15th September 2022
The route to a republic currently starts at about London Bridge, follows the Thames and crosses Lambeth Bridge, before ending at Westminster Hall.
And if you tried today to follow that route, you would find it is blocked almost every inch of the way.
This is, of course, the line for people wanting to see the late Queen lying-in-state.
Not all the people in that queue are monarchists – their motives may be varied.
But the one thing the queue evidences is the deep hold the monarchy currently has on the attention and time of a significant group of the British people.
You may not like it, but it is there – and if you care for practical politics and realistic constitutional reform – it is something you are going to work with.
A non-trivial group of people are attached to the institution of the monarchy.
And because of this fact, it is not possible to see any clear pathway from here to a republic.
Even if something happens which means the throne becomes occupied by someone undesirable, history points to that occupant being ejected (as in 1688 and 1936) rather than the monarchy itself being threatened.
And if an heir to throne becomes unacceptable that too can be dealt with by regulating succession – and a good part of the constitutional law of the United Kingdom is to do with the regulation of succession.
Perhaps things could fundamentally change, and the monarchy discredits itself somehow.
Perhaps the monarchs themselves decide that they no longer want to have such a role.
Perhaps.
But, absent any such fundamental change, it is difficult to see why any politician or political party would ever want to campaign on the issue.
And, after our collective experience in or since 2016, it is highly unlikely any government would put the matter to a referendum.
So like the Jacobites who eventually came to terms with the Georges, republicans are – again – going to have reluctantly accept that the Crown is not going away.
Of course, there are big questions to be asked about the powers of the Crown.
And no sensible person can defend the hereditary principle on its own terms – though it has the happy indirect effect of keeping populists from being head of state.
As a non-militant republican I would prefer things to be different, but I suspect I would not join a long queue to campaign for it.
And if all the militant republicans did form a queue, also starting around London Bridge, it probably would not get much further than Traitor’s Gate.
***
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.
Though I think this is true and fair of England, and indeed the United Kingdom as a whole, I don’t think it’s true of the other nations individually.
Support for the Monarchy had already fallen under 50% in Scotland under Elizabeth earlier this year. The gradual reawakening of Welsh national identity has seen young people leaning their history on the social media young people use in response to the imposition of a new Prince of Wales. In Northern Ireland the shadow of a potential border poll looms larger every year. With its success would necessarily come the end of the Monarchy’s foothold in Ireland.
England may be decades away from grappling with the question of Republic, but I wouldn’t bet on it being nearly as long until that question starts being asked more widely in the other nations.
The Queen lying in state in Edinburgh and a King who likes wearing a kilt will not help the republican cause.
Even an independent Scotland is likely to still be a monarchy – even if is like Canada etc.
I don’t believe either is really relevant to the republican cause, and certainly less relevant than the relative popularity of Charles to his predecessor.
As the old guard of the SNP fall away so does the resistance to a republican lead independence movement. When (if) independence comes the future of the Monarchy will be pretty directly determined by the will of the people shaping the new Scotland.
Unless that happens in the next couple of years I see little likelihood those people will be Monarchists. Their supporters certainly won’t be.
Another very good post, many thanks.
The danger here is to assume the long lines of people willing to pay their respects is strongly correlated with the idea of monarchy. Correlation is not causation.
It may just be that those queuing up are paying respect to the individual, the late Queen, as opposed to the institution of the monarchy.
I would hazard a guess that the queue would be a lot shorter if we were talking about the institution as opposed to the late Queen.
“The danger here is to assume the long lines of people willing to pay their respects is strongly correlated with the idea of monarchy. Correlation is not causation.”
I carefully worded my post so not to make this assumption, so as to head-off this counterpoint.
“ But the one thing the queue evidences is the deep hold the monarchy currently has on the attention and time of a significant group of the British people”
I think Markus has it right, the deep hold is held by the Queen.
But surely the Crown is “going away” by being less and less relevant?
The madness of crowds will produce a sugar rush of support, but in the cold light of winter (very cold for many, but not the billionaire royals) reality will prevail.
I think this is right, but any serious discussion about the future of the monarchy is not going to happen right now.
When we do get back to some semblance of business as usual we might be able to think more clearly about the distinction between royalty and monarchy, which has tended to get flattened in debates about whither-the-Windsors.
Thank you. I fear you are right. Mostly I jog along with the monarchy status quo whilst enjoying the sense of freedom of republics like France and Ireland. But what irks me is the fact of a monarchy creates an aristocracy which assumes the role of leadership across the country, suppressing the rise of able people. We will never achieve a meritocracy under this suffocating blanket. And yet the people continue to doff the cap to them. Maybe I’ll have to leave
I suspect that the proportion of the population who think we’d be better off as a republic is markedly greater than the proportion who are willing to go through the disruption and confrontation required to make it happen. And that the gap between the two will always be there.
The great, permanent advantage that the monarchy have is their relative powerlessness. They simply don’t cause enough difficulty in enough people’s lives to drive their overthrow; this was true when other European nations were getting rid of their authoritarian monarchs between the late eighteenth and early twentieth centuries, and it’s even more true today.
And even if there was to be a national outpouring of anger at the finances of the monarchy, or the interference with legislation, these could be dealt with neatly and undisruptively through Parliament (or through a voluntary preventative action by the palace, as with the agreement to pay tax in the 90s).
I would like to see a republic. But I don’t have any expectation that I will see one, at least not in England (a post-independence Scotland or Wales might be different, regardless of Salmond’s commitment eight years back).
Radical change doesn’t happen without overwhelming motivations. And there is little motivation for the English to radically change something that, the occasional death aside, happens in the background.
I agree with Tristan. Appointing William PoW without consulting Mark Drakeford was foolish.
NI will slowly move away and Scotland will vote for independence. They may hold on to the monarchy for a bit if allowed.
Slowly it will break down and I suggest William will be the last King of Great Britain and Norther Island.
Polls consistently show the majority in Wales support the traditional appointment of the heir apparent as Prince of Wales. It’s a Royal title traditionally conferred on the heir apparent. It has ceremonial relevance to the UK but no constitutional relevance to Welsh government. I’m a non-militant republican but I don’t see why Drakeford should have a say in the appointment or even need to be consulted. I certainly don’t see it as an error by the Palace. It’s a meaningless title.
One possibility, of course, would be for William or one of his children to pre-emptively make the move.
I think it is already past time where we might have seen that of Charles, but I do wonder if that lower-profile life might be somewhat more appealing to William. We already know that it would have been preferable to Harry, had the choice been afforded him.
Several of our European neighbours, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Holland, have royal families that have transformed themselves from over figureheads to discrete ambassadors – yet for all the change, remain sincerely loved by their respective peoples.
No decent human being who witnessed the way that Princess Diana, or Harry and Meghan for that matter, have been treated by the press, then turn around and begrudge them a quieter life of patronage.
I don’t for one moment think that such a change would be universally popular, but I rather doubt that it would be rejected.
I wonder whether the monarchy might very, very gradually be stripped of certain functions- until one day there’s nothing left.
All very quiet and civilised, of course – maybe the Privy Council having an ‘enhanced’ role.
I can’t imagine how you’d do it – but I bet a sneaky republican could.
This is already happening.
To offer you just two examples… firstly in 1992, the Queen “volunteered” to pay income tax and capital gains tax. If you recall, this was the early 1990s and the nation was going through the property crash – belts were tight and the government was short on revenue.
The second and more recent has been the ongoing contraction of the “Civil List” – the members of the royal family who received disbursements from the government. This was abolished in 2012.
I’m almost certain that there are other, less visible examples.
The Civil List was abolished in 2012 and replaced by the Sovereign Grant. Different name, more streamlined but the same effect. The tax payer pays for the Royal Family doing its public duty.
If we ever do become a republic, it matters a lot which sort. My hope is that, however the head of the executive branch is elected, selected, or… arrived at, they remain firmly subordinate to the House of Commons.
The route to a republic, or Rexit as it might now be called, is deservedly very difficult. To contrast what we have with a republic is to greatly over simplify – just as happened with Brexit. Any choice must be between the very specific thing we currently have and an equally specific alternative. Never again should we hold a vote to choose between a curent specific situation and a vaguely imagined alternative that encompasses many mutually exclusive alternatives.
First, a referendum on the principle of replacing the hereditary monarchy with an elected head of state, and by implication the establishment of something that may very probably called a republic; this to be passable by a simple majority of one vote.
Secondly, a year or so of Citizens’ Assemblies, organised exclusively by oficials from another country where they have been deployed with spectacular success, and with no input from the British Government.
Thirdly, appointment of a Committee of academics charged with drafting a skeleton constitution which offers several viable alternative provisions under each head. Copy to be sent to every household.
Fourthly, period of contemplation, debate in the informal fora and media.
Fifthly, period of public consultation, in which individuals and organisations may formally submit comments to the committee of academics.
Sixthly, referendum on a final draft constitution, binding, not merely advisory, to be passed by a majority of votes cast by those normally entitled to vote in a general election; that majority being not less than [??]%. The bracketed figure to be the subject of a separate discussion.
(Sorry not to have reached “Ninthly”, but I’m reliably informed that you stand a good chance of overhearing that if you take a stroll along the banks of the Cherwell.)
Sixthly,
The problem is that if the first passes, we get President for life Farage as it’s the Will of the People.
There is no way a democracy would replace a hereditary head of state for life with an elected head of state for life. Not even in post Brexit Britain.
If our system is working well, the Crown can (with the help of a substantial group of advisors) help to run the state steadily and the Civil Service can provide the operation of it whilst all of these people are subject to the political (policy) control of Parliament. All this infrastructure is, as you point out, subject to the ‘good chaps’ hypothesis, but it turns out can operate effectively if it needs to. (Note the appearance of a retired and senior FO official at a crucial point in the fall of our last PM). This system is not overtly democratic, but it is not clear either that its operation runs counter to the consensus over the medium to long term. Politicians, especially those that, like the current cabinet, are not now or never were creatures of the consensus, can act to divert or even destabilise the state, but there are strong controlling feedbacks and explicit loyalties to the Crown rather than the Government, which may kick in in a crisis.
So, for now, I think we have had demonstrations over the last few years of how ‘democracy’ can be bent out of shape. The Crown can do little about these forces as they come and go, but can help to keep the ship of state (there, I succumbed to that) afloat with chaos on the bridge.
By the way, talking of chaos, what has happened to the famous PM’s resignation honours list? Is this rumoured final undemocratic gesture from the previous PM going to appear, or can this transition somehow snooker it?
Vive la République de DAGestan .;-) I’d move their at the drop of a hat.
There!!!
For as long as I can remember, I’m in my 70s, I have loathed the royals. I just couldn’t accept these people, just ordinary people with no special attributes, should lead a life of obscene and flagrant oppulence. As I grew older and understood the country and world better, I came to the conclusion, that for as long as the monarchy remains, there could never be the liberty, equality, fraternity espoused by the French Republic.
Poverty will always be with us as a necessity, the direct opposite of the enormous wealth of such a few.
I am not naive, I know how the drive for 3% compound growth works.
I also know that the honours system from King, Duke, Earl, Lord, Sir, lady, obe, mbe etc works stinks.
A move to Republicism free of the Church will inevitably throw up rouges of all stripes, but these will not last a lifetime.
The rise of a Republic will happen, but not in my lifetime.
A first step would have to be the return of the media to domiciled, tax paying owners and away from the hysterical ravings that have persisted since Mr Murdoch became the owner of such swathes of the media.
Thank you for your views, they give me and many others a base line of sanity to hitch to.
I do remember being part of a far larger group of people marching peacefully through London to try and highlight the various pitfalls of Brexit whilst irritating those who supported the misadventure. Since then the rules regarding protest have been tightened and, whilst those swarming to support the status quo will undoubtedly be encouraged, I am dubious that we will be permitted to march in similar numbers against anything contentious for many years to come, let alone abolition of the monarchy.
I was there too, twice. Rexit would not get the numbers.
Unless there is something to march for, an alternative system that is readily understood, the republican option is essentially an anti-monarchy cause. It has many good arguments but, as Brexit demonstrated, being against, is not enough.
Take back control of our estates, and taxation, might just work.
I think you’re right to point out that not everyone in the queue is a monarchist as such. And I think that’s actually part of the problem for republicans. It’s not just that most monarchists seem to care about the issue much more than most republicans do, although that does seem to be the case. The actual individuals are popular with people who think that, in principle, power should not be hereditary.
I’m a republican, in that I think an elected head of state is a better idea than a hereditary one. And yet yesterday, rather to my surprise, I found myself popping into my local library to sign a book of condolence for someone I’ve never met. I wonder how many people like me are in the queue, or planning to line the streets when the procession goes past. And therefore I wonder what proportion of people who call themselves republicans would actually campaign for one if there was to be a referendum.
We’ve changed dynasty many times in the past 1000 years. There’s no reason why we couldn’t do so again. The Royal Family are, I believe, acutely aware that they rule by popular consent. (Something similar used to be said of the Police, who seem to have forgotten it.) The threat of a change in dynasty, however remote it may seem, thus keeps them honest. Long live the King!
Thank you.
Excusing my ignorance but does the Windsor family pay a voluntary version of inheritance tax, or any tax on the transfer of Charles Windsor’s estates in the South West?
As they say (or more often, said) in Spain “Yo no soy monárquico, soy juancarlista”
Does it matter Mr Green? Yes the hereditary principle is obvious nonsense. There was a Queen Elizabeth but there so easily could have been a Queen Margaret. There is a King Charles but there could have been a King Andrew. And so on.
It is difficult to see how Queen Elizabeth could have fulfilled her role better, and in her death in Balmoral she did about the utmost she could have done to maintain the Union. God bless her for that. But the Royal Family are bit-part players, a lazy distraction from the primary plot, easy column-inch fillers to cover the gap in doing what the media should be doing in holding the politicians to account. Power lies with the polticians and the media. At some stage the monarchy will self-destruct, such is the genetic role of the dice in character and ability but here’s hoping that King Charles will, like his mother, be a small voice of calm and sanity in the cacophany of idiocy brought to us by the last 12 years of Tory incompetence and malignant misrule, aided and abetted by the wholly self-righteous but wholly wrong Labour left.
Hinting that the UK could become a Republic when it consists of four countries is assuming and/or ignoring quite a lot.
Having been born in England but brought up in two of the united countries and spent time in a third I choose my words above carefully.
Personally, I hope not. The concept of a republic personally does not fill me with wonder. It’s brutalist architecture in a constitution.
Whatever political system is designed ab initio by humans, some other humans will come along to find its weaknesses and exploit or subvert it. Republics come in all shapes and sizes, and prove that just labelling something as a republic does not guarantee that the ne’er-do-wells are kept out of power. A certain large and proud republic over the pond is demonstrating that rather well.
So what to do? How about training up a random group of folk to hold the powers than nobody wants to fall into the hands of political parties? And we could train them up from an early age – a selection process that avoids all the usual pitfalls of believing someone’s CV. And we could manage the group such that the potentially unreliable ones are weeded out (like your comments about managing the royal succession).
Oh, hang on a bit, that’s what we have now, isn’t it? And it has the benefit of the incumbents being trained as super-ambassadors, and as people who can relate to and want to meet ordinary people, and we get a bit of income from tourists from everywhere else in the world coming to see them.
But what about the honours system? Well, a gradual reduction would be good, a bit at a time to make sure the overall balance isn’t disturbed … oh, yes, that’s been happening over time as well too.
Amazing what muddling along for 900 years or so can do!
I think you are probably right. And there really are more important things to worry about. Like the PM using the powers of the Crown to govern without parliament.
However, these things ebb and flow. 25 years ago, the monarchy was deeply unpopular because of its pre- and post-mortem treatment of Diana, ex Princess.
I will remain a republican, and will not attend events commemorating the monarchy, and I will continue to be amazed by my fellow citizens who get dazzled by the institution of monarchy. But like King Knut, I know that the waves will continue to hit the beach, and there is no point in commanding them to stop.
Disappointing situation
Yesterday, out of idol curiosity having not watched or listened to any live broadcast since Brenda’s death was announced, I turned Jezza Vine’s Lunchtime radio 2 programme on as I was eating my lunch in the car. He had a well spoken woman on the line who was relaying her experience of queuing up for and then arriving at the box contained our deceased former head of state.
What she said could perhaps be described as a Freudian slip: –
“….Each person had their own individual piece of time in front of the camera…er..in front of the….the Coffin”
Talking of Freudian slips: idol curiosity?
(Or am I ruining the joke?)
Well you know what they say, never meet your idles, even if they’re dead and especially when you’re being filmed.
Changing the names of the Houses of Parliament would do no harm.
Agree, but best to avoid “Congress” and “Senate”!
It is an irony that it seems to be the unelected House of Lords, the Supreme Court and, ultimately, the Monarchy, that by their existence protect the people from the tyranny of a populist dictatorship,
Referenda, particularly when advisory and subsequently taken as binding, are a means for bypassing that protection, as we have seen.
With the passing of the late Queen, I think there is a fair chance that several of the other 14 Commonwealth realms will decide (or at least consider, and perhaps vote on) replacing the shared sovereign with a different head of state, selected, or elected in a non-hereditary manner.
Despite his evinced intention to follow attentively in her footsteps, we will soon see (if it is not already obvious) that Charles is not Elizabeth. He will struggle to emulate what I have seen described as her distinctive form of “marshmallow” diplomacy – soft, sweet, and apolitical.
Barbados became a republic last year, and it is already on the agenda in places like Antigua, Grenada, and Jamaica. The process may take longer in Australia (which voted 55:45 to keep the monarchy in 1999), or in Canada and New Zealand, and even longer in the UK, but I would not rule it out.
The monarchy has gone through periods of deep unpopularity and may well do so again. Before 1936 and 1688 came 1649. Edward VIII abdicated, and James II fled, but Charles I was deposed in a rather more involuntary, permanent, and irreversible fashion.
I agree with DAG’s sentiments. A lot of the people in the queue being interviewed, because there’s little else for BBC1 to show in between ceremonies, talk about a once in a lifetime opportunity and it being a historic moment. Which it is for monarchist and republican (I’m of the non-militant variety too) alike. Less so a once in a lifetime opportunity as Charles is 47 years older than his mother was when she took over the reins to reign. So there’s every chance of another such occasion in the next couple of decades.
Elizabeth II has done an excellent job as Head of State and would have won any election to the position on her record. Her death puts hope of a republic further away as it reinforces support for the monarchy. Should Charles III turn out to be a less popular Sovereign then things might change quite quickly.
One thing I hope HMK does manage to do is convey his distaste of the Rwanda asylum policy to PM Truss at every opportunity. It seems to me its main purpose is as a wedge policy. The Tories know it won’t stop people arriving by boat but they’ve offered it as red meat to their base who will believe it will.
Best of luck in doing this, Carolus III Rex. Or is it C.Rex now?
“And no sensible person can defend the hereditary principle on its own terms – though it has the happy indirect effect of keeping populists from being head of state.”
I am in favour of a sensible republic but fear a populist becoming head of state. I was a Queen-Elizabeth-ist more than a monarchist but do have some respect for King Charles, although I would much sooner he were in a position to be more interfering and more vocal about Rwanda (as said by Kevin Hall) and the environment etc.
The prospect of a lord of misrule such as Johnson being elected as Head of State is a powerful argument for the hereditary system.
This argument is always wheeled out against the idea of a Republic, usually in the form “do we want President Blair?” The President in a Republic does not have to be an all powerful executive as in the USA. Our system is much more suited to a non-executive President as ceremonial head of state. Johnson wouldn’t be interested in being a non-executive President. No real power but actually having to do some work. No way to enrich himself. Even if he was, he couldn’t do any real harm.