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
    +1

    Comment number 172.

    I recall reading some time ago, that the American public were most unimpressed to see President Carter addressing the nation wearing a sweater, rather than a suit, during an energy crisis.

    Particularly during hard times, it would seem, people would rather see those held in esteem to be somehow able to ride the storm. That's why the Royals are still popular. They are symbols of hope and identity.

  • rate this
    +7

    Comment number 171.

    FTW, My job takes me outside of the UK for several years at a time, I have worked and lived in many countries around the world. I now live far far away... but the one thing that strikes me is that in all of these places I have lived - the one thing I always hear is admiration for our royal family and the queen, how hard she works. They show more loyalty than workshy British yobs

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 170.

    For 60 years the Queen has acted as head of state with far more dignity than any of our politicians could have managed in the same period. In addition, she certainly commands a lot more respect worldwide. I'm far prouder to have been represented by her than Bliar or Dave.

    Cost wise, has anyone considered just how expensive a president, ceremonial or otherwise, would be? You might be surprised..

  • rate this
    -12

    Comment number 169.

    153. anchoredballoon
    The Queen, 'voluntarily' pays 10% tax on part of her income.
    When the Queen Mother died, the government waived Death Duties on her estate.
    Put your cap back on and get off your knees.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 168.

    I wonder why the BBC keeps opening this particular can?

  • rate this
    -15

    Comment number 167.

    What greatness or kindness has the queen done for the people that average countryman do everyday without reward or recognition? You're buying a fairy tale, and fairy tales are for children-grow up!

  • rate this
    +11

    Comment number 166.

    The Queen commands significant respect as an ambassador, as do her nearby family.

    Most of the money given to the Royal Family goes into maintainance of palaces and other 'royal' buildings. Given that all of them are also tourist attractions, that money wouldn't suddenly go elsewhere if we removed the monarchy. We'd just lose a defining national symbol.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 165.

    @130.
    Great to see an up-to-date rebuffing of the monarchy....... Oh wait hang on, sorry wrong page.... Oh right I see. You're perfectly right the monarchy was ghastly back then........ 365 YEARS AGO!
    Hasn't the entire system changed now? I don't think Liz can order executions anymore can she?

  • rate this
    +15

    Comment number 164.

    Re: 145 I think you are missing the point. When republicans talk of 'getting rid of the monarchy', it is usually followed by 'replacing it with a democratically elected president'. However, the fact is that there is barely a presidency in the world that costs less than the monarchy and it would therefore end up costing the country more - it is a complete fallacy to think that it would be cheaper

  • rate this
    -3

    Comment number 163.

    Britain will lose none of its eccentricity and quirkiness by becoming a republic. The republics of France and the USA have very different characters, reflecting their respective traditions, values, public tastes, etc. And so too with Britain: its republic will have its own unique character. Democracy and distinctness are not antithetical to one another.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 162.

    The little girl in the photo is so loyal to the monarchy that she has a Union Flag that is upside down - a distress signal!

  • rate this
    -10

    Comment number 161.

    Whenever I watch a TV news report about the Queen, I always think that you get a slight flavour of what it might be like to live in a country like North Korea - whose news reports about their "Dear Leader" are presumably just as unquestioning. This is the real answer to "why does the UK love the monarchy" - there's very little open discussion of what the alternative might be.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 160.

    I saw an interviewer on TV who went around asking 20 people "Who is this person?" while pointing at a picture of Ed Miliband. Only half got it right. Since most people are disengaged from politics, it wouldn't make much (if any) difference to their lives if we had a monarchy or a republic. But the monarchy does give us some enjoyable pageantry from time to time and for me that's the fun of it.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 159.

    "But, in the absence of a hereditary monarchy is there any reason that the prime minister as head of the government should not also be head of state, as in America?"
    Yes there is- if you don't have a separate head of state there's no-one that can dismiss the government and you have dictatorship.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 158.

    We 'love' our monarchy because we have been relentlessly programmed to believe they are necessary and indispensable. This has replaced fear in a bygone age of ignorance and serfdom. Every means has been employed to internalise these people, nomenclature, memoria, 'honours', ubiquitous imagery - accompanied by an insistency for dehumanising deference. To follow rather than participate is required.

  • Comment number 157.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 156.

    @149.ftw

    When have the Royals gone begging? Do you actually know what they do? Or do you just sit their getting your facts from others that have no clue?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 155.

    re 145.

    Unlike the Royal Family, Versailles and the Louvre are both tourist attractions that you have to pay to see so I don't think your argument against them is something of a strawman.

  • rate this
    -5

    Comment number 154.

    43.Michael Flanagan
    Are you talking about UN HDI list(see Wiki)? In 2011, UK ranked 28. In the top 30 countries/regions, 16 have NO monarchy, including US, Ireland, Germany, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Austria, France, Finland. In the top 50, 30 have NO monarchy. There is no sufficient proof that countries with monarchy are better off.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 153.

    People complain about the Queen having amassed wealth, and the crass nature of this in comparison to the 'austerity' we find ourselves in. They forget to mention that since 1992 the Queen has voluntarily paid income tax. The vast majority of her wealth is held in trust for the state. Her household budget has remained static for 2 decades. This is more than can be said for many spendthrifts.

 

Page 22 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.