- That for more than a half a century now, the English monarchy has been walking the edge of toppling, with scandals of kleptomania, sexual abandonment and decadence dogging its every move is now old news. But this its latest romance with the top of the food chain in hypocrisy, is now stinking to high heavens. This is a monarchy its contemporary wealth is build on blood and sorrow of people. This is an aristocracy that walked and accumulated impure wealth on on unimaginable sadism of slavery, colonialism, graft, manipulations, arrogance, betrayal and lies. This is crown that is dripping with blood of innocent folks all over the world from Africa to Asia. Now, the world and all the detractors of the ill fated empire watch with a smirk as its fall starts. First they have dragged themselves and their falsehood out of the European Union. Good riddance to bad rubbish the man land Europeans say. Now, a colossal bomb shell has hit the empire of clay. a scion of the royal citadel of shame in the midst of accusations of the possibility of a genuine black sheep in the Windsor, and possibility of tainted blood the young prince in question marries a black woman. that his mother had been so traumatized in the palace of shame that she had lashed out is s now dusted up again to be topical news, including her highly dramatic death is now in the public news domain all over again, like a fracacous ghost that has refused to rest.
- Now the spawn of a frustrated and sad wayward mother, had married outside the appropriate approval of the uppity family. He married a black woman who is obviously more advanced than him in the affairs of manhood.
- Will this be the moment? Will Meghan and Harry do to the monarchy what Diana threatened but never quite achieved, shaking the institution so severely it eventually collapses? Those who believe Britons should be able to choose their head of state have waited patiently for the crisis that finally undoes the House of Windsor, but this week they allowed themselves an excitement they had not known since the 1990s. Polling is stubbornly consistent, showing support for a republic flatlining at around 20%, but might the Oprah interview and all it revealed trigger a shift? Could this, at last, be it?
The case for republican optimism begins with an acknowledgment that this latest twist is hardly unprecedented. On the contrary, each generation seems to have its own iteration of the same plotline, a tale of love and marriage revealing a cold, closed institution thwarting the happiness of its young. It was Edward and Mrs Simpson for my grandparents; Margaret and Group Captain Peter Townsend for my parents; Charles, Camilla and Diana for me – and now the Sussexes for my kids. The public splits on generational lines, the young shaking their fists at the palace as monarchists feel a tremor of fear, anxious that the public will finally turn on the institution and demand its abolition.
Usually it comes to nothing but, says the republican optimist, this time is different. Harry and Meghan have introduced a new, radioactive element into the mix: race and racism. The coming generation will not tolerate that, just as they will not forgive the callous dismissal of a declared mental health problem. True, Diana made that latter complaint too, but attitudes to mental health have advanced since then. In this view, the Windsors have crossed two lines that, for younger Britons, must never be crossed – and that could destroy the public consent on which monarchy rests.
The racism accusation is particularly lethal, because the conventional remedies are not available to royalty. They cannot promise to “prioritise diversity” or to ensure their personnel “better reflect Britain in 2021” because that’s not how a hereditary monarchy works. It allocates its – and therefore our – top job by bloodline. The role is reserved for the members of a single white Protestant family. You can’t “modernise” your way out of that ancient fact, one that contradicts everything we tell ourselves about our society. We like to speak of inclusivity, but forget that the role of head of state is determined by genetic exclusivity.
Meghan could have represented an answer of sorts to that, bringing some diversity to the family. Instead, republicans can feel relieved that the monarchy had a chance to deepen its support among black and mixed-race Britons – and blew it. What’s more, the palace cannot comfort itself that this week was a one-off: the Sussex bombardment might well continue, with Netflix as the launching platform.
Relevant too is the fact that the monarchy’s prize asset is a single, mortal individual. Malcolm Turnbull, the former Australian prime minister who led the unsuccessful 1999 referendum campaign to remove the Queen as that country’s head of state, told me this week of “the huge reservoir of respect and affection” that exists for the monarch and which has long blocked the path to change. That’s truer still in the UK, where Elizabeth serves as the last symbolic link to what is the foundational event of modern Britain – 1940, our finest hour – and meets a deep need for constancy and continuity, connecting the present to an almost unrecognisable past.
But the Queen will be 95 next month; the second Elizabethan era will one day draw to a close. Her success has been predicated on a fastidious neutrality and the mystique of silence, two qualities that her eldest son will not be able to replicate: we know where he stands because he’s talked a lot.
All of which allows republicans to expect a shift. And yet, even though I share their conviction that in a democracy we should elect our head of state, I’m not hopeful that a breakthrough is imminent. First, there’s the history. The Windsors have survived much greater challenges than an Oprah interview: Edward VIII abdicated and Diana ended up dead, the latter generating a wave of fury that engulfed the streets rather than Twitter. For the Mirror to call this week’s events the “worst royal crisis in 85 years” shows nothing so much as forgetfulness.
Second, revelations of family dysfunction don’t undermine the monarchy so much as explain its enduring appeal. One of royalty’s advantages over electing an aged eminence as president, Ireland-style, is that it provides a rolling soap opera, a perpetual source of gossip, human drama and distraction. “It’s reality TV,” says Turnbull. The dysfunction is part of its function. Royal rifts and scandal are not a bug; they’re a feature.
Which means republicans don’t win when they rest the case against monarchy on the flaws of those who currently inhabit it. Far better to make the case in principle. In Australia, that’s easy because the principle is so simple: Australia’s head of state should be Australian. The case here – that Britain can never be democratic or equal when the top rung of our national ladder is in the permanent grip of a single family – is also strong, but it can rapidly sound abstract or dry, lost in the arid wastelands of “constitutional reform”. This is the republican paradox: the exciting arguments don’t work, the powerful ones are boring.
Some reformers believe their moment will come when the Queen’s reign ends. Once it’s no longer about her, people will be receptive to the republican argument. That forgets, though, that the system allows no such interval for debate on the merits of Charles III. It will be: “The Queen is dead, long live the King”.
There’s a reason the monarchy has stood as long as it has. For all the Windsors’ glaring deficiencies, the odds remain stacked in their favour. Republicanism is a just cause – but, for now at least, it seems a lost one.
- Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist
- … it looks like you’re quite new here, welcome to the Guardian. We hope you’re finding our reporting valuable. As you join us today from Belgium, we’d like to take a moment to introduce ourselves a bit better.
Millions turn to the Guardian every day for quality reporting that stands for truth and integrity. Readers tell us how much they value our editorial independence, particularly in these challenging times, when access to trustworthy news has never been more vital. Thanks to our unique ownership structure, we deliver high-impact journalism that’s free from political and commercial influence. With no shareholders or billionaire owner, we can investigate without fear or favour, and amplify stories that need to be told.
And we made a different choice: to keep Guardian journalism open for everyone to read, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay. We do this because we believe in information equality. Greater numbers of people are staying well-informed on world events, and being inspired to take meaningful action.
In the last year alone, we offered readers a comprehensive, international perspective on critical events – from the Black Lives Matter protests, to the US presidential election, Brexit, and the ongoing pandemic. We enhanced our reputation for urgent, powerful reporting on the climate emergency, and made the decision to reject advertising from fossil fuel companies, divest from the oil and gas industries, and set a course to achieve net zero emissions by 2030.
Our global readership powers Guardian journalism, and we’re proud to say that we now have supporters in 180 countries. This financial support makes our work possible, and our future more sustainable. But we must keep it going.
If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Every contribution, however big or small, makes a difference.
