2nd June 2022
When I was young I had a book about Kings And Queens which influenced me more than I realised at the time.
I still have the book, and it is in front of me as I type this post.
I can see it was published in 1980 by “The Leisure Circle”, which I think was a mail order book club to which my Nan and Grandad belonged.
The author was David Piper, who Wikipedia tells me was a museum curator and former director of the National Gallery.
And this makes sense, for although the history in the book was thin, the portraits and other art are wonderful.
Two images of the Queen stand out.
The first is this by Sir James Gunn from 1950, before she was Queen:
The second is once very popular portrait from 1955 by Pietro Annigoni, three years into her reign:
I keep this book to hand over forty years later as it reminds me that there is something about monarchy – and especially its visual rhetoric and cultural significance – that can and will never be captured by constitutional lawyers and political theorists.
This aid-to-memory, however, is not just because of the magnificent artwork collected in the book, but because of a particular picture which Piper placed in his introduction that has had more influence on my understanding of monarchy than any treatise or case report.
The picture is this from 1840, and it is by the novelist William Makepeace Thackeray:
I have blogged about this illustration before.
There I averred:
“Strip away the paraphernalia of dominance – not just the garments but also the symbolism and the rhetoric and the concepts – and you just ultimately have people.
“A great deal of what we posit as politics and law – almost all of it – exists only in the mind.”
And this is true.
But.
You are a poor commentator on law and policy if you regard the paraphernalia as having no value.
*
Of course, many sensible people would prefer a republic to a monarchy, and would prefer an elected head of state to a hereditary one.
These sensible people will often justify their preferences by reference to first principles of democracy and legitimacy.
And I too am a republican, though not a militant one.
But there are aspects of law and policy, and of constitutions and political identity, that do not lend themselves to rational understanding.
The celebrations for the platinum jubilee over the current long bank holiday weekend will either irk or dismay many who have strong interests in law and policy and constitutional reform.
Yet those celebrating our part of our polity too – and any attempt to reconfigure the polity without regard to the sentiments of royalists will be a botched exercise in constitutional reform.
As the greatest of all English writers on the constitution, Walter Bagehot, averred, some parts of the constitution are efficient, and others are not.
Bagehot quaintly called the non-efficient elements “dignified” – and, yes, views will differ as to whether that is still the right word, given the antics and worse from members of the wider royal family.
But the job for those who want a republic is to come up with something new that has similar cultural purchase on the governed as the monarchy appears to have on many of the governed now.
Otherwise any new republic may not last long enough to celebrate its own platinum jubilee.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.
“Of course, many sensible people would prefer a republic to a monarchy, and would prefer an elected head of state to a hereditary one…”
Your use of the word “sensible” is er, interesting.
Could you share with us what criteria you used to determine that only “sensible” people would prefer a republic?
I’ve no dog in this race nor any (real or otherwise) evidence that many people would prefer a republic to what we’ve got which is a constitutional monarchy.
Plus, I too wonder after nearly 1000 years ( give or take) why the monarchy has survived? Maybe an alternative is not that pressing and inertia has set in?
Happy jubilee to all.
Where has the word “only” come from? DAG simply doesn’t say only sensible people. He says many sensible people, which allows for few or many foolish or deranged ones too. And he certainly doesn’t say that all sensible people would prefer an elected head of state, or that no sensible people prefer the current arrangement. He clearly expresses a view, which I share, but he doesn’t make the claim implied by John Jones, I think.
The use of the term is typically Johnsonian
Of course your interpretation is correct but it is intended to give the impression of something different which it clearly has.
David doesn’t say that “only” sensible people would prefer a republic (or that sensible people would only prefer one). He simply says that that many of the people who prefer a republic are sensible. I am sure that he would agree that there are fools on both sides of the argument.
I read that a couple of times. Was it saying that to be sensible one has to be republican, or that one can be sensible and republican?
I decided that the word “many” pointed to the latter. “Many” is not “only”.
The monarchy hasn’t “survived”. The English monarchy survived, via being abolished in 1649. utterly changed in 1689, taking over Scotland and Ireland and then a set of colonies some of whom retain it.
To see it as some static thing is wrong.
In your comment you miss two dates which add to your argument, 1603, when the Scottish monarch became the King of England and 1715 when the UK imported a German onto the throne.
The advantage of a monarchy, as embodied by our apolitical, gracious Queen, is its ideal of service to the people. It results in being almost the only common bond between all manner of folk from every section of society.
The disadvantage of a republic, as embodied by almost every politically active elected Head of State one can think of, is the self-serving nature of the role. It results in divisions between people of different political tribes.
And what pray would you do if the person with the Crown turned out to be self-serving? Bit stuffed then, aren’t we?
See Spain for an example of what might be the downside of a self-serving monarch. Or even more egregiously, Thailand.
Maximising for efficiency can create fragility. Perhaps the parts of the British constitution that are not “efficient” give it resilience, adding some backbone to its famous flexibility?
Happy Jubilee, everyone.
A democratic monarchy (constitutional is too broad) denies glamour (better than dignity) to elected politicians. Yes, such a monarch must follow the advice of her or his ministers but…
Take the case of her great uncle by marriage, Haakon VII of Norway. During Hitler’s invasion, the cabinet was undecided between a Denmark type agreement or fight. Haakon simply said if advised to surrender, he would immediately abdicate for himself and his house. That turned the tide and they went on to fight after first fleeing the Luftwaffe’s bombs. A ceremonial president would have not had the gravitas to pull that off.
But so what? Haakon could equally have made the opposite decision, and turned the country on a different course. History abounds with examples of monarchs making decisions that were either personally or nationally ruinous. All you’re really saying is that sometimes a monarch can influence the course of events, but there is no reason to assume that this influence will always, or generally, be for the better. The only thing we can say about monarchical influence is that it is generally resistant to democratic accountability and that is not, on the whole, a desirable characteristic.
‘A ceremonial president would have not had the gravitas to pull that off.’
Zelensky?
It seems to me that there’s no dividing line at all between your non-militant republican and the pragmatic royalist, as I’ve often described myself. If Brexit teaches us anything, it has to be the importance of having the details of the replacement arrangements well hammered out in advance rather than allowing proceedings to once more slide down the slippery slopes of vainglorious exceptionalism.
This is an important thought. Whilst it is easy to say the monarchy has had its day, I do not like the way it enables the class system in this country but what do we replace it/them with. BTW we do the pageantry very well indeed it is a USP for the country.
What some find difficult is the ostentatious show of wealth and obsequiousness which attend the Monarch, her family and their hangers on. It is almost as if they inhabited a parallel universe as of right. If there has to be a constitutional monarch let’s have one that ditches that. The Danes did something similar in the 19th Century.
Monarchy is merely symbolic of the layers of class embedded within English Society. The fact that it has conned so many of the poor into believing that they are an essential part of something worthy is risible. And to those who extol her apolitical fiction, one aunt’s they took a few weeks of the island on 2014 where she made sure she defend her privileged position.
The angst of many a republican (sensible or otherwise), concerning what might replace the monarchy, both misses the point of the debate and allows monarchists a free pass.
In a modern, plural society no system would suit all parties at all times. The pursuit of the perfect is usually at the expense of the good.
Endless debating the flaws of the various notional alternatives to the monarchy crowd out the important question: Do we wish to continue being subjects.
Put another way: If we didn’t have a monarchy, would we invent it? I doubt it.
Wise, if a little dispiriting
I too have pondered getting rid of the monarchy. But the snag is what to replace it with. We would need someone who can meet heads of other nations in nice surroundings, decent tableware and food/wine. Someone who knows how to hold a knife and fork and make polite conversation to err not so nice nor interesting people.
Perhaps we could build some ghastly glass and steel edifice for a British Head of State role held by someone or other – Mr Blair perhaps or Mr Corbyn or Mr Cameron or Mrs May. Someone known but harmless. A nice big table with chairs from Ikea and plonk from Waitrose and sarnies from M&S. No whining about where the mahogany came from. The squabbling over who gets the job and who sits where would be very unseemly. A lot of expense for something missing a certain je ne sais quoi.
So in the end I sigh and settle for some sort of royalty. TBH I think her maj fills the role in a unique and charming way. But the thought of Charles & Camilla and the rest of them does not fill me with joy. Indeed I feel that most of them should be given a bin liner to clear their desks and grace & favours, leave and collect a paraffin stove and the key to a council flat on the way out. Leaving only a minimal handful to polish the silver and keep moths out the dressing up boxes.
A pleasant thought and saves money but lacks a certain critical mass for credibility. Perhaps out of work luvvies could help out on state occasions. Anyway I think we should wind it down and it will wither away naturally. Less messy than the French solution.
Lurv it – very elegant & oh, so diplomatic. 😚
The French haven’t made a bad job of it, all things considered.
The Annigoni portrait is very interesting (imho). Painted for the Fishmongers’ Company and can still be seen in their hall if you’re lucky enough to get inside. It’s smaller than you might think and although it’s a while since I’ve seen it, not hung or lit to it’s best advantage. However, it does have an unquestionable ‘something’ about it and it was rightly viewed as a masterpiece pretty much from its unveiling. I believe he was hailed as a new Holbein but I don’t think anything else he did matches it – certainly not the portraits of The Queen and Princess Margaret which are in the National Portrait Gallery. What makes it a masterpiece? Mainly The Queen’s expression, which does have the psychological depth of a great Holbein but also the Garter Robes which are both grand and weighty whilst the background landscape seems slightly weary. Perhaps this all taps into the feeling of a country still emerging from war – hopeful of the future but with underlying uncertainty? Anyway, in the way it tapped into the public consciousness that made it very popular very quickly it undoubtedly illustrates your point very well.
I have dwelled upon that portrait many times, and been given an interesting description of the circumstances of its painting. For my part I think Annigoni found her rather coquettish and dared to portray that, which is why it’s such a masterpiece.
What is the function of an actual, flesh and blood, monarch? Most things associated with the monarch seem to be done by the abstract entity of “the Crown”. The monarch just slots in as someone to wave and be interested in things, do the stuff that an abstract entity can’t manage. I see no reason why this person should be someone foisted on us by chance of birth. The present incumbent happens to be quite a good one, but who knows what the luck of the draw will bring us in future (if we leap to William we’ll have a king who’s a Villa fan FFS!)
So, elect someone to be that person. Seven year term, no second term. They get to live in Windsor, Balmoral and Buckingham Palace. They are called “King” or “Queen” as appropriate and get crowned (cut down ceremony, as we’ll be doing it every 7 not 70+ years). They have all the staff, helicopters, royal trains etc. Basically they’ll be what we have now but elected and time limited.
Seems like a compromise to me: the royalists get to have their King or Queen, the republicans don’t have someone reigning who’s only there due to their descent from the more efficient thug.
Which thug, Bezonian? Speak or die!
George I?
William of Orange?
Jamie the Saxt?
Henry Tudwr the Elder?
Generations of warring dukes, going back to the one from Normandy?
Such a wealth of choice!
I have not done, and have not seen, an international comparison of the many republics on this planet but a question occurs to me.
Presidents usually have formal powers (mostly deriving from a constitutional document) and they exercise those powers. That is not the case with our constitutional monarch.
Would we actually prefer such a President instead of the Crown as it is with just its right to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn – (per Bagehot).
I would prefer the system we have. It has served use well overall.
ObiterJ asked (rhetorically)
> the Crown as it is with just its right to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn – (per Bagehot).
I do wonder if there is a hidden message in the video of the Queen taking tea with an illegal immigrant / asylum seeker.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-61692278
[ Palace / Paddington video ]
Richard Cromwell lasted two years after Oliver.
Napoleon failed to create a lasting dynasty too. His son lasted a few days. Napoleon 111 did better but ended his days in England.
Castro and Franco provide interesting examples too as to what can follow. Dare it even be mentioned who or what follows Putin?
Henry VI1 was a strong leader and did create a dynasty although his son had a somewhat chequered and divisive history.
The Americans have been independent of the British monarchy and Republican for generations yet there have been attempts to start dynasties there. Born a Kennedy Bush or Clinton put you in the political limelight regardless of fundamental merit.
As for Trump senior and Trump junior , think Henry VI1 and Henry V111. There are remarkable similarities in history. Think Arthur and Fred and second sons.
One of the daftest things about Brits is that in their oath of allegiance they pledge blind loyalty to their Monarch and his or her heirs and assigns regardless of the ability and physical and mental health of the chosen ones.
Pageants and traditions help maintain the status quo but this is limited in both Republics and Monarchies because things change from generation to generation.
I offer a couple of suggestions, generally not particularly about this article, which I feel would enhance the experience (!) for readers…
(Aside: I started writing ‘May I offer…’ then realised if I just go ahead and write the suggestions now that that would save a wait but at the cost of being presumptious. Sorry.)
1. Add a search widget when viewing your site on a mobile; and,
2. Add a category of ‘monarchy’ for articles which are about that.
Thank you for these wonderful articles that bring your insight and experience to the masses/throngs/pornbots (delete as appropriate).
Best wishes,
~Andrew~
Ps. Trying to find an article that I think you wrote a while back about the monarchy being able to negotiate with the government regarding proposed legislation that affect the Crown.
Andrew R-H suggested
>1. Add a search widget …….
> Ps. Trying to find an article ….. about the monarchy
No need to trouble DAG. The site is open access and is crawled by the search engines. Searching for, e.g,
crown government legislation site:davidallengreen.com
will turn up likely candidates. The restrictor
site:
is useful so long as you can remember where you saw something. Although I have wasted time before now searching in the wrong place.