MONARCHY IS NOT MULTIPLE CHOICE
Newspapers tirelessly commission opinion polls on the royal succession. It's a waste of
our time and their money, argues Ross Clark THE YEAR is 2014, and Queen Elizabeth II's body is lying in state after her death at the age of 88. Meanwhile, the election machines of the three contenders for the succession are gearing up for what promis- es to be a fascinating campaign. The two front-runners, the 65-year-old Prince of Wales and his 32-year-old son Prince William, are busy recording their election broadcasts, the former drawing attention to his tireless fight for good architecture, the latter concentrating on his achieve- ments on the sports field. Catching up fast in the opinion polls, the rank outsider Princess Anne is embarking on a round- Britain 'meet the people' tour . . .
An unlikely state of affairs? Well, yes, and for one good reason: you don't elect a monarch. But not everyone seems to see things that way any more. In the world of the opinion pollster nothing is sacred from the popular vote. To them, and to the edi- tors who untiringly commission 'royal polls', Prince Charles is no longer heir to the throne but merely a candidate.
Take this as a typical contribution from the world of opinion polling, conducted by Mori and published in Today newspaper last January. The pollsters merrily asked: `Do you think Prince Charles should give up the throne in favour of Prince William?' The great British electorate was only too keen to participate: 27 per cent said yes and 64 per cent said no. The Prince of Wales, we were informed, enjoyed a reasonably comfortable lead of 37 per cent.
Now, however, Prince Charles's fortunes appear to be slipping. Last week the public were polled again, this time by ICM, and the results were published in the Daily Mail under the headline: 'How poll shows Prince still losing public support'. The question was: `If the Queen were to die tomorrow, do you think it would be best if the crown passed straight to Prince William?' Apparently, 35 per cent of the British public are now willing to cast their vote against Charles, and only 60 per cent are still prepared to support him: a lead reduced to just 25 per cent. Meanwhile, a Gallup poll in Q magazine last August found that 50 per cent of those interviewed agreed that the succession should pass directly to Prince William.
All very well, perhaps, except for one glaring objection: what is it that makes the public think they have any right whatsoev- er to determine who shall succeed Eliza- beth II to the throne? If you believe in monarchy, surely you accept as your monarch whoever lies next in succession. You do not go round expressing your opinion on who you would like to see as your next king. So why don't people turn to the pollsters and answer them firmly: `It's none of my business. Prince Charles is heir to the throne and that's that'?
Perhaps a few people do, and find them- selves being entered, dismissively, as a `don't know'. But as for the others, what they want seems quite clear: it is not that they have suddenly taken against the monarchy, it is just that they demand the right to decide who their monarch should be. According to a Mori poll published in the Economist last week, a mere 20 per cent would rather that Britain was a republic. This is a figure which has shown little change over the years, rising only slightly towards the end of the Queen's Annus Horribilis in 1992, and dropping thereafter. The Prince of Wales's admis- sion of adultery and his wife's alleged fling with Major Hewitt seem to have made lit- tle impression on public support for the monarchy.
That the British are deeply reluctant to see the end of their royal connections was shown quite clearly in a poll conducted by the staunchly republican Independent on Sunday in August. Given a list of seven possible candidates for first president of the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a resounding 28 per cent came down in favour of Princess Anne, the sixth in line to the throne. She was 14 per cent ahead of her nearest rival, Lady Thatcher.
The opinion polls have not spread the republican cause, but what they have man- aged to promote is the strange notion that we can have a democratic monarchy. It has often been suggested that the British see the Windsors as players in a soap opera, but that is not quite correct: the public apparently sees individual members of the royal family as politicians, endlessly cam- paigning for the selectorate's affections in an endless stream of speeches and public appearances.
A growing proportion of the British peo- ple now — we are told — views Prince Charles's position in much the same way as it views that of government ministers: one more sex scandal and he will be called upon to resign. Prince William, meanwhile, is seen in much the same way as is Tony Blair: a dynamic young potential leader who will inevitably profit from his father's unpopularity but who, nevertheless, still has a lot to prove.
Princess Anne is a perfect example of political image-making: once reviled for her aloofness, she has clawed back support through charity work. The Queen has not escaped the democratisation either: if you remember the days before the Wales's marriage ran into trouble, a frequent ques- tion beloved of opinion pollsters was: `Should the Queen abdicate and make way for Prince Charles on her 65th birthday?' Back in the late Eighties she was viewed in much the same way as was Mrs Thatcher: as a popular leader who nevertheless had overstayed her welcome.
There is no historical precedent for the idea of a democratic monarchy, and it is difficult to see where the opinion pollsters' experiment will end. But at the present rate Queen Elizabeth II's death will herald a kind of general election campaign as the present Prince of Wales attempts to rally enough support for his succession: a re-run of the abdication crisis of 1937, but with television cameras, opinion polls and Dim- blebys as an added dimension.
As for the opinion pollsters and the members of the public who answer their questions, they are treading dangerous ground. There is some analogy for their role in history: the king and queen-makers of the middle ages: the Earl of Warwick, who changed sides during the Wars of the Roses and paid the inevitable price, and the Duke of Northumberland, who hastily married off his daughter Jane in an ill- advised attempt to steal the throne from Mary. History shows that king-makers tend to come off worst. Perhaps the heads of Mori, Gallup, NOP and ICM should be reminded that treason remains a capital offence.
Previous page
