The Unofficial British Royal Family Pages

Wednesday 31 March 2004

Long to Reign Over Us?

For those of us who live in nations where the Queen is Sovereign, most of us have at some stage, examined the other R word - Republicanism. To some, the mere mention of the word is enough to send the sufferer into a cerebral decline and seething outrage, while others are either questioning of each system's merits, indifferent or eager to have one. Many people who live in republics probably wonder what all the fuss is about, while some of those citizens admire constitutional monarchy for one reason or other.

People generally fall into two categories. Republicans, who believe (for rather diverse reasons) that it should be nobody's hereditary right to head a country and monarchists who, amongst other reasons like tradition and those sorts of things, usually feel a constitutional monarchy is a far safer form of government.

However, it seems to me that there is also another group in some of the major former colonies of the British Empire. They are people who are monarchists at heart but passionately want a Head of State who lives in their country. It is this group that I suspect holds the key to any future referendums in any of Britain's former colonies and it's perhaps this group that stands to lose most.

Referendums in Commonwealth countries will, when the time comes, probably ask their respective citizens whether they want a republic or monarchy. It's a dilemma for those in the tricky group. They might be devoutly nationalistic but also ideologically monarchist. However, I wouldn't be surprised at the result of a poll that asked which system of government they prefer.

As an Australian, I have first hand experience not only in living in a constitutional monarchy but also in a country that has, a few years back, even voted on the matter. Obviously there are some differences living in monarchies like Australia, New Zealand and Canada to living in others like Sweden, Denmark or The Netherlands. For a start, the monarch lives elsewhere and our princes and princesses are not styled, 'of Australia' or 'of Canada'. The Queen of course, is styled Queen of any of those three Commonwealth countries but never outside the country in question itself.

The main pro republic argument in Australia's referendum was that the country deserved a resident Head of State. As a monarchist, I can see and appreciate that argument - I just don't want to live in a republic and that I felt it was a slight on a woman who has devoted her life to us. I feel comfortable knowing that Head of State is currently a position that no one can vie for. There is no pushing and shoving to get there and the person who is there, has been trained for the job since birth and they are there to represent all of us regardless of our colour, sex, wealth, education or which political party we vote for. That said, a monarchy today doesn't prevent a citizen from becoming a consort. On the other hand, any of us can be the person who runs the country on a day to day basis, the Prime Minister and for me, that's enough.

During the lead up to the referendum, what surprised me was that really the only options we were given were two republics and the one chosen to compete with the monarchy wasn't that popular with 'republican' citizens. Monarchy was, the republicans told us, an old and outdated system. Anyone not knowing any better would have thought the first republic was established in the nineteenth century. In any case, nothing about the republican campaign as far as system models go, was very adventurous. One Independent MP, Dr Bob Such suggested that Australia start it's own monarchy but his voice could not be heard over the celebrity and wealth factor that ended up steering the referendum - toward unexpected disaster for republicans as it turned out.

Perhaps though, establishing a monarchy in Australia or any country that has the Queen as Head of State is neither such a bad nor ludicrous option. There have been examples in the modern history of countries doing just that like Norway and Belgium and doing so would entail far less change to existing constitutions and parliaments. It would perhaps satisfy more people than would the establishment of a republic, as the system of government does not change but the Head of State actually does become a resident of the nation.

I can't help but wonder why the royal family and their advisors did not think of this long ago. Pros and cons of colonisation aside, unlike other nations of the time, the British in their endeavours managed for the most part to set up countries with stable forms of government and self rule. While the main players in the Empire and later Commonwealth remained loyal it seems somewhat short-sighted to think that this would remain the case forever.

Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, I believe, once suggested making each of their sons respectively Dukes of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. Obviously nothing came of this idea. Certainly, they had enough children to establish kingdoms in quite a number of colonies! Hard as it may have been to part with each dominion, one would think it would have been preferable to have a family member start their own dynasty than to see each turn into republics.

If we look at our royal family today, we see a number of individuals who could benefit from some real purpose in their lives. The Earl and Countess of Wessex have proven that one of the hardest adjustments facing royalty in these times is mixing it with private enterprise. The Duke of York is no longer an immediate heir and a number of the outer fringe members are being made almost mercilessly redundant. Instilled into each of them however, is a sense of duty to Britain and the Commonwealth. It's what they're trained for and it's what they're, for the most part, good at. They know how to encourage, they know how to act with ease on the world stage and they know first hand how important it is to be a rallying point in times of crisis.

I think the days of monarchy are far from numbered. In Europe we have seen monarchies adjust and even flourish in these often ruthless and impersonal times. We have seen a Hong Kong girl become a simply adored princess of Denmark, an African-American girl become a princess of Liechtenstein and a single mother, initially deplored by many become a much respected Crown Princess of Norway. Each of these individuals has done much to bring their respective Houses in touch with modern times.

Would Britain and the handful of countries that still have Queen Elizabeth II as their Head of State be better off as republics? I doubt it. Do many bureaucrats attract the adoration and respect of a nation? I think not. As we've seen recently in The Netherlands and Norway, the birth of an heir fills people with hope. Could a president of divided Belgium bring about the rather unbelievable display of unity we saw when their future Queen, Elisabeth, was born a couple of years ago? I don't think so. It might sound ridiculous to think of King Andrew of Australia or Queen Anne of New Zealand or King Edward of Canada but in reality, it's worth discussing.
 

- Gioffredo