POLITICS
Mr Major must see off those who swear the hypocritic oath
SIMON HEFFER
he nature of the debate about the role of the monarchy has just undergone a sig- nificant change. No longer can the press be pointed to as the arch agents of destabilisa- tion; that role is now filled by politicians. When the press treats the royal family, and the institution of monarchy itself, with the cavalier regard normally applied to soap- opera characters, there are excuses. For a start, certain members of the royal family have been behaving like soap-opera charac- ters. Also, a free press can say what it likes within the law about the royal family; though in the interests of intellectual respectability it should not pretend it is doing so for reasons other than boosting circulation. Also, if the press is advocating upheaval, it should jolly well have a plausi- ble alternative to offer.
However, when politicians start playing this game, they have no such excuses. The press, in pretending to be intellectually honest, might argue that it would be hypo- critical not to expose the well-known prob- lems of the royal family, and to debate them properly. But the politicians who actually discharge the constitutional pro- cess by voting in the Commons or Lords have to behave more circumspectly. This is not just because the dignity of the Crown and due deference to the Sovereign merit such respect. It is also because, as Mr Enoch Powell has said, the monarchy can- not function without an element of mys- tery. Perhaps the new consensus is that we have reached the point where classless democracy and monarchy are incompatible.
Republicans dismiss 'mystery' as a euphemism for 'hypocrisy'. They argue that no hypocrisy can be allowed in our modern society, especially when exercised on grounds of class and privilege. Their dislike of mystery is odd. Many of them practise it themselves by refusing, for social or politi- cal reasons, to own up to their desire to end the monarchy. They merely snipe from the sidelines, aware that washing the dirty linen of the first estate in public is a sure route to imperilling the monarchy.
Three of Britain's less noted constitu- tional philosophers, Mr Jack Straw and Miss Majorie Mowlam of the shadow cabi- net and Mr Paddy Ashdown, have called in the last week for reform of the monarchy. The monarchy is, apparently, too remote from ordinary people. It is as well that debate is, so far, confined to the nonentity level, for there are fewer risks of anyone apart from political columnists taking any notice. Mr Straw and Miss Mowlam have been kicked by Mr Smith, the leader of the Opposition, for their facile remarks. Sadly, Mr Ashdown has no one to perform a simi- lar corrective function on him. Perhaps Mr Smith might like to have a quiet word with him too. First, if Mr Ashdown wants to remain a member of the Privy Council he had better start behaving like one. He should learn that any views he has on the Sovereign should be expressed privately, not chucked out on one of Sir David Frost's programmes in order to secure badly need- ed cheap publicity. As a member of the Privy Council, no doubt he can easily arrange a meeting with the Sovereign her- self to put to her his reservations about her usefulness. I am sure she would listen with a degree of politeness to which Mr Ash- down is, to judge by his own conduct, not used. She is also cleverer and more experi- enced in these matters than he (or, indeed, almost anyone alive), and could give him a perfectly good answer to his problems.
But what are those problems? What rare these far-reaching feudal powers and privi- leges the Sovereign has, and which so oppress the people of Britain that a few elected blockheads feel the need to protest about them? It cannot be that she rules in defiance of the will of her people. Her role is entirely symbolic. She can act only on the advice of her ministers. Her Chief Minister is not complaining. Much flannel has been talked about 'pomp'. One of the reasons why Mr Smith so rapidly disciplined his col- leagues for their insolence last week is that he knows the British people, whatever their superficial annoyance with the royal family, love the spectacle of processions, Crown jewels and palaces. The monarchy is still one of the few things that makes most peo- ple feel good about being British. Nor, as Mr John Patten points out in this week's Spectator, will the likes of Mr Ashdown necessarily find that the pointless reforms of 'pomp' they advocate will end where they might hope. Once the last vestiges of distinction and mystery are removed, the monarchy will lose the sentimental attrac- tion to millions that provides the necessary clothing for its rational existence.
No third party knows what Mr Major and the Queen say to each other when they meet. Mr Major's public behaviour towards her and her family has been impeccable. According to colleagues of his, he has the highest regard for the Sovereign both offi- cially and personally; just as a prime minis- ter, especially one from the constitutional party, should. But he may need to act in a more interventionist way to strive to pro- tect both her and the succession, rather in the way that Stanley Baldwin — with vary- ing degrees of success — did in 1936.
A difficult period for the monarchy lies ahead. The foul taste of the scandals and shortcomings of recent months must be cleansed. Other unpleasantnesses will need delicate handling; including, perhaps, the divorce of the heir to the throne. Mr Major, despite his own failures, has remained per- sonally popular among the electorate. He must use his position to make not just a forceful defence of the constitutional monarchy in its present form, but to expose the weak arguments and outmoded preju- dices of those in parliament who seek to undermine the Sovereign to whom they have sworn an oath.
The Queen herself has maintained an admirable calm through all her difficulties, but Mr Major must see to it that she is not further put upon. She has offered to pay taxes and to cut the numbers of her family receiving hand-outs from the taxpayer; no further action is necessary. Complaints of other alleged extravagances in her role as Head of State are fatuous.
But perhaps an even more important task for Mr Major is to support and encour- age the Prince of Wales. It may be that most of Prince Charles's problems are of his own making; but that is not the point. If the monarchy is to make sense, it must operate on established principles. It sur- vived the abdication in 1936 because of a mood of public deference to the Crown that no longer appears to exist, and because of total support by the other two estates of the realm for the new king. That no longer appears to exist either. In the eyes of some politicians the monarchy is subject to peri- odic democratic review, much as everything else is in our polity. Prince Charles is only human, and must often feel like chucking it in. If he does, the institution may well go with him. Other than his much-put-upon mother, there is no one better placed or with a better right to persuade him, on behalf of the country, to put everything behind him and start again than Mr Major.
Previous page
