British Republicanism: An Image Problem

 

To a foreign observer it must seem strange: at a time of national mourning, when hundreds of thousands of people of all nationalities are queueing to pay their respects to the late Queen, a small number of anti-monarchist protesters are commanding so much press and media attention. It has raised questions about free speech, good taste, the right to protest and the anti-monarchist/republican cause in Britain in general and England in particular. I think it worth looking back at the republican movement in Britain (as distinct from Irish republicanism) and, following from the title, the image of the movement to outsiders. Why does British republicanism have such an image problem?

We should start our discussion by reminding ourselves that we once had a republican government, fronted up by the man in the picture: Oliver Cromwell (1599 - 1658). This was the Commonwealth established by the victorious Parliamentary forces after the English Civil War. It lasted from 1649 until 1660 and has been described as a Protestant version of the Taliban. As David Ross says: 

"Church attendance (Protestant only) was compulsory. Horse racing and cockfights were banned, plays were prohibited, gambling dens and brothels were closed, as were many alehouses. Drunkenness and blasphemy were harshly dealt with. People being people, these measures were extremely unpopular."

They certainly were, and, following Cromwell's death and the ineffectual reign of his son, Richard, the monarchy was restored in 1660. The new king, Charles II, had no time for such restrictions, and dispensed with them nationally and personally - but that's another story. The point is that the Commonwealth seems to have left a folk memory that rejects Republicanism and inspires affection for the monarch.

The French Revolution of 1789, following upon the success of the colonists in the American War of Independence, led to a republican revival among the British intelligentsia. Writers such as Tom Paine, Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin supported the anti-monarchist cause in France and Britain but modified their views after the commencement of The Terror.

The flag above is the British republican flag, which came into being in 1816, and is said to have been in use until 1935. It first appeared during the Spa Fields Riots of 1816 and was reportedly flown during the Pentrich Rising (1817) and the Peterloo Massacre, 1819. Britain's rulers took a dim view of republicanism, passing the Treason Felony Act of 1848. This act made republican advocacy an offence which could lead to transportation to Australia or (later) life imprisonment. It has never been repealed.

During the latter years of Queen Victoria's reign, the monarch withdrew from public life following the death of her consort, Prince Albert. During the 1870s, politicians such as Charles Dilke and Charles Bradlaugh called for a republic on the style of France and the USA. The emerging labour movement saw an emergent republicanism. The founder of the Labour Party, Keir Hardie, was an outspoken critic of the monarchy. One of his statements was: "The life of one Welsh miner is of greater commercial and moral value to the British nation than the whole Royal crowd put together."

Within the Labour Party, republicanism has remained a strong presence, but has been by no means popular with all members. In 1923, at the Labour Party's annual conference, two motions were proposed. The first was "that the Royal Family is no longer a necessary party of the British constitution". The second: "that the hereditary principle in the British Constitution be abolished". Both motions were defeated, and the Labour Party stopped officially expressing republican views. In 1936, following the Abdication Crisis and the exit of Edward VIII, MP James Maxton tabled a "republican amendment" to the Abdication Bill, which would have established a Republic in Britain. Maxton argued that the monarchy had now "outlived its usefulness". Five MPs voted for the bill. It was defeated by 403 votes.

Post-war, the cause of republicanism was voiced by one solitary public figure - the Labour MP, Willie Hamilton. He served as an MP from 1950 to 1987, and was known for his anti-monarchist views, best expressed in his book "My Queen and I". He once described the Queen as "a middle-aged woman of limited intellect who should be ditched in the Channel", and was no less scathing about her children. He described Prince Charles as "a nitwit and a gentle parasite, but at least he's not as rude as his sister", while of Prince Edward's academic record he said: "Edward's qualifications wouldn't get Joe Soap's son into the local polytechnic." He died in 2000, a republican to the end.

Republicanism has persisted on the Left to the present day. In 1991, Tony Benn, MP, introduced the "Commonwealth of Britain Bill" which called for the transformation of the United Kingdom into a "democratic, federal and secular Commonwealth of Britain", with an elected president. It failed to receive a second reading.

I think we can now identify one of the causes for the image problem of republicanism. It is widely seen as a policy of the Left, and the extreme Left in particular. The Socialist Workers Party (SWP), for instance, organised a "Stuff the Jubilee" campaign in 1977 and are attacking the monarchy today. The previous century's republican activity has emanated from what people perceive as the far Left and, as such, a destructive and revolutionary force. This is not always the case. Caroline Lucas, MP, is a republican, along with a number of leading politicians, including some LibDems (who once included our present prime minister), that hold anti-monarchist views. A number of celebrities, none of whom are SWP members, are also republicans. Honor Blackman, for instance, declined a CBE in 2014, saying:"... since I'm a republican I thought it would be somewhat hypocritical to pop up to the Palace." Russell Brand said of The Queen:  "She's high up, above us, at the top of a class pyramid on a shelf of money with her own face on it." Daniel Radcliffe has declared: 
"I am definitely a republican in the British sense of the word. I just don't see the use of the monarchy, though I'm a fierce patriot. I'm proud proud proud of being English, but I think the monarchy symbolizes a lot of what was wrong with the country."

And there we can discern another element of the image problem. Most ordinary folk, who see the Royal Family in general and the late Queen in particular as somehow part of them, are likely to resent what these well-off celebrities say on this topic, perceiving them as a jumped-up elite who are too big for their boots. This is carefully fostered by the right-wing press, who used resentment of foreigners as part of the Brexit campaign and portrayed Remain politicians and personalities as members of a (mythical) "cosmopolitan elite".  The only organised political republican force is Republic, founded in 1983, but it has not made any significant headway - at least as far as I know. I consider myself reasonably well-informed but, until I started research for this blog, I knew nothing of them.

The image problem has not been helped by the small number of anti-monarchist protests that we have seen in the past few days. At a time when the vast majority of people - including republicans - wish to mourn their monarch with solemnity and dignity, these protests can only be counter-productive. While I am a total supporter of free speech, the protests are unlikely to win friends and influence people. I do not believe that the protesters should be prosecuted or even arrested, but I share Keir Starmer's view:

"One of the great British traditions is the ability to protest and to disagree, but I think if it can be done in the spirit of respect," he said.
"Respect the fact that hundreds of thousands of people do want to come forward and have that moment, don't ruin it for them."

In addition to that, I would like to say that these protests not only pose an image problem for republicanism, but they also provide another diversion for this government, who can (and probably will) use them as a pretext to tighten up the law on protest.