Watching the funeral of Queen Elizabeth, and commenting on it for five Polish media channels, I found myself having to contrast the role of a hereditary head of state vs. an elected one. I must say - I prefer the former - though with an important caveat - lineage. The late Queen, and now King Charles III, have both spent much or all (in the case of the King) of their childhood and youth preparing for the role of monarch; Britain's Royal Family has a solid and generally reputable track history.
Having a head of state that is above party politics is such a blessing, which I can see so clearly in Poland where the current head of state is so deeply connected to the ruling party. I have written before about the desirability of a 'no-party state', in which there are no political parties, only technocrats elected to ensure citizens' protection (from crime, from foreign aggression, from disease, from setbacks in life through social security, from unscrupulous entrepreneurs) and that citizens have the wherewithal to flourish (education and infrastructure).
The Queen's dedication to her duty, a lifetime of service, is at odds with the often venal motives that drive mere politicians - power -> money-> power -> money. I see little noble in party politics right now in either Poland or Britain. In both cases, it is poorly-educated voters who have become the power base for a cynical and manipulative self-interest group.
In her life, the Queen has tended to unite rather than to divide; in death the more so. There is no serious republican movement in Britain (Ireland has a different issue); there are no politicians in parliament today calling for the monarchy to be abolished - although Liz Truss once did so in a previous iteration (the one before she became the Tory Remainer that she also once was. Hardly 'a lady not for turning'). Would the British really want a presidential head of state? I doubt if there's more than 15% of Britons in favour of that.
Yes, the Royal Family can be accused of living a life of luxury (and for those not in line for the throne, that life can also be quite louche). Though the Queen lived in splendour, that splendour was an inescapable part of the show, part of the magic. A cycling monarchy, like those low-profile north-west European royals, would not stand out enough from the common citizen; sadly, that reflects the status hierarchy of the human condition.
Once upon a time, royal families acquired that status through brutality, often as the victors of local and regional battles determining who owned and ran what. England went through two civil wars before emerging with a Royal Family that would evolve into what it is today. The fact that there's no controversy about a Windsor's right to rule (rather than some other pretender to the throne of different lineage) suggests that the continuity and tradition inherent in the system is working. The Queen is dead, long live the King. We all know that. No waiting for a puff of white smoke over Buckingham Palace, no re-counting ballot papers over and over until the right result comes in.
I would caution Britons who look forward to the abolition of monarchy; the alternative can be much, much worse (see America 2016-2020).
This time last year:
Seaside, Sopot
Repeatable moments of joy
This time three years ago:
Spectacularly glorious day, Ealing
This time six years ago:
Evolution, the future and us
This time eight years ago:
Relief as Scots vote to remain in UK
This time nine years ago:
The S2 opens all the way to Puławska
This time ten years ago:
Thundering ghost from out of the mist
This time 11 years ago:
Push-pull for Mazowsze
This time 12 years ago:
Okęcie runway repairs are complete
This time 14 years ago:
I know that painting from somewhere...
Posts
1 comment:
I have a sense that most of us will never really know how our late Queen Elizabeth helped us through using her soft non-political influence to moderate the folly of our elected rulers, and hence our own folly since collectively we British people elected them.
Post a Comment