Queen Elizabeth, for all of her popularity and dignity, is not immortal. And as Great Britain prepares to herald in the new era of King Charles III, we should not disparage this changing of the guard as inconsequential. The impact it will have on the psyche of the nation may well be profound. And considering its reverberations will be felt across the world, we should expect a few to cross the Irish Sea.
The monarchy is an interesting litmus test for our relationship with Britain in a broader sense. There can be a tendency to balk at the sheer strangeness of the institution, to speak about it with a sort of hard-won republican superiority, or to dismiss the whole thing as an irrelevance.
I am sure it is a satisfying time to be a British republican. Britain's past is under scrutiny
But it matters. Not because it has any technical bearing on our constitution or government, of course. But because it is inextricable from our history. And because understanding our neighbours is of critical importance when it comes to forging and maintaining a good relationship with them.
It has been a rocky few years for the family. The death of Prince Philip saw debate about the utility of such an archaic institution once again. After entering pitched battle with the UK press, Harry and Meghan have forgone their royal duties and moved to California to do terribly modern things like podcasts and Netflix TV shows. Prince Andrew has returned his titles and been left in abject disgrace.
In a bid to recoup some of the favour the family once curried long ago, Prince William and Kate went on a royal tour around the Caribbean via a time portal back to the 1930s. As they danced with locals and waved at subjects in full military regalia, the monarchy has never looked more at odds with the direction of travel of the rest of the world. And as Jamaica announced they would remove the queen as their head of state, the fate of the commonwealth has never seemed less certain.
Under scrutiny
I am sure it is a satisfying time to be a British republican. Britain’s past is under scrutiny; the Royal family is suffering a personnel crisis induced by Harry, Meghan, and the disgraced Andrew; the queen who is much of the glue that holds the entire legitimacy of the project together is gradually retiring from public life. As the cost of living crisis takes hold, it is not hard to see goodwill dwindle further.
And it is playing out in the figures too. In just 2019 almost half of 18-24 year olds were pro monarchy. But that support has toppled after a series of calamities – Andrew’s Newsnight interview for one, not even to speak of his general association with one of the world’s most high profile paedophiles.
The picture that emerges is a family out of touch, the personification of inequality, uninteresting, uninspiring, and at odds with everything a modern society ought to hold dear. Some of them – I can think of at least one – are a lot worse than that.
But nearly two-thirds of Britons still believe in the monarchy’s continued existence. It is a declining number but a comfortable majority nonetheless. And not all of those people can be brainwashed loons. We should be careful to remind ourselves of that.
Complicated relationship
Britain has a complicated relationship with the royal family. Most approach it with a passive acceptance, a blasé indifference. Images of flag wavers thronged outside Buckingham Palace distort the role it plays in the lives of most people: part of the architecture of Britain’s public realm, but a supporting cast member at the very most.
We have, for sometime now, made vocal demands for Britain to be more aware of Ireland, its history and its predilections. This is important not just for symbolic reasons but also because it has practical implications for managing a functioning relationship with our closest economic and political ally. We ought to extend some charity in the other direction.
And that charity need not be adopting a belief in the inherent goodness of monarchy, nor offering support for an institution that has no bearing on our government. We need express no fondness for the individuals involved either.
Rather that charity should come as an attempt to appreciate that a system unsuited to us may be perfectly suitable elsewhere, and a realisation that a few bad eggs do not necessarily make the whole endeavour – in its modern incarnation – an irredeemable one.
The monarchy is at a crossroads. Perhaps it is overdue a serious reckoning; there is certainly a strong case to be made
And it should all come with the acknowledgement that refusing to understand our neighbour is the first step to hating them.
We can be quick to other those who are similar to ourselves. Some might call that the narcissism of small differences. But for a nation that preaches – and practises – the openness it does when it comes to Ukrainian refugees, it can often possess a profound dearth of charity for those just next door.
The monarchy is at a crossroads. Perhaps it is overdue a serious reckoning; there is certainly a strong case to be made. But so long as nearly two-thirds of Britons believe in its sustained future, the very least we can do is try to understand why.