Most arguments for the abolition of the monarchy centre on the common good and the best interests of the subjects/citizens, and I have considerable sympathy with these arguments, but I’m on record, presumably on this blog somewhere, as being fairly apathetic about the whole thing. It is true that insofar as I believe in the state at all, I’m republican, but it really doesn’t seem to be a very important issue to me compared to most other pressing concerns in the political sphere. It’s like arguing about the colour of the handle of the executioner’s axe. However, there is another way of looking at the question. What if the monarchy as it is today, or even historically, is bad for the mental health of the people involved in it? In that case, the issue becomes somewhat more pressing.
Last night’s interview with Megan & Harry, as we are encouraged to call them, brought up a number of issues in this respect. I can’t say that I’ve studied it that closely although I did pay attention to some of it, because it concerns me that a lot of what’s said about the royal family is a load of flim-flam used by the mass media, and sometimes the government, to distract the public from other concerns. This in itself might be a good argument for abolishing the monarchy, not only because it’s dangerous for the public to be unaware of other issues which are going on at the same time, but also because it’s that kind of attention which has led to the likes of the death of Diana and the extreme care with which the Windsors seem to have to manage their public appearance nowadays, although this has probably been true for centuries. The problem is, however, that it may not be possible simply to opt out of the attention, because even if the UK were to become a republic, many people would doubtless continue to regard the Royal family as special.
This need to micromanage one’s image is bound to be very stressful and have serious consequences for one’s well-being in the long term, but it’s notable also that before this was as big a problem as it is now, George III was Britain’s longest-living monarch up until that point, and Edward VIII ended up outliving his brother by two decades. George III, I suspect, owed his long life to the fact that he wasn’t actively king for very long although the way mental illness was treated back then wasn’t exactly a picnic either. It’s said that Edward VII and George V and VI all had their lives considerably shortened by tobacco smoking, which could of course be a response to stress, or on the other hand the result of having too much time on one’s hands, but probably the former. It is of course also true that in the first half of the last century, tobacco smoking was the norm and a scientific study would have to involve matching the kings with their peers, but it could be said to be a “smoking gun” in this respect, so to speak.
Even leaving this aside, the prospect of knowing that your life is mapped out in advance for you is likely to have some impact on your sense of fulfilment. What if you want to be a doctor or a farmer? You can perhaps play at that, like Marie Antoinette, but you know you’re never really going to be able to do that. Having said that, it is true that the Queen and Anne have both been involved in horses in one way or another, and the Queen has come up with a new breed of dog. However, there are always ceilings to their ambitions.
I tend to think of the monarchy as a good illustration of how nobody really has any control over their life. Power always seems to flee from a particular position in society the more it’s examined. It’s true to a certain extent that feudalism involved a lot less perceived freedom than today’s society in most of Britain, but the monarchy still seem to be trapped in that system because they are born into a predetermined series of roles which they can never really leave.
It’s also true that whereas poverty is probably the most important human problem in history, not being poor doesn’t make you happy or healthy. You can still be subject to various kinds of abuse from your family, to alcoholism and to all sorts of other problems in your gilded cage. Like anyone as rich as them, the royal family cannot have earned its wealth, no matter what they do, because there’s a clear limit to how much one can be fairly recompensed for anything, but this applies to all sorts of other people, some of whom did work tirelessly to get rich. The main reason I don’t hold their riches against them is that it’s insignificant compared to the whole UK economy or government spending, so to me it’s not very consequential that they’ve got lots of money. It can only really be of symbolic significance.
One very significant point about our monarchy is that our head of state will probably always have been a White person. If I recall correctly, the last arguably non-White person responsible for Britain would be Lucius Alfenus Senecio in the third Christian century, and since there have been monarchs in Great Britain, all of them have passed for White. They will of course ultimately have had Black ancestry but not so as you’d notice and that’s the key point. This is all the more significant given the talk about Megan’s baby’s skin tone within the Palace, although I’m not clear whether that was a member of the Royals or the “institution” as she put it. This is in particular a public interest argument for a republic.
Or two republics. Our monarchy is kind of Scottish although not really, and as a supporter of Scottish independence I also support Scottish and English republics. Hence the plural in the title.
For me as a habitually practicing Anglican, there’s a further issue I don’t really know what to do with. As well as being my head of state, which I can either take or leave as I see myself as more Northwest European than British, the Queen is the head of my Church. As far as I can tell from the image which seems to be successfully projected, the Queen does take her faith seriously and even if hers is very different from mine, it’s an article of the Christian faith that nobody is perfect. At the same time, the moral integrity of the Church could be compromised by it being established and of course there shouldn’t be bishops in the House of Lords. A country which does such markèdly non-Christian things really shouldn’t be proclaiming itself as such. Moreover, many non-Christians are born into membership of the Church, which neither Christians or non-Christians may have a clear conscience about.
Ultimately though, I feel no animosity towards the Royal family (I realise my capitalisation has been inconsistent) and ultimately it would probably be in their best interests for these countries to become republics.
There you go. You were going to get a post on radioactive porridge but that can wait until tomorrow.
A Box Of Chocolates 