The royals are resurgent. Despite the deaths of her sister and mother in quick succession, this looks like being an annus mirabilis if not for the Queen personally, at least for the institution she heads.
A variety of factors have contributed to this revival. First, the programme of incremental reforms, embarked upon in the early 1990s and accelerated in the wake of Diana’s death, has gone some way to neutralising public disquiet. Under the watchful eye of the Palace’s Way Ahead Group, several changes have been made: the Queen has started paying taxes; Buckingham Palace has been opened to the public; and the Civil List has been opened to greater parliamentary scrutiny.
Second, the Royal Family has become highly adept in its use of modern techniques of PR and media management. The talent of experts such as Mark Bolland has enabled the royals to develop a sophisticated media machine. The delicate handling of Prince Harry’s drug-taking, the striking images of the Queen Mother’s funeral and the skilful choreography of the Queen’s Jubilee tour all display PR mastery.
Any veiled threat that monarchists may have glimpsed in New Labour’s initial burst of constitutional modernisation has proved completely baseless. The fact that reforms have been located solely at the level of constituent parts – the second chamber, national and regional parliaments and assemblies – rather than at the level of the whole has kept the monarchy well off the agenda.
Practical considerations also play a part. No government is going to expend the vast amount of political capital necessary to build support for a republic. The pragmatism of modern politics means that the government is far more interested in delivering on its policies than rethinking democracy. Furthermore, Tony Blair understands the value of the monarchy to a progressive government. From Gladstone to Wilson, he has conformed to the rule that progressive prime ministers make the staunchest royalists.
Few republicans, however, have shown any interest in the historical, cultural and psychological aspects of monarchy, which underpin the popularity and longevity of the institution. This seems to be a mistake. A large majority of people want to live under a monarchy, but would prefer it to
be in tune with the times. Yet the core question about the form this modernisation would take remains unanswered. Amidst Jubilee fever, the pressure for change is to some extent reduced. But when this surge in popularity subsides, as inevitably it will,
the need for a long-term strategy for institutional renewal remains as pressing as before.
This means the explicit acknowledgment that the monarchy’s primary function is now symbolic rather than constitutional. Few people are aware of the monarchy’s constitutional powers or enthusiastic about retaining them.
Instead, the Royal Family needs to more effectively embody the values of modern Britain: tolerance, diversity, inclusiveness and creativity. Much of the constitutional baggage of monarchy could be discarded, thus creating the momentum to re-energize wider democratic renewal.
The central measure would be to separate the role of head of state from the historical powers of the monarch, and redefine the connections between the monarch, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Despite a progressive government, the UK still struggles to be a nation at ease with itself. The reserves of influence that the Royal Family holds over the constitution act as the democratic equivalent of treacle, smothering change.
Some see this as a positive form of continuity, but we cannot rely on this incremental model of change to ensure a vibrant and healthy democracy. We need a self-governing society that can hold itself together without hiding behind the fig-leaf of authority and legitimacy from the past. And the starting place for change? The Queen must hand over the throne to the future king while he has the drive and energy to see through this modernisation.