All Monarchists Now
By DAVID MARQUAND WE are all monarchists now. As Mr. Kingsley Martin points out in his new book on The Crown and the Establishment*: `A century ago, courage was necessary to ques- tion the literal truth of the first chapter of Genesis, to doubt the Virgin Birth or discuss Problems of sex. The throne on the other hand was frankly criticised in the press and on plat- forms. In the twentieth century anyone can question the divinity of Christ, but no one attributes faults to the royal family.' The appar- ently unshakable popularity of the House of Windsor is, in fact, one of the most mysterious Political phenomena of this century. most ost noticeable feature of the rise in the popular standing of the Crown is that it has coincided almost exactly with the decline 01 British power. British greatness was at its zenith in the century from 1750 to 1850: that, rather than the Victorian Age, was our Periclean Period. It was then that Britain became the workshop of the world; that Britannia ruled the waves; and that the political creativity of the British governing class was at its height. From the middle of the nineteenth century, Britain's Power declined; and as it did so the prestige 01 the monarchy rose. In her early years, when Britain was still the greatest power on earth, Queen Victoria was almost certainly disliked by most of her subjects. It was not until the last fifteen or twenty years of her reign, when Britain was rapidly being overtaken by Ger- many and the United States, that the Crown became the object of mass adulation. In the twentieth century, this process has continued at an accelerating pace. With the exception of the unfortunate Edward VIII, each monarch has been more popular than the one before—and each reign has ended with the country weaker than when it began.
This, rather than the vestigial powers that still remain to it, is now the most dangerous feature of the monarchy. It is true, no doubt, that the Clown retains more influence than strict demo- cratic theory would allow it; and it is equally true that such influence as it possesses is likely to be exerted in favour of the status quo. But in the last resort, influence can be brought to bear only upon those who are willing to be influenced. Even Mr. Gladstone, whose difficul- ties with Queen. Victoria Mr. Martin discusses in this book, paid attention to the Queen's in- cessant complaints only because he believed that it was his duty to do so. The same applies more obviously today. A Left-wing Prime Minister sufficiently malleable to allow himself to be influenced by the Crown would hardly be likely to resist the other conservative influences arrayed against him. 'the danger of the monarchy lies, not in the hidden influence it can bring to bear in the Privacy of what eighteenth-century writers called the 'closet,' but in its open, public role as a symbol. Defenders of the monarchy in- variably argue that all societies need a symbolic focus for popular loyalties; ,and point out that * Hutchinson, 21s. the royal family discharges that arduous func- tion with dignity and success. But that is beside the point. What matters about a symbol is the attitudes and aspirations which it symbolises; and what matters about the royal family is that it symbolises the wrong ones.
During the present reign, in particular, the monarchy has become the centre-piece of a fan- tasy imperialism more damaging to the British people thah the genuine imperialism of their ancestors ever was. It must be admitted that this fantasy imperialism has probably helped the British people to adjust themselves to their diminished status in the world. The mystique of the 'British Commonwealth,' and the royal pageantry which is an essential part of that mystique, have helped to cushion the British people against the psychological shocks which usually accompany the loss of empire. If monarchy is the price of peaceful adjustment to the decline of national power, and if the alternative to peaceful adjustment is the agony experienced by the Fourth and Fifth Republics in France, it might plausibly be argued that the price has been worth paying.
The flaw in this argument is that Britain's ad- justment has been far too peaceful in any case. At no time in the last fifteen years has the social fabric of this country been subjected to any- thing remotely approaching a serious strain. On the contrary, the empire which was acquired in a fit of absence of mind has been abandoned ia an orgy of self-satisfaction. Far from pro- voking a crisis of confidence and national iden- tity, the decline of British power seems to have passed almost unnoticed by the British them- selves. A cushion against psychological shock is, in fact, the last thing Britain needs. Institu- tions and ceremonies which serve to insulate the British people from their true position in the world, and which help to convince them that nothing really serious has happened to change it, are not merely useless but harmful.
It would be absurd to claim that the Crown is the only institution of this kind. On the con- trary, such institutions abound in every depart- ment of social life. The public schools, Oxford and Cambridge, the senior civil service, the Stock Exchange, the Times, the Trades Union Con- gress, Tribune, the Campaign for Nuclear Dis- armament and Mr. Macmillan: all, in their different ways, convey the same bland, re- assuring message; all have acquired, over the years, a patina of Respectability so thick that it seems impervious to the harshest weather; all suggest, by their mere existence, that Britain is the best of all possible countries and the British the best of all possible peoples.
Yet although the Crown is not the only such institution, it is in a way the most important. Socialists used to argue that it was foolish to attack the monarchy and the House of Lords, since, though ridiculous, they were part of the 'superstructure' of society, and as such irrelevant to the central issues of property and power. There was a great deal of truth in that argu- ment. When millions are unemployed, it is foolish io waste time attacking institutions which play no direct part in the process that causes unemployment. Today, the situation is different. The most serious problems that face this coun- try today are not directly economic or political, but intellectual and psychological. The chief ob- stacle to an adequate rate of growth is not so much a lack of resources for investment as a lack of economic expertise in the Cabinet, and a lack of any sense of urgency among managers and unions. The obstacle to adequate social ser- vices is the complacent assumption that our social services are already the best in the world. The obstacle to adequate conventional defences is the Government's obsession with our status as a nuclear power. The obstacle to an adequate educational system is the selfish timidity of those who wish to preserve education as the privilege of a social or intellectual elite.
It seems to me indisputable that these attitudes reinforce each other; and that they are rein- forced, in their turn, by the elaborate ceremonies of British public life, in which the monarchy plays a central part. It is true, of course, that no one preaches the doctrine of efficiency and innovation more assiduously than the leading performers in those ceremonies. But just as Tory Ministers carry no conviction when they call for a spirit of sacrifice, since everyone knows that the Tory Party stands in practice for the opposite, the eloquent speeches in which digni- taries of the Establishment call for vigorous adaptation to the. modern world sound so out of harmony with the speakers that no one can take them seriously. For if Britain were.to adapt herself vigorously to the modern world, the first things to go would be the Establishment in its present form, with its present attitudes and its present symbolic trappings.
The most prominent feature of the British governing class, shared as much by those who have made their way by their own ability as by those whose position is inherited, is respect for convention. The properly respectful can sometimes contrive to carry through important changes of content, though never of form. Those who fail to show proper respect at the proper times are broken, or denied the chance to exer- cise their talents to the full. Respect for con- vention, it must be admitted, is a necessary quality: a society with no conventions at all would not last long. But once again the question is: what conventions? And once again the impor- tant point is that the conventions of the British governing class are the wrong ones. The con- ventions of British public life are designed to ensure order, stability, continuity—essential qualities, no doubt, but ones of which this coun- try has no observable shortage. It is the opposite qualities that are needed now: nimble wits, and an appetite for change.
The existence of the monarchy, it is true, is not strictly incompatible with the development of these qualities. A drab, utilitarian monarchy; a monarchy with no troopings of the colour and no State openings of Parliament; a monarchy hedged about by no divinity and whose doings attracted no public interest: such a monarchy would be perfectly suitable to Britain's present state in the world, and mildly preferable, on grounds of convenience, to a republic. But can anyone believe that such a monarchy is likely?
Previous page
