Her Majesty the Queen has let it be known that, as one headline put it “One is on one's uppers”. Apparently the Queen cannot afford to get the decorators into Buckingham Palace without more government money.
In which case, might one make a modest proposal? Parliament should vote to abolish the monarchy, declare the United Kingdom “an independent, indivisible, sovereign, secular and inclusive democratic republic nation”, then give the Royal Family a fortnight to quit the palace and turn it into a museum.
That, after all, is what the Nepalese parliament voted to do with its monarchy problem a month ago (by a majority of 560, with only four votes against). Or is Nepal now too modern and progressive a society for us to emulate?
Publication of the Royal Household's financial report and the Prince of Wales's creative accounts has refuelled debate about the cost of the monarchy when millions are feeling the pinch. The palace's financial advisers say the Royal Family costs only £40 million a year - 66p per person in Britain or “less than the price of a download for an MP3 player”. The MP3 monarchy - who says one is not with it?
However, the campaign group Republic estimates the real cost of the royals at more like £150 million. In response to claims that the royals earn Britain millions of pounds in tourism, Republic notes that only one royal residence, Windsor Castle, features in the UK's top 20 tourist attractions - at number 17, while Windsor Legoland is at number 7: “Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family.”
But there is far more at stake than a few million quid. Even if it could be proved that the entire institution of monarchy cost a total of 66p, some of us would still think that too high a price for a 21st-century democracy to be headed by a hereditary leftover of the Middle Ages.
The monarchy has long provided a ceremonial front for a political system in which power is concentrated at the top of the State in the name of the Crown. The Crown prerogative invests the residual powers of the monarch in the executive- Her Majesty's Government. Prerogative powers give the Government the right to wage war or conclude treaties without consulting Parliament or the public. The Crown prerogative has also given governments a free hand over dissolving Parliament and calling general elections, running the Civil Service and over appointments of ministers, peers, judges and Church of England bishops.
It is the constitutional status of the Crown that enables the Prime Minister to act as an absolute monarch. In his first important statement as Prime Minister last July, Gordon Brown promised sweeping reforms to the Crown prerogative that would allow greater parliamentary scrutiny. This was hailed in that bright dawn as a constitutional “revolution”, but Mr Brown's record since then hardly inspires confidence that his Government will boldly go where no monarchist has gone before.
In any case, the one outdated institution that he has no intention of changing is the monarchy itself. It might have been clear from the moment he enjoyed such a long, warm first meeting with the Queen - when she “invited” him to become “her” Prime Minister - that the Brown revolution was stillborn.
Bending the knee to the monarchy is often symptomatic of spine problems in a politician. Mr Brown seems as much of a royal toady as other supposedly radical Labour leaders. Indeed, with the monarchy now seen as one institution still commanding public respect, new Labour appears keen to teach our children greater subservience by making them swear an oath of allegiance to Queen and country.
The question of monarchy raises wider issues than the Crown prerogative. It goes to the heart of the sort of society in which we want to live. It is not about the personal lifestyles of the royals. It is about the rest of us. Do we want to see ourselves the legal subjects of a medieval crown? Or as free citizens of a modern nation? Whatever one thinks of the Windsors, the monarchy is a truly absurd anachronism. Queens and princes are for children in a fairytale world. Republics and freely elected heads of state are for adults. Even if we don't like a UK president, we could probably get rid without the need to execute anybody. It's time to grow up.
So come on Gordon, why not go out in a blaze of glory? Follow the Nepalese way, try to pass that resolution (though there may be more than four votes against) and give the royals a fortnight's notice to quit the palace. Despite the credit crunch and all her reported money problems, one suspects our former queen could still manage a decent deposit for a mortgage.
1 comment:
No republican presidents would pay for any repair work of his residences. Multi-millionaire George Bush wouldn't invest a cent in the White House. After all, the buildings would still be there should the British be foolish enough to replace the Monarch with a party man. The German president has a couple of residences, but the cost to maintain them aren't listed in the president's budget. The buildings are managed by the finance minister. So, when republicans say the German republic is a "low cost" affair, they are telling only half truths.
Post a Comment