mantra of ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ applies to politics more than anything else. The Brits grumble and complain – that is our way. But actually the fundamental constitutional underpinnings of our country are exceptionally robust and healthy. They are the envy of the world. The attitude towards patriotism – that understated, unspoken national pride – is more genuine and resonant than that of countries which proclaim it loudly with waving flags and military parades.
It is a truth recognised by foreigners and ignored by Brits: this country works really rather well. The monarchy allows us to celebrate our country without division, without fanfare and without bitterness. It looks like a throwback to an old, repressive world. But by some remarkable piece of historical irony, it is one of the most effective and forward-looking institutions this country has.
The opinions in politics.co.uk’s Speakers Corner are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.
