The New Yorker’s Lauren Collins questioned as much this week. “It’s
forever surprising to me how many British friends, believers in egalitarian
values in every other realm, subscribe to the view that the royal family is
powerless, harmless, and largely deserving, in some unquestionable way, of the immense privilege that it hoards,” she wrote.
Rest assured Lauren, you are not the only one to scoff at
our monarchist sensibilities – we Brits are perfectly aware and similarly
baffled by our paradoxical affection for a system which
appears at odds with the meritocratic principles of a modern liberal democracy.
However, according to polling data
from Ipsos Mori, support for a republic in Britain was 18 percent in 1969, 18
percent in 1993, 19 percent in 2002 and 18 percent just last year- which means that three-quarters of the population really want Britain to remain a
monarchy.
No Brit will deny the criticisms
towards the Monarchy – its expense, its absurdity, the blatant unfairness of it
all- though it’s probably worth noting that the birth coverage gave the economy a boost worth $375 million, according to Bloomberg. But to expect a rational justification would be to somewhat miss the point
of this funny little nation. Perhaps the real answer lies in something much
more complex than an earnest, logical explanation.
Mark
Easton, Home Editor for the BBC, in trying to explain the eccentricity of the British
love for the Monarchy, cites two seminal figures in the
long-running debate between republican and monarchist thinkers in Britain –
Thomas Paine and Walter Bagehot.
In January 1776, Thomas Paine
condemned the Monarchy for being “exceedingly ridiculous” in his pamphlet entitled “Common Sense” – a
manifesto for American independence and republicanism. He further added that
the absurdity and superstition that inspired the “prejudice of
Englishmen” for monarchy arose “as much or more from national pride
than reason.”
“We catch the Americans smiling at our
Queen with her secret mystery,” was the response a century later, from Walter Bagehot in his “English Constitution.” Bagehot did not deny
these accusations, but pointed out that the success of the Monarchy did not lie
in the laws of reason: “The mystic reverence, the religious
allegiance, which are essential to a true monarchy, are imaginative sentiments
that no legislature can manufacture in any people.”
He pointed out – against a back drop
of British colonial and empirical decline – that support for the Monarchy had
become a way of boosting the image of Britain, not only in the eyes of the world but for the British people -“People yield a deference
to what we may call the theatrical show of society,” he wrote. “The
climax of the play is the Queen.”
We
can see this in action in 1952, when plans were being made for the coronation
of the new Queen Elizabeth II. Britain was in the throes of post-war austerity. Despite this, the event
exuded the most unremitting display of magnificence and splendor, and still the ration-tired, financially-stricken
people of Britain eagerly embraced the celebrations.
The wedding of Kate and William, the Queen’s Diamond
Jubilee and the recent birth of the royal baby are no exceptions to this trend.
Whether it is the decline of the empire at the end of 19th century,
the post-war austerity measures combined with the homogenizing impact of
Americanization in the 1950s or our modern day concerns about globalization and
the financial crisis, the Monarchy remains a symbol of continuity and balance against
radical change. It also gives our little nation an excuse for pomp and ceremony, making us feel significant by giving us fantastic PR all over the world.
In his article “In defence of Kings and Queens: why
the monarch matters” Phillip Blond goes as far to suggest that the Monarchy is
the lynchpin that maintains democracy in Britain. “Monarchy helps to sustain the democratic
process by mixing a power other than democracy with democracy,” he writes.
He goes on to point out that throughout the world, constitutional
monarchies comprise some of the world’s most developed, wealthy, democratically
accountable and progressive states. Indeed, according to the UN, seven of the
top 10 countries in the world in terms of quality of life are constitutional
monarchies.
So, whether it is because of its political importance
or its romantic mysticism, the British Monarchy is – above all – unique. Damn
the cost and irrationality of it all; it’s not a question of how expensive the
Queen is, or a question of inequality. It’s a question of boosting the morale of a nation, which needs something to make it feel intrinsically special in an ever-changing world, and the British people know this instinctively.
Kyiv Post intern Isabel Douglas-Hamilton can be
reached at [email protected].
