Well, it was either that or a portrait of the Queen wasn’t it?
You probably know, because I’ve said it on here before, that I’m kind of technically republican but really don’t feel that strongly about it. I’ve read and watched lots of pro-republican propaganda and to be honest the emphasis on the monarchy being expensive calls to mind a lot of other things which are a much bigger waste, and I find it hard to motivate myself to care. I’ve said before that arguing about whether these nations should have an elected head of state or a hereditary one is like arguing about what colour the handle of the executioner’s axe should be. Having said that, there are many reasons for abolishing the monarchy. For instance, right now it means the monarch is almost certainly going to be White and until recent changes in the law probably also male, and if they aren’t heterosexual they’re probably going to have to be in the closet because of the succession, and none of those things are good. Looking further into the millennium, assuming a persistent monarchy, we’ll probably have three kings, assuming regnal names are the same as birth names: Charles III, William V and George VII, and there probably won’t be another queen until at least the 22nd Christian century. But one excellent reason for abolishing the monarchy is for the sake of the people subjected to it, the Royals themselves, because psychologically it takes its toll on them. George VI’s health seems to have been quite seriously damaged by his being king for example. Knowing that you will only ever have one job in the long term and are unable to do various things with your life must feel like a gilded cage to them, and it probably feels like much of what you do before you become monarch is just dabbling with life in full knowledge that it actually doesn’t amount to much. I can see the value of the likes of the Prince’s Trust and the Duke of Edinburgh Award, and yes, I’m talking about the family rather than the men born to be King here, but still, they must have to work very hard to infuse their lives with meaning.
Having said all that, there are other aspects to the Queen’s life and rôles. As well as being monarch, she’s head of state, not only of this country but also many others, such as Canada, and in a way it’s just like having a president, in that she fulfils a similar position. As a child, I noticed that foreign banknotes often had an ornamental frame on them which appeared to be blank, and being from a monarchy I thought these windows, which are in fact there to display the watermark clearly, were supposed to symbolise the fact that the country issuing them was a republic. People from republics disabused me of this notion and said they didn’t generally think of their countries as lacking a monarch or feel the need to indicate their absence. Now we have windows on our own banknotes of course, but not because we’re a republic.
The Queen has a long list of rôles, including head of the armed forces, and also head of the Church of England. Some would see these two as contradictory. However, having been an active member of the Anglican church in the past, I did genuinely feel that whatever else might be true, and whatever other political views I might had, the Queen was the head of my denomination, and this was significant. She seems to live her life in a Christian way and her faith seems to be important to her. Although it’s important not to fall into the trap of thinking they’re just like us in some ways, although of course we all share humanity, it does create a connection between us in the sense that she had this rôle thrust upon her, probably in a way which she perceives to be the hand of God, and has constantly been labouring under the responsibility since 1952, with the help of her Maker. And I can relate to that! I don’t feel she is merely in an unearned position of privilege or has a cushy life. In a theoretical situation where we became a republic, it’s still possible that she would’ve retained her position as head of a church, and being female, a woman who took on that function four decades before there were any women priests. That’s not insignificant.
If you do the calculations, it looks like the Queen and Charles will die in the same year. If she lives as long as her mother, she’s likely to die in 2027 at the age of 101. Her four predecessors, Charles’s male ancestors, died at the ages of 68, 70, 78 and 56. Her heir, born 1948, would die in 2026 if he lives to the same age as the former Edward VIII, and to be honest that particular “king” may have lived longer because he was able to go off and do what he wanted rather than stay as head of state. That said, life expectancy is longer in this country than it used to be, and there are alleged to be connections between tobacco smoking and each of these men’s deaths. Charles gave up smoking when he was eleven. Consequently, just on these bare stats, which fail to take much into consideration, it very much looks like he will never be King.
There’s a pattern in the way monarchs go in England. Long reigns are often followed by a flurry of short ones due to the fact that successors tend to be older by the time they get there. Also, unsurprisingly there are many more kings than queens, but proportionately the average length of a queen’s reign is longer than that of a king. Since William the Conqueror there have been three dozen kings and eight queens, if Lady Jane Grey and Matilda are included. The average length of queen’s reigns is bumped up by the two outliers, Victoria and Elizabeth II Of England. Monarchs who have managed not to reign without being executed, namely George III and Edward VIII, tend to live longer. I think we should bear this in mind because it shows the strain being monarch puts on people. It really isn’t a bed of roses.
At this point, provided Sumerian king lists are not taken seriously, nobody has been a monarch anywhere in the world or at any time in history longer than the current Queen. Although she is a figurehead, she probably also acts as a source of wisdom and experience for governments and would be able to do this to a greater extent than anyone else in history. She’s seen fourteen British prime ministers for example, and is not entirely hands-off in her rôle, but of course we don’t really know what’s going on with her. Eventually one may get to don the mantle of respectability simply by virtue of one’s age and length of time in office, but presumably she has reflected on the nature of successive governments. I do wonder how seriously some of her prime ministers have taken her though.
Another aspect of this is the nature of anniversary naming. On the whole the sequence could be expected to be something like: iron, bronze, silver, gold, platinum, with other interspersed “substances” in between. Sarada and I have had our silver wedding anniversary already, which makes me feel old. There are two diamonds, one at five dozen and one at seventy-five, so Queen Victoria was able to have a diamond jubilee but that was that. They have latterly been modernised, and are mainly seen to apply to marriages so they tend to have things like “electrical appliances” in them. The original is the golden jubilee, which was instituted in the Bible, consisting of seven times seven years plus one, due to the ancient Hebrews having no concept of zero. The Golden Jubilee was honoured more in the breach than the observance, but it’s a brilliant idea. All debts were forgiven and slaves and prisoners freed. I think there was also redistribution of land, in order to prevent the concentration of land ownership in the hands of the wealthy few. We could definitely do with something like that.
That’s it really. The official anniversary of the accession is today, but the celebrations will be in June.
A Box Of Chocolates 