Thursday 2 June 2022

The Complacency of Tory Royalism

"Republicans don't understand why the Queen is so popular!" so wrote Conservative Home regular, Andrew Gimson, this morning. As someone who spends more time than is healthy pondering the Tory mindset, I'm always interested in how they perceive their opponents. In this case, Britain's growing republican movement.

Gimson begins his piece gushing over the Queen (it is a Tory website, after all) and congratulating the millions who'll be joining the Jubilee celebrations over this weekend. He goes on to say:
And the republicans will not understand what is going on. They draw the wrong conclusion from this spectacle of a monarch triumphant and beloved, which they suppose means that British voters are somehow less free than those who live in a republic such as France, Germany or the United States.
A peculiar criticism because it depends on which republicans you ask. They come in as broad a range of flavours as the monarchists do. But whether they're a communist, on Labour's soft left, or are firmly centrist with the commitment to market economics to match, all would agree that freedom in Britain, since the war, has always been comparable to European republics (and constitutional monarchies) and the United States despite the monarchy, not because of it. Indeed, for the first 27 years of the Queen's reign, British society became more equal, not less. It's almost as if, save formal duties and rarely used constitutional reserve powers, the monarchy does not play a commanding role in the state. While these powers should not exist, their existence doesn't mean liberal democracy in this country is qualitatively different to any other. Gimson's argument here is a red herring, and one plucked out of the air.

He goes on to talk about Clement Attlee, who explained why Britain hadn't fallen under the sway of authoritarian politicians to the monarchy's existence. It soaks up the fervour that might feed a Hitler or a Mussolini, you see (it's rude to note Italy was a constitutional monarchy during the days of Il Duce). Attlee died in 1967 and didn't see what came after, but since 1979 the tendency to equality that began with his government has been whittled away by successive Prime Ministers of both parties and who were never above deploying state thuggery to achieve their political aims. They have practically dissolved the compact established by Attlee, and have continuously gnawed at the rule of law. Inequality has ballooned, millions are now dependent on hand outs from their local food banks, and the Queen and the monarchy have not prevented any of this from happening. Not that they could if they were so minded, but the point remains. Because politicians haven't goose stepped into Downing Street doesn't mean a very British extremism isn't the settled political common sense. Only the comfortable and the wilfully ignorant can pretend otherwise.

Anyway, returning to Gimson's piece he argues there's little difference between constitutional monarchies and republics. Which most republicans would accept. But, again, what we apparently don't understand is that the Queen is "above politics". Which automatically makes her more virtuous than any politician in the eyes of the public. There's no egotistical quest for power there. He's right. YouGov has it that 82% of adults think the Queen has done a good job, and many more prefer a monarch to an elected head of state. None of this is news to republicans seeing how it's a minority pursuit. There would be nothing easier than going with the monarchist flow, as politicians of all parties prefer to do.

Can republicans understand this? Of course they can for precisely the reasons Gimson and other royalists set out. For some, particularly the comfortable but fundamentally insecure, symbols of continuity and stability are important in a world they're increasingly ill-at-ease in. For many millions the monarchy is an imaginary presence that has provided a reassuring backdrop to their lives. And yes, all the nonsense about duty and commitment secretes support for the Queen. She's an antidote to the fly-by-night no-one-sticks-with-anything common sense the socially conservative rail against. The Queen is a blank, and monarchists impose on her the qualities they believe they themselves uphold. It's her social distance that allows Elizabeth II to appear real and human to them. And this serves a wider constitutional purpose. Her party political neutrality is the formal guarantor of the neutrality of the state, and exercises a powerful pull on the imaginations of Labourists and reforming technocrats alike. To reverse Marx's famous dictum, one can lay hold of the ready-made state machinery: the Queen is proof of that.

Rather than carry on his polemic, Gimson breaks off there. His points boil down to republicans think the monarchy are tyrants (they don't), and the Queen is popular, so republicanism is wrong. Hardly rhetorical slam dunks against the republican case, but he felt satisfied enough to pad out the rest of the article with the boilerplate potted biography readers of Con Home must be bored to tears with by now. Republican sympathisers are thin on the ground at that particular outlet and so one half-arsed piece would pass unnoticed among the site's standard fare of the unintentionally informative and the proudly ignorant. But it also demonstrates a complacency among the Conservatives and their supporters. Because parliamentary might equals right, they don't have to explain their actions and prefer making up justifications for indefensible actions. And this is when they're behind in the polls and look set to lose two crucial by-elections. The support for the monarchy and the esteem the Queen is held in are stratospheres higher, therefore making the case against republicanism seems so unnecessary. As custodians of the state, the Tories have got better things to do.

The problem for Gimson and friends is the Queen is 96 and a lot of the institution's legitimacy concentrates in her cult of the non-personality. The monarchy's popular support could shift very quickly, especially when Boris Johnson is busily cultivating a crisis of state legitimacy and the royals themselves, with their handling of Harry and Meghan's partial break with the family and Prince Andrew, are digging up the tracks of their gravy train. Perhaps they know it too, and their complacency is them freezing before a change too terrible to contemplate.

Image Credit

8 comments:

Robert Dyson said...

Just so. I think Queen Elizabeth benefited from her early coronation. She had not the opportunity to have expressed opinions, and discovered that being a blank worked. She created the current style of Monarchy and I admire her skill in that. Charles has opinions and expresses them and lobbies for them; son William has learned that's tricky and like grandma keeps it bland. As you say, for some years that I remember well, from Attlee until Thatcher things did get better in many ways that helped the Queen float above it and preside majestically over an improving society. Since Thatcher she has been used as the distraction from the worsening situation for the many, which is why I guess Tony Blair had to mount the rescue operation after Diana's death. Now we have four days of jubilee events as distraction from what must be the UK in the worst mess it has been in since WW2. Sadly for the Monarchy the crucial flaws have been exposed. First that attempt to prorogue Parliament that I think an elected President could have blocked - the Queen does not have powers useful for the many - though I do wonder if that visit to Her Majesty might have included hints about information on Andrew that it would be a pity should they leak out. Second is son Andrew - I assume an elected President would be expected to step down with conflicts of interest. I am still surprised that Andrew was allowed to carry on as he did given that the Queen blocked both sister and Charles from marriage to their prime romantic connections; maybe her faculties are now much weaker than public image. Like Tom Paine in ‘The Rights of Man’ I feel no ill will to the Monarch but hope the institution will now fade away. The big issue is how we get to better government, let not the Queen distract us from that.

Blissex said...

«as distraction from what must be the UK in the worst mess it has been in since WW2»

The economy of thatcherite voters has been doing very well, they are delighted with the successes of the Johnson government. Things are getting worse for lower-middle and lower class voters, but they don't matter because no major political party represents them, and if they riot that's going to be considered just "letting off steam". Not even the "Yellow Vests" in France have had a significant impact.

My usual quote from George Orwell writing in 1932, 90 years ago:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jJj0NgA08SUC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244
George Orwell, "Review of The Civilization of France by Ernst Robert Curtius" (1932):
In England, a century of strong government has developed what O. Henry called the stern and rugged fear of the police to a point where any public protest seems an indecency.
But in France everyone can remember a certain amount of civil disturbance, and even the workmen in the bistros talk of la revolution - meaning the next revolution, not the last one.
The highly socialised modern mind, which makes a kind of composite god out of the rich, the government, the police and the larger newspapers, has not been developed - at least not yet.


Nowadays that “composite god” has delivered rapidly rising living standards for thatcherite voters for 35-40 years, and they are are grateful to that “composite god” for their good fortune.

PurplePete said...

Too much forelock-tugging makes you go blind.

The street party at the bottom of my street was a grubby affair. Poorly attended. Mostly kids running aimlessly around the detritus swirling between the abandoned trestle tables. Dogs hoovering-up half-eaten cake. The clump of adults who have turned up, shuffle around uneasily. They look more like they're impatiently waiting for the Number 9 bus than celebrating the longevity of the figurehead of an aristocratic dynasty. Chin chin.

Krn said...

A brief historical reminder that QE 2 raises a few hackles in Scotland, to the extent that postboxes were blown up.

On 28 November 1952, an official party assembled at the junction of Gilmerton Road and Walter Scott Avenue in Edinburgh’s newly-built Inch housing estate to formally unveil Scotland’s first ‘E II R’ pillar box. What at first appeared as a perfectly appropriate and harmless recognition of the new head of state quickly descended into a cause of national outrage leading to wide scale media coverage, debates in the House of Commons and intense police surveillance.






The problem was that the Tudor Queen Elizabeth I had never ruled over Scotland, therefore the suggestion that there could be a Queen Elizabeth II was considered grossly inaccurate and unacceptable to many Scots.
Shortly before the official unveiling of the pillar box, a pressure group had written to a number of officials to question the legality of using the E II R symbol. The authorities were, therefore, aware of the controversy, and five police officers were present at the unveiling ceremony.
Under attack
Despite the box receiving special police attention, within thirty-six hours the E II R symbol had been defaced with tar. A week later a parcel containing gelignite was found inside the post box, and on 2 January 1953, a postal worker found another explosive charge.



All was quiet for the next few weeks until, on 7 February, two workmen saw a man vandalising the box with a sledgehammer wrapped in a sack. The attacker ran off and the damaged pillar box door had to be removed for repair.
Blown apart
Finally, on 12 February 1953 at around 10pm, the Inch was rocked by an explosion that could be heard a mile away. The three-month-old post box had been completely blown apart courtesy of a gelignite bomb. The next day a small Lion Rampant was discovered draped across its smouldered ruins. A brand new pillar box appeared soon after with no sign of E II R.
The E II R issue was debated in the House of Commons and even in court, but attempts to challenge the Queen’s right to be declared as Elizabeth II across the United Kingdom proved to be unsuccessful. A further statement by the Crown would declare that the Royal title of the new monarch should reflect the highest number from either the Kingdom of England or the Kingdom of Scotland. However, the bombing incident had caused significant distress among Inch residents, who made it clear that any future erection carrying the E II R identification would not be welcome. To avoid any further troubles Scottish pillar boxes, mail vans and other post office paraphernalia would carry the Crown of Scotland from then on.

Graham said...

Now that it is all over it seems to me that weekend was as much a long goodbye to the monarchy as it was a celebration of the last 70 years.
Despite the BBC's desperation to find street parties it is clear that public engagement, as opposed to watching events on TV, was much lower than in the previous jubilees.
The Commonwealth countries will all become republics and in the UK the new "slimmed down monarchy" will continue its evolution into an irrelevant side show.

Dipper said...

Monarchy is increasingly popular. And the older I get the more I like it.

Being a royal is to enter a Faustian Pact. Yes you get wealth and privilege beyond any sane person's wildest dreams. But you get a life in a Goldfish bowl, constant press intrusion, scrutiny, limited opportunity to express yourself and no opportunity to vote. Prince Harry has clearly found this extremely unsettling.

The monarchy has a key constitutional role. Take for instance that clip recently of Prince Charles doing a shuffle tribal dance in Canada with tribal elders. On level it is embarrassingly absurd, But on a constitutional level it gives a clear and important message. Charles will one day likely be Head of State of Canada. As such he is the final guarantor of basic democratic rights for all Canadians including native tribes. his participation shows he recognises their existence and separate identity. Quite an important message.

Some commonwealth countries are abandoning the monarch as the head of state eg Barbados. Does anyone on here think this will herald a period of enlightened government? Or, once the oversight of QEII is removed, will a clique simply loot what they can? There are no richer people in the developing world than children of Socialist despots.

And finally, the USA could have done with the Queen as head of state when Trump was stirring up insurrection.

Phil said...

"Monarchy is increasingly popular."

See here for a poll of polls

David Parry said...

Dipper,

I was beginning to think we'd seen the back of you.

'Being a royal is to enter a Faustian Pact. Yes you get wealth and privilege beyond any sane person's wildest dreams. But you get a life in a Goldfish bowl, constant press intrusion, scrutiny, limited opportunity to express yourself and no opportunity to vote. Prince Harry has clearly found this extremely unsettling.'

So why don't we relieve them of this hardship? As for opportunities to vote, this barely matters when, even without voting, Charles through his interventions in policy-making exerts far more influence over politics than the average voter can hope to exercise.

'Charles will one day likely be Head of State of Canada. As such he is the final guarantor of basic democratic rights for all Canadians including native tribes. his participation shows he recognises their existence and separate identity. Quite an important message.'

Look at the fat lot of good Queen Elizabeth II has done for the First Nations people of Canada in that role!

'Some commonwealth countries are abandoning the monarch as the head of state eg Barbados. Does anyone on here think this will herald a period of enlightened government?'

Personally, I think the republic vs monarchy debate is a distraction, in that I think that all states establish and entrench the dominion of a privileged elite over the rest of society, and serve to facilitate the passing of wealth, power and privilege from one generation to the next (monarchy merely explicitly institionalises this), and it's this that I want us to do away with.

'Or, once the oversight of QEII is removed, will a clique simply loot what they can?'

Please! The idea of monarchy as some sort of brake on corruption is risible on its face! Monarchy is about as explicit an institutionalisation of corruption and nepotism as it's possible to have!

'There are no richer people in the developing world than children of Socialist despots.'

Many of these despots not even claiming to be socialist, especially nowadays.

'And finally, the USA could have done with the Queen as head of state when Trump was stirring up insurrection.'

It's far from a given that Queen Elizabeth would have done anything to prevent that. After all, as Phil points out, the Italian monarchy did jackshit to prevent Mussolini's ascension to power, and despite remaining intact, also did bugger-all to meaningfully restrain him when he was in power.