I am not an ardent monarchist, and will certainly not be making a ridiculous oath of allegiance in front of my television today: I will be taking a group of under twelves to a local theme park and may consider watching the highlights of this historic day after they have all gone to bed.
But neither am I a convinced republican, especially as I just don’t have room in my head for any more fruitless anger. I am more than willing to stand against this wretched government on any number of issues, from the illegal immigration bill to allowing neonicotinoids on sugar beet. I will march with XR rebellion to demand that the climate emergency is addressed, and I will join you on south coast beaches to object to raw sewage being dumped in our seas.
But King Charles and all the pomp and circumstance of his coronation are not high on my list of things that are wrong in the UK right now. It would be another matter of course if I was threatened with execution for refusing to take the oath of allegiance, which given the Tories’ sustained attacks on our ‘precious democracy’ (Jenrick’s words not mine) could well happen. But 16th century concerns are not mine.
Merits of monarchy
So I will live and let live. Given that there is still a majority of our population in favour of the monarchy, I will endeavour to understand what keeps them loyal. Is it the theatre, the flag waving, the marching bands, the carriages and the celebrities – in short, the well organised spectacle that is so often associated with royalty? (We do these things so well in this country!) And let me be honest, I’ve enjoyed the fun and carnival atmosphere that has characterised jubilees and royal weddings, not to mention the extra Bank Holidays. Some say that the monarchy is necessary to reunite this fractured country after the disaster of austerity and Brexit.
To me this seems a stretch, given the various scandals associated with the royal family, not least the latest reminders of their slavery connections. Others might continue to perceive royalty as different, literally anointed by God, divinely chosen to rule and receive the reverence of a humble population, some of whom will be deemed worthy enough for awards and honours. Indeed, let us consider the many who do toil quietly, working for a better world and whose qualities are never recognised.
International reputation
Will these arguments keep King Charles’ noble posterior on his throne? What about the monarchy’s contribution to this country’s soft power? With so much credibility and influence lost in the last few years, maybe it’s the only institution that holds some sway on the international scene?
For over fifty years Charles has campaigned vociferously for the environment: when he was prevented from attending Cop 27, Rishi Sunak was propelled to go instead. His charity work has also gained loyal supporters, and since his accession there have been donations to a number of charities which actively oppose government policy. The tourism industry argues that the House of Windsor benefits the country by a billion or so annually, although Brexit has reduced European visitors. Our elected prime ministers, whether Labour or Tory, have all commented on the continuity and stability the monarch as Head of State represents – arguably this would not be a benefit under an elected President.
What’s the alternative?
Finally, let’s take a look at those countries who have dispensed with their monarchies. The French certainly guillotined their royals, but bumped off many entirely blameless citizens in the process (Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité anyone?). Iran ended up with the Ayatollahs (more innocent bloodshed and no to everything).
Greece got its generals for a while (no to Melina Mercouri) while Spain wrestled with itself over General Franco (no to bikinis). And so, back to this sceptred isle, where we briefly entertained Oliver Cromwell (no theatres, no pubs and no swearing), it behoves us, gentle subjects all, to reflect on the prescient words of Hilaire Belloc:
And always keep a-hold of Nurse,
For fear of finding something worse.
