Queen continues to annoy progressives – but look at the alternatives
|
Version 0 of 1. What do the Queen and Jeremy Corbyn have in common (apart from being non-confrontational pensioners with a fondness for animals)? It’s not such a daft question as it may seem. Both are the repository of the hopes and fears of millions of fellow citizens who have never met them – quite irrationally, you might add. Despite never getting into the elections business and being around even longer than Jeremy, Elizabeth (“the II of England and I of Scotland”, as we used to be taught in school), promises less, and is less likely to disappoint and thus remain more popular than he is – though probably not among his most ardent supporters. Related: Queen Elizabeth II becomes longest reigning British monarch - live updates Whatever dreams some of them might have to declare a British republic (again), it won’t be an immediate priority. That’s partly because they have even more urgent tasks to tackle, and partly because the Queen – the length of whose reign overtakes Queen Victoria’s around 5.30pm this afternoon – remains such a formidable barrier in her own strong but self-effacing personality. Prince Charles, almost two years into being our longest serving Prince of Wales (Victoria kept Edward VII waiting too), knows that better than anyone, though nowadays (so the Daily Mail assures us) he is more fatalistic about the brevity of his reign, if he gets one. After all, the Queen Mother lived to be 101, despite the gin. In the Guardian, Stephen Bates sets out the contrasts and similarities between these two long-serving monarchs in times of great change with his customary grace. So much nicer than Dr David Starkey, the Tudor historian-turned-telly-don, who may just be vain enough to see himself as a rival monarch. Starkey told the Radio Times the other day that HMQ has not “done and said anything that anyone will remember”. Even Starkey must have noticed that remark was a bit boorish because he went on to concede that, back in 1952 when she suddenly found herself Queen at short notice, Her Majesty decided her task was “to keep the royal show on the road”. This she has done, though for how much longer? As with Jeremy Corbyn’s popularity it’s hard to tell from the size of the crowds or the headlines. While the Tory tabloids and the BBC are noisily pushing out the royal barge, the Guardian has managed to contain its enthusiasm. Bates’s article is on page 17. Countless articles discuss the secret of Elizabeth’s survival and recovering popularity. That’s not my concern here, though I have a simple hunch. The secret is rooted in that dogged sense of duty, buttressed by her religious faith. It carries her through and (sorry, Charlie) will go on doing so until she gently drops. Her Maj knows she must be “seen to be believed” (apparently, she uses that phrase), but not much heard, except in platitude. On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme I’ve just heard a Cambridge professor say he’s seen the Queen in the flesh five times in his life without trying, but he’s never seen one of her 12 prime ministers (probably not the 12 US presidents or seven popes since 1952 either). It helps that she has always been beautiful, not even stuffy courtiers could hide that in those frumpy outfits. People could respect or even admire her commitment, say, to the Commonwealth, without approving of the idea of an hereditary head of state in the 21st century. Ah, heredity. My own puritanical instincts lie with stern republican virtue embodied in Oliver Cromwell, even though he locked up an old pal who complained about arbitrary republican taxes (just like Charles I, eh!). When his pal’s lawyers cited Magna Carta’s protection against equally arbitrary detention, Oliver dismissively replied: “Magna Farta.” That said, I think I know human nature well enough to realise that pomp and glamour, the stuff of the royal soap opera since forever, has wider appeal than hair shirts. After the republic of 1649-60 came the restoration, bringing with it more laughter and (if the plays and poems are any guide) a lot more sex. And, though we don’t talk so much about it these days, the hereditary principle endures in most republics. Just look at those Bush, Clinton and Gore dynasties, worthy of Shakespeare or Suetonius, whose tales of the early Caesars Tom Holland (a much better writer than Starkey) has just reworked in his new book, Dynasty. Blessed though they may be with electoral stardust, Britain has its dynastic Hurds and three generations of Hoggs, its Straws and even Kinnocks, as well as its great aristocratic dynasties, those Salisburys and Churchills. A surprising number of British MPs are related to previous MPs. Even Cromwell tried it on, but his son, Tumbledown Dick (1626 to 1712) was so useless the royalists didn’t even execute him. Just as well he only lasted a year. If he had lasted as Oliver II he would have reigned several months longer than Victoria or Elizabeth and spoiled Wednesday’s celebration. In the Republic of Ireland the papers sometimes print family trees to show who their TDs (teachtaí dála or members of parliament) are related to. The current taoiseach, Enda Kenny, is one of those. Calvinistic SNP Scotland is not entirely hereditary-free. It leaves me untroubled by the Hanoverian settlement of 1714, whereby the United Kingdom is what the French philosopher Montesquieu called at the time a crowned republic. I stumbled on the same notion myself, but much later and give Monty full credit. We have a ceremonial president just like Germany except that the post is hereditary and provides more spectacle and soapy drama than Joachim (guess who he is?) Gauck. Mrs Queen doesn’t cost much either, not compared with the BBC licence fee or a season ticket to Chelsea. Related: Proud tradition or ludicrous anachronism? Share your views on the British royal family Snobbery, hierarchy, an elite pyramid dominating Britain with HMQ on the top? Oh, please! Republics have them too, aristocracies of money, not very nice most of them either, Mr Putin. By the standards of current top-heavy Britain, the Queen doesn’t count as super-rich any more. She must dislike the supposedly meritocratic oligarchs who do threaten our fragile liberties – as Charles I once did – as much as most of us do. They frighten the horses. With rare exceptions like Warren Buffett, they’re pretty hereditary about their money too. They also cut fewer ribbons than Windsor housewife Betty Glucksburg, which is who the Queen would be if things had turned out differently. Who knows, Jeremy’s cadre of advisers may already be drawing up Operation Glucksburg for the second Corbyn term. It is certainly true that virulent dislike of the monarchy is common on the progressive wing of the metropolitan upper middle class. Here’s a classic of the genre from from my redoubtable colleague, Polly Toynbee, one of the Toynbees of Toynbee Hall. Baffling. It’s a bit like militant atheism. If you’re quite sure the old boy (girl?) with the white beard isn’t up there on his iCloud passing judgment on us all, why get so excited about him/her? If the Queen does no harm at only modest expense (the government’s academies scheme seems to do worse on both counts), why waste so much energy dividing the country when we have real problems to tackle? And what makes them think David Attenborough would even want the job? No well balanced normal person would. We could end up with President Simon Cowell or President Russell Brand the First. Mary Berry wouldn’t touch it. But things change. On the radio this morning I heard, as I did, aged six in my Cornish primary school on 6 February 1952, a recording of the solemn announcement of the death of George VI. We may feel differently when the Queen finally dies, I can see that. Such is the pace of change we already no longer say “wireless” except in the wifi sense. So Britain and its Commonwealth cousins will have to have a serious conversation about Charles III, even if he gets his act together with the help of Queen Camilla. Unless, of course, we’re all far too busy worrying about something else: climate change, the Chinese Atlantic fleet or The Archers. Not that the Queen is going anywhere soon. I don’t think she’s going to abdicate, do you? Like Wayne Rooney with his 50th goal for England last night (Sorry, Sir Bobby) she’s bound to be competitive, it’s human nature too. So watch out, Louis XIV. From the age of three he reigned (1643-1715) over France for 72 years, succeeded by his great-grandson. He’s only 12th in the list of longest reigns, but he was a top-drawer monarch, as those German princelings aren’t really except as a sperm bank. After that, it’s all the way to King Sobhuza II of Swaziland, who became king at four months and shuffled off his mortal coil after 82 years of kingship only in 1982, to be succeeded (hint, hint) by his equivalent of Airmiles Andy. Mswati III is a younger son. Don’t think it’s beneath her dignity. Swaziland has long been a loyalish member of the British empire and now Commonwealth. The Queen is the Commonwealth’s ardent lynchpin. Go for it, Ma’am. You can do it. But don’t forget the long naps after lunch. And do block Charles’s calls. |