Why does the UK love the monarchy?

 
A young girl wears a homemade crown as she waits to see Queen Elizabeth II visit the town centre of Accrington as part of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee tour of the country on 16 May 2012

I have recently been accused on Twitter of being both a royalist "uber-Toady" and the author of "the most anti-monarchist report you could want to view".

Both tweets related to the same item, a report for the BBC News at Ten that tried to answer a straightforward question: why does a country that has become so cynical about other institutions (Parliament, the City, the press, the police) remain so loyal to the monarchy?

Whatever republicans might wish, less than a fifth of the Queen's subjects in the UK say they want to get rid of the Royal Family - a proportion that has barely changed across decades.

According to polling data from Ipsos Mori, support for a republic was 18% in 1969, 18% in 1993, 19% in 2002 and 18% last year. Three-quarters of the population want Britain to remain a monarchy - a finding that has been described by pollsters as "probably the most stable trend we have ever measured".

Given the enormous social change there has been since the current Queen assumed the throne 60 years ago, it might seem surprising that a system of inherited privilege and power should have retained its popularity.

Mark gauges the mood during a royal visit to Lancashire

But reading some of the comments on Twitter, it seems that even to raise a quizzical eyebrow at the approval ratings of the Windsors is regarded by some monarchists as tantamount to treason.

Republicans, on the other hand, believe that to highlight the conspicuous lack of progress they have had in winning the nation to their cause is evidence of obsequious knee-bending.

I recently re-acquainted myself with the work of two seminal figures in the long-running debate between republican and monarchist thinkers in Britain - Thomas Paine and Walter Bagehot.

I was searching for an answer to the same question: "What is it about our country that we retain such affection for a system which appears at odds with the meritocratic principles of a modern liberal democracy?"

In January 1776, Paine's pamphlet Common Sense began to be passed around among the population of the colonies of the New World, a manifesto for American independence and republicanism.

Who was Thomas Paine?

"Possibly the most influential writer in modern human history" - that's the billing Thomas Paine got from one of his biographers.

Yet few people know much about him at all. Brendan O'Neill looks at Paine's life and legacy.

"There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of Monarchy," Paine declared. "One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of the hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion."

He contrasted the common sense of his pamphlet's title with the absurdity and superstition that inspired the "prejudice of Englishmen" for monarchy, arising "as much or more from national pride than reason".

To this day, British republicans refer to Paine's Common Sense almost as the sacred text. But monarchists have their own sacred text, written almost exactly a century afterwards. Walter Bagehot's English Constitution was a belated response to the revolutionary arguments of the New World republicans.

"We catch the Americans smiling at our Queen with her secret mystery," he wrote, with a suggestion that Paine and his kind were prisoners of their own "literalness". Bagehot didn't try to justify monarchy as rational (indeed he accepted many of Paine's criticisms), but his point was that an "old and complicated society" like England required more than mundane, dreary logic.

Walter Bagehot c.1865 Walter Bagehot wrote about the "mystic reverence" essential to "true monarchy"

"The mystic reverence, the religious allegiance, which are essential to a true monarchy, are imaginative sentiments that no legislature can manufacture in any people," he wrote. "You might as well adopt a father as make a monarchy."

Bagehot had identified a developing national characteristic. As colonial power and the riches of empire declined, there was an increasing desire to define greatness as something other than wealth and territory. Britain wanted to believe it was, intrinsically, special. "People yield a deference to what we may call the theatrical show of society," he wrote. "The climax of the play is the Queen."

Wind the clock forward to 1952 and plans were being made for the Coronation of the new Elizabeth II. Despite post-war austerity, it was decided the event should be a fabulous, flamboyant, extravagant affair with all the pomp and pageantry they could muster. There would be feathers and fur, gold and jewels, anthems and trumpets.

It was a giant gamble. Britain was re-evaluating many of the traditional power structures that had shaped society in the 1930s. How would a population still subject to food rationing react to a ceremony that almost rubbed its nose in the wealth and privilege of the hereditary monarch?

Two sociologists, Michael Young and Ed Shils, had joined the crowds in the East End of London, dropping in on street parties to find out. Their thesis, entitled The Meaning of the Coronation, accepted that there were some who had dismissed the whole affair as a ridiculous waste of money.

Children in London's East End enjoying a street party in celebration of the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, June 2nd 1953 Street parties for the Coronation were judged "a great act of national communion"

But overall, they concluded: "The Coronation provided at one time and for practically the entire society such an intensive contact with the sacred that we believe we are justified in interpreting it as we have done in this essay, as a great act of national communion."

Britain - battered, bruised and broke - appeared determined to embrace its monarchy and hang the cost. The paradox is that austerity was positively comfortable with ostentation; institutional challenge spawned a passion for hereditary authority.

It wasn't just that Britain wanted a distraction from hardship and uncertainty. Enthusiastic support for monarchy seemed to run counter to the new liberalism which was guiding the politics of post-war Britain.

The explanation, I think, is that the 1950s were also a period in which the country was anxious about how global, institutional and social change might threaten its identity.

The impact of Americanisation as well as colonial and European immigration upon British life were a source of great concern. Despite winning the war, it appeared that national power and influence were being lost. Institutional authority was being questioned.

Your life in the '50s

1950s images

Transport yourself back to the decade in which the Queen came to throne - use our tool to find out what your life would have been like in early 1950s Britain

There were fears, too, that the values and traditions which underpinned family and community life were also changing rapidly. War and financial hardship had combined to shake up and challenge ancient orthodoxies.

Monarchy represented a bulwark against rapid and scary change.

Sixty years after our Queen assumed the throne, many of those same anxieties remain. Concerns about how globalisation and immigration are changing Britain continue to trouble us. Respect for institutions has declined as the global financial crisis has ushered in a new era of austerity.

In Accrington earlier this month, I watched a down-to-earth, no-nonsense town go slightly mad for the Queen. Thousands lined the streets, hung out of windows, climbed lamp-posts to catch a glimpse of their monarch.

They stood for hours in a chilly wind wearing daft hats - a metaphor for the attitude of their country. Times are tough, the challenges are great and we respond by cheering an aspect of our culture that, for all its irrationality, is uniquely ours.

The British have always chosen the quirks of our history against foreign rationalism. The Romans brought us straight roads and decimalisation. As soon as they left, we reverted to impossibly complicated Imperial measures and winding country lanes.

Start Quote

In trying to explain the unlikely success of the monarchy, we shouldn't expect the answer to be based on reason ”

End Quote

The Normans commissioned the Domesday Book to try and impose order on bureaucratic chaos but had to compromise at every turn. That is how we ended up with something called Worcestershire - a place that foreigners find impossible to pronounce, never mind spell.

The British don't like straight lines. When we look at those maps of the United States with ruler-straight state boundaries, we feel pity. Walter Bagehot understood that our identity is found in the twists and turns of a rural B-road, not in the pragmatism of a highway.

It is the same with our system of governance. Logic is not the most important factor. We are happy to accept eccentricity and quirkiness because they reflect an important part of our national character.

So in trying to explain the unlikely success of the monarchy, we shouldn't expect the answer to be based on reason.

It is not a pocket-book calculation of profit and loss - how much does the Queen cost compared to what she brings in for the tourist trade?

It is not a question of prevailing political attitudes - how can a liberal democracy justify power and privilege based on an accident of birth?

The British monarchy is valued because it is the British monarchy. We are an old and complicated society that yields a deference to the theatrical show of society.

 
Mark Easton, Home editor Article written by Mark Easton Mark Easton Home editor

More on This Story

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 52.

    The current Monarch enjoys wide popularity, I wouldn't translate her personal popularity into permanent support for the institution of Monarchy.
    Other European countries have retained their Monarchs but have dispensed with the feudal trappings including their aristocracy. They are still there but have no role.
    The feudal pyramid of Seigneurs and serfs has no place in the 21st century.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 51.

    @29. "tyranny by the majority" The last refuge of the anti-democratic politically correct authoritarian activist.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 50.

    Presently, the entire media is hell-bent on pushing the monarchy, including publishing various surveys on how they have never been as popular. This seems to be their current agenda.

    But in the UK today, no one really cares less; people are not anti-monarchy, but equally they are not pro-monarchy.

    We have changed a great deal since 1977, no matter what the media would try and have us believe.

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 49.

    I would add Mark, that your missing one major factor. The Queen herself.
    Has she ever put a foot wrong? Despite being 80 something years old, she works damn hard for this country, she is a far better head of state than any president could ever be. She is a constant, in an ever changing world and thats something to treasure

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 48.

    Mark Easton's spot-on when he says support for the monarchy cannot be explained by reason. Monarchists are cut from the same cloth as creationists in my view - a genetic pre-disposition for blind submission to an omnipotent being. I'm so thankful I'm not one of the 80%.

  • rate this
    +6

    Comment number 47.

    Funny old thing, loyalty. Of all our institutions, the immediate Royal Family give unstintingly of themselves to the Nation. The Queen's sons and grandsons have volunteered to put themselves in harms way and fight alongside the common people. Can you imagine the children of Tony Blair doing such a thing? The Monarchy gives focus to the soul of the Nation in a way that a Presidency never does.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 46.

    Gassy, Even the SNP would retain the monarchy so that’s not really the case is it. The Monarchy has as much support in Scotland as anywhere. I know of lots of supporters and I find more "indifference" in England where I spend a lot of time. Street parties and celebrations all over, however you can come to mine if you live in a pocket of indifference.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 45.

    29.
    AlexLM

    which is better 25% forcing it's will on 75% or 75% on 25%

  • rate this
    -5

    Comment number 44.

    I think that Mark Easton should visit Scotland to test his findings there. Apart from pockets of loyal subjects (eg Ballater), he will find opposition to the London monarchy or, at best, indifference. If he visits this weekend, he will certainly be hard pushed to find any Diamond Jubilee street parties

  • rate this
    +18

    Comment number 43.

    Every year, the UN compiles a list of the world's best off countries, in income, literacy, education and life expectancy. Year after year ten of the top 20 are monarchies - most of them in the top 10.

    The question the Sneering Tendency ignores is: what's odd about sharing a system with Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand - the world's most egalitarian societies?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 42.

    Depressing, isn't it, how reluctant we are to look or think.
    We start from blind prejudice, then invent data to support it.

  • rate this
    +15

    Comment number 41.

    No doubt the republican types will turn this into a debate on the monarchy and its merit.... yawn.

    Look, the monarchy is for most people an abstract. However it is part of our national psyche. Its part of the fabric of our nation. That is why it endures and the Republican alternative is irrelevant.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 40.

    Republicans would have had us with a President Blair. I think 60p a year is well spent to avoid that sort of thing.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 39.

    Oh come on get the semantics right - Why do some people love the monarchy? "We" do not all love the monarchy. 25% of people do not.

  • rate this
    +31

    Comment number 38.

    A republican alternative to the monarchy with an elected President would inevitably involve corruption. How much power would we give such an individual? It would be an expensive alternative and ensure that we lose our national identity.
    Any major Royal event brings the nation together in a way that could only be dreamed of by an elected President.
    God save the Queen!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 37.

    I will celebrate the forthcoming Jubilee in the same way that an inmate at a lunatic asylum celebrates a summer tea party.

  • rate this
    +32

    Comment number 36.

    I'm Australian. Richard NIXON cured me of republicanism as a young man and immunised me for life. One look at the Republican types when Little Johnny ran his republic referendum in Australia and no wonder it lost so miserably. The problem is they always want to give El Presidente power. I agree that just a casual look at the types they would put up for president is enough to turn you off.

  • rate this
    +47

    Comment number 35.

    If we didn't have a monarch, we would have an electable head of state. Looking at the costs involved with the US presidential elections (since we seem to model ourselves on them), we couldn't afford it.
    Plus, we know where we are with our royal family (unlike politicians!) - we watch them grow up after all.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 34.

    There are two reasons people don't want to get rid of the monarchy. First, our politicians are a particularly dim, corrupt, and incompetent lot at the moment. Then, we have a good monarch, honest and with a strong sense of duty. This does not apply to her heir! See what the polls say when Charles is king! I don't mind having a monarch, but we should be able to vote to get rid of a useless one.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 33.

    20 all about news
    If I thought that Joanna Lumley or someone like that would get the job then there could be some reason to change but remember the lords reforms and the peoples peers and we all know how well that went we have a none political head of state with no power do we want to replace that with a politician pushing a partisan view

 

Page 28 of 30

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.