This post concerns the current top UK news story, so may be of limited interest to foreign readers.
Everybody loved Elizabeth II, the genial old woman who used to smile, wave a lot, and wear lovely hats.
Yet just three years after her death, the UK royal family has been plunged into turmoil with the publication of the late Virginia Giuffre’s memoir. Whatever the truth behind the behaviour of the former prince Andrew, he has now been excommunicated from the royal family. At least in public.
My point is that it took just three years for this to happen. Just three years after strong public support for the monarch (and the monarchy, for the differences are imperceptible in many people’s eyes) somebody within the royal circle itself has been the cause of such acute embarrassment.
I heard a commentator on Friday describe the king as “strong”, for taking the decision to banish Andrew, but I disagree. When I consider that one of the alternatives is to testify to the US Congress, and to maybe even face prosecution and incarceration in the USA, I think the king took the soft option. Shuffle him off somewhere out of sight, and hopefully the fuss will die down before too long. What’s more, how many people – including other Heads of State – will look at the king, and the UK, in the future, and think likewise?
The one issue where I think the king was right was that this might do irreparable harm to the monarchy itself.
And I think this is an ever-present risk, when a country appoints a family as Heads of State. The current head might be fine, but the person who comes along a generation or two down the line might be a good egg, or they may not. And there is absolutely no control over the situation.
I think the answer is to allow British people to choose for themselves, the person that they think is most able to do the job of Head of State.
In saying this, I’m advocating that our royal family retire gracefully, and that they keep the wealth they have accumulated simply as a result of being a part of the royal family. Let bygones be bygones. But hereafter, the British state severs financial ties with the family and severs the link between the family and the post of Head of State. We might instead establish a fairer way of selecting one, one which allows citizens to choose.
What if citizens get it wrong?
When electing a government, for example, we often feel we have made the wrong choice, and we mitigate the effect of this by holding general elections, at least every five years.
There’s no reason why we couldn’t do the same with a Head of State. The number might be five, ten, twenty, or anything in between, whatever the British people feel is the best option. A fixed term.
This seems fairer that our current situation. Remember that the current job-holder has no selection process other than an accident of birth, and receives the job for life, no matter what their abilities or qualifications. So, even if my solution is not perfect, it is a step forward.
And hey, if a member of the royal family feels that they’re the most suitable person for the job, let them stand for election!
What if the current crop of unsatisfactory politicians just hijack the process?
This is possible. For example in the USA, the head of state is overtly political. But in the USA, the role of head of state carries different responsibilities.
Countries like Ireland, however, seem to have cracked this issue (the outgoing president, Michael Higgins, was a broadcaster and poet before he was elected president). Far from looking down on younger democracies, we should be using them as inspiration.
In conclusion, people make mistakes, people will continue to make mistakes, but the mistakes are theirs to make. And you never know, we might even pick a gem!
Mister Bump 
The thing with the British royals is, that the monarchy through its attraction to tourists and the taxes the royals pay probably benefits the economy more than it costs. But I am quite confident that the next generation as much of the royals as the wider public will introduce changes, so the monarchy and its significance is bound to evolve over time
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t see it as an issue of cost. Cost is neither here nor there. We can’t really be saying, “let’s keep our system of government because the royals are a great tourist attraction”. In that case, let’s choose Blackpool Tower instead. Far less embarrassing and the area could do with a lift.
No, the issue is one of how we are governed. Far more fundamental.
LikeLike
we‘re not being governed by the monarchy, abolishing the monarchy will not change fundamentally the way Britain is being governed. And that the British royals are prone to scandals is nothing new, there have been plenty over the centuries … my point is that the royals are a colourful part of Britain, but the monarchy‘s relevance is bound to diminish with every future generation
LikeLiked by 1 person
Plus, be careful not to colflate tourist attractions like Buckingham Palace with “the monarchy”. There’s no reason at all why the former could not still exist. No reasonable tourist would visit the UK in the hope of bumping into the king on the street. It’s the buildings that are the attraction, not the people.
LikeLike
of course the buildings are a major part of the attraction, but so are the royals, at least for now, as for example the crowds who travelled from abroad during the Golden Jubilee have shown.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with you Pete. Though our feelings about the British monarchy are tainted by the way they ruled over India.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A lot of British people share those feelings, Sadje. We can look at the famine in Bengal at the end of the Second World War, say, and whichever country we happen to be from, wrong is wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly my friend. I’m glad that with time, the notion of accountability is gaining momentum.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems odd indeed that the UK monarcy can allow its very existence to be threatened, for the sake on an individual.
Especially now that Giuffre is dead, the only way I see this ending is by (a) people giving up and getting on with their lives or (b) some kind of investigation taking place. And I think the chances of the former are slim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think so too. But letting Andrew go scot free is also not on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m less clear about that, since at the moment it is just her word against his. That might change – heaven knows what other evidence the US might have – but I’m not ready to assume that he is guilty of anything,just yet. But I do think that there needs to be transparency, and also some serious thinking about how a single individual can made an institution so vulnerable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very right! The law should be the same for everyone.
LikeLike
I had a friend in grad school who was from the UK and always joked that if things got bad enough, they could always dust off the Jacobite Succession to give the current royals a challenge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True enough, Lou
LikeLiked by 1 person