Robie,
Problem with forums is that everything gets to be a sound bite. Your assumption about my attitude to the monarchy is wrong. I am bored stiff with the minutiae of the succession, the titles and so on, but your basic question is a good one.
I am very conscious of this being a Spanish-English forum and you always set a good example by writing in Spanish, not English. I would have like to have time (it can take me a LONG time to write Spanish) to write some of my thoughts in Spanish, but, sadly, I don’t have that time. So here goes anyway.
I think that supporters of the monarchy and opponents agree that the monarchy plays very little (if any) role in the day to day life of Brits (even less so of Australians etc.). My view for my whole life has been that having a monarchy based on male-preference primogeniture and tied to the state’s religion is fundamentally wrong for a modern state. I have never got too excited about that because I always thought the monarchy was not really relevant (and so was harmless) and did bring in a lot of tourist dollars (and yen etc.). My experience (especially in the USA) has changed my opinion somewhat. I still think the monarchy is not fundamentally sound, but I think it does have a worthwhile role and I can’t think how better to fill that role.
The single biggest event to change my mind was the 2000 US election and the famous hanging chads and specifically the final Supreme Court decision on that case (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html). I agree with Justice Stevens who dissented from the opinion and said:
“The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”.
I believe the court made a totally political decision and dressed it up in the thinnest veneer of jurisprudence.
What the hell does that have to do with the monarchy ? The answer is simple, the Queen has no role in the day to day life of the nation, but she does have a role in forming governments in times of crisis, emergencies of wartime. If all else fails (and I mean that), it would be the monarch who would decide who should be asked to form a government. She would not have a direct role in the UK equivalent of Florida, but my point is that if we ever get to a total impasse in the political process, the monarch would be involved. Based on the performance of the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore (and, later, in their total failure to even address the abomination that is Guantanamo), I would rather trust the Queen to have a practical and impartial guiding hand at those rare, but crucial, points in a nation’s history, than the Supreme Court or any other British institution I can think of.
The second attraction of the monarchy is that they, not the Prime Minister, are head of state. In the US, (and most other countries) it is a politician who is the head of state with the result that the US President always appears with the seal (and hence the flag) intimately associated with him. This contributes to the image of the President as being ‘untouchable’ and to the idea that he represents the spirit and ideals of the country, rather than of his own political party. I prefer the British system where the Prime Minister is challenged, face-to-face every week in Parliament and cannot simply wrap himself up in the seal or flag and pretend that he ‘is’ the country. The monarchy is part of that set-up and that has some value to me.
Neither of those points are strong reasons for keeping the monarchy, but, for me, they tip the scales, from being a reasonably firm opponent to being a mild supporter of the institution.
What helps the case for the monarchy is the clear sense of duty that the current Queen and her children feel towards the nation. To use Noelia’s image, they don’t just lie back in front of the 100” TV and enjoy their wealth. Whether you like what they do or not, they do have a sense of duty which balances (to some degree) their privileges. I think it is partly this aspect that made “The Queen” such an enjoyable film (movie) to watch.
By the way, that sense of duty (and my support) does not extend to the other members of the extended royal family. Noticeably they are almost unknown outside the UK since they are smart enough to hide behind the appeal that the Queen has both in the UK and overseas. They do not have my support and we shouldn’t pay a penny for them. Where would I draw the line, I don’t know, but the Duke and Duchess of Kent and their like should make their own way in life.
What of Diana ? My summary is: A good person, but superficial. As we say, she had her heart in the right place and was willing to show it. I have nothing to say bad about her but she was definitely from the show-business, celebrity, enjoying the money, end of the spectrum. Her kindness and connection to a lot of people is something the monarchy needs to learn from, but I would never want a monarchy based on her judgement and insight. I won’t even mention the Queen of superficiality: her friend Fergie.
Charles on the other hand is an old twit and a bit of a wanker. Right ? Well, he does have some twitishness to him, but one of the greatest love stories of all time has to be him and Camila. Despite her looks, despite the whole story of their lives those two are a clear case of love overcoming everything. I’m not saying that he is totally admirable, but I have some respect for the depth of his feelings and thinking that I didn’t have for Diana’s. As an aside, he now runs the biggest organic farm in the UK and was talking about the environment and conservation years (and I mean years) before it was fashionable to do so.
In summary, the monarchy had/has a lot to learn from Diana about getting back in touch with the nation (as demonstrated by the film) but I would not want them to move too far in that direction. While they are at it, I would want a few more fundamental changes made to the monarchy rather than just a little more ‘human face’ – like equal treatment for girls, dissociation from the Church of England and a shortening of the Civil list down to the monarch and those with any realistic chance (say the top 5 in succession) of being monarch plus their children. (The civil list is the list of the Royal Family who get money from the state – actually that’s not 100% right, but the Brits on the list know what I mean !)
There you have it - my collected thoughts on what is an interesting topic.
