Yesterday, my wife and I went early to Trafalgar Square intending to watch the journey of the new King and Queen as they travelled in their coach along The Mall and turned into Whitehall. We found what we thought was a good observation point, and began our long vigil. On the corner opposite, anti-monarchist demonstrators had gathered to protest against the Coronation. When the republicans chanted "Not my King!", the "royalists", who outnumbered them, responded with loud "Boos" (I didn't join in on either side).. Having said that, there was very little ill-will. In fact, one anti-monarchist carrying a placard walked among the crowd near us, and suffered no ill effects. It came as a surprise to learn that 52 republicans had been arrested, as we saw nothing of it. We saw little of the parade either, but I'll come to that.
This was an unusual experience for me. Had my younger self seen me, he would have been aghast. Back in the 70s, as an SWP member, I participated in the SWP's "Stuff the Jubilee" campaign in1977. 46 years later, I was standing among royalists. My younger self would have been outraged.
Nonetheless, we waited. As you might expect, time passed slowly. Frequent downpours of rain did not help the situation. Shortly after 10.30, there was a burst of excited cheering in the section of the crowd in front of us. Those of us at the back, which included my wife and myself, wondered what was going on. In fact, the Royal coach had passed by, and we had seen nothing. The crowd in front was too dense. After hours of waiting and getting soaked, our feelings can well be imagined.
Curiously enough, I didn't feel that we'd wasted our time. Even in our small section of the crowd, there were a number of different nationalities: British, Irish, Americans, Australians, Filipinos, Sri Lankans, all mixing well together as friends. Friendships have been forged during the preparations for the Coronation, all along the parade route, and that's a positive thing. As we left the Square (it wasn't easy), we felt positive about what we had experienced, despite the disappointment and the rain.
Now, I am well aware that coming away with a feeling of positivity does not justify the whole Coronation event in the eyes of sceptics and republicans. One republican, were he with us today, who would be scathing about the Coronation rituals and pageantry, is Tom Paine, the 18th century English radical author and Founding Father of the USA. As might be guessed, he was a fervent anti-monarchist, one of his quotes being:
"Vice and virtue, ignorance and wisdom, in short, every quality, good or bad, is put on the same level. Kings succeed each other, not as rationals, but as animals. It signifies not what their mental or moral characters are".
After assisting the American colonists to achieve independence, he returned to England for a while to build a bridge. Nowadays, he would have been arrested as a traitor, or, like Shamima Begum, had his citizenship removed. The authorities left him alone until he published "Rights of Man" - a rebuttal of Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France". Paine was lucky to escape to France, where he was elected to the National Convention. Now, it might be thought that Paine would have supported the execution of the French king, Louis XVI, but he didn't. Like the Girondins, he supported the abolition of the monarchy, but opposed the Terror and the king's beheading. In fact, Paine wanted Louis XVI to be sent to America, where he could learn to become a good citizen. This enraged the Jacobin faction, led by Robespierre, and Paine found himself in the Luxembourg Prison, where he was lucky to avoid execution. For those interested, this is how he escaped: "The evening before his death a physician came to visit Paine and for the duration of the visit his cell door was kept open. During the visit guards came through and dutifully marked his door with an “X.” But without thinking they drew the “X” on the inside of the door that had been swung open. When the doctor left and the door of Paine’s cell was shut, the “X” was concealed. The next morning guards passed over his cell since no “mark of judgment” appeared. An open door to a visiting physician had saved his life."
Paine survived to see the fall of Robespierre, but not before most of the Girondins had gone the way of so many in revolutionary France.
So, what's this got to do with the Coronation, or anything else? Well, it goes some way towards clarifying my view of today's monarchy. A friend asked me if I'd ever imagined standing in a royalist crowd and I found myself harking back to the French Revolution, the Girondins, the Jacobins, Paine and Robespierre. I said that I might have lined up with the Jacobins when younger, but would have supported the Girondins, had I attained to middle age or older.
While I support the right of Republic to demonstrate against them, I cannot bring myself to bear malice towards the monarchy in general and the King in particular. So many people, including the Labour MP, David Lammy, have spoken in his favour that, were the monarchy to fall tomorrow, I would not send Charles to the USA to learn good citizenship. I think he is a good citizen already.
I know that there are many other issues involved. I thought that the the police action against Republic was heavy handed, and there needs to be a full investigation. And there is always the matter of royal expenditure at a time of economic crisis. But, an American friend asked me the crucial question: do I believe in the monarchy? My answer, influenced no doubt by age, is that I have no wish to campaign for their abolition while so many of my fellow citizens want to keep them. I save my energy for campaigns against Brexit and the far right. The situation might change over time, but that is for future generations to bring about.
I just wish it hadn't rained so much yesterday.
Your post is very much an emotive response to the coronation.
ReplyDeleteI find that there is a lot of confusion among supporters of the monarchy. I was discussing this very issue with a royalist just the other day. She said she didn't want a president in case we ended up with someone like Putin. I explained that it wouldn't happen because our constitution has evolved so that our head of state is ceremonial, as in Ireland and Germany, and is not the head of government as in Russia, the USA and France. An elected head of state in the UK would also be ceremonial. I believe such a system is preferable because the separation of head of state, whether elected or hereditary, and head of government provides something of a check against excessive power in the hands of one individual.
The other argument she presented was that the royal family bring a lot of money into the country, mainly in the form of tourism. This myth has been comprehensively refuted on many occasions and yet it continues to persist. I do remember our tourist board being asked how many enquiries they received relating to the royal family - the answer was virtually none.
Supposedly 'official' proponents of such an argument include everything that has the most spurious connection to the royal family. To give just one example out of many: admission charges for Windsor Castle are included in the count of income supposedly generated by the royal family. If I went there, it would have absolutely nothing to do with the royal family and everything to do with its place in our history and also its architecture. In other words, I'd visit it for the same reasons as I've been around the old castles in north Wales and the ruined abbeys in Yorkshire.
The problem with monarchy is that you don't know what you'll get. Many kings have simply been party animals and womanisers (e.g. Henry VIII, George IV and, until he succeeded to the throne, Edward VII),. Before he became king, the 'heroic' Richard the Lion Heart grew up in France where he had a reputation as a rapist and murderer; he also despised England and spent as little time here as possible, preferring to engage in his hobby of war. The ransom England had to pay for his release after he'd been taken prisoner virtually bankrupted the country. Mary I burned prominent non-Catholics, including bishops, at the stake.
While such extreme behaviour is highly unlikely today, the present royal family is nonetheless seriously dysfunctional: Charles was unfaithful to Diana throughout their entire marriage; Edward is regarded as a national disgrace; and Harry is playing the spoilt brat poor little rich boy. Prince Philip was notorious for his 'gaffes', as they were laughingly called by the press, but from anyone else they would have been subject to severe criticism.
Our constitution should not be formed on the basis of the character of the monarch. I know of no scandal associated with the late queen and I believe she was conscientious in fulfilling her role during her long reign. This explains the personal popularity she enjoyed in our country, but in my view it is irrelevant to deciding how we are governed.
I don't go demonstrating against the royal family because I consider there are more urgent issues, such as climate change, the threat posed by nuclear weapons and the increasingly repressive nature of this Tory government. However, if there were a referendum on the matter, I'd vote to abolish the monarchy.
I am puzzled at your comment that my blog item is "very much emotive". I tried very hard to be objective, but the rain must have affected me. Or something. You are not the only person to think I was taking a monarchist stand - erroneously, as it happens. In fact, I was firstly describing my experience of being in the crowd. I then attempted to provide answers to two questions posed to me by friends living abroad, with historical references. I simply stated that I would align myself with an anti-monarchist, Tom Paine, who took a moderate and humane stand towards the execution of Louis XVI by opposing it. If you read Paine's "Common Sense", you will see that he condemns monarchy in similar ways to you, e.g.: "To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and tho' himself might deserve some decent degree of honours of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in Kings, is that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule, by giving mankind an ASS FOR A LION". Strong stuff, and I'm sure that Paine and yourself would have found yourselves in full agreement on this topic. Nor do I deny that your criticism of the present Royal family is valid. What I dislike about the way Republic demonstrate and express themselves publicly, is the way they seem to want to turn the Royals into hate figures. To me, many republican protesters behave like latter-day Jacobins. I demur in this as. like Paine and yourself, I recognise the Royal family as flawed human beings, much the same as ourselves, and as you pointed out. Republic have many valid arguments against the monarchy, but it is their actions on demonstrations which are emotive, seemingly motivated by personal hostility. In fact one caller to LBC this morning who stood in the royalist section of the crowd on Saturday said that she and others had been abused by republicans. Now, that's being emotive. Like it or not, the monarchy remains popular with a large section of the British public - although it may change, as I said. If some republicans are seen as being violent, it can only harm their cause. Tom Paine was right in his condemning the execution of the French king. I am sure he would deplore the demonization of our Royal family today - as do I. If that's being emotive, I'm proud to be.
DeleteI didn't suggest you were being a monarchist, simply that your response to being in the crowd seemed rather emotive to me. However, that first single sentence of mine was not my main point; my opinions on monarchy were made more clearly in the subsequent seven paragraphs in which you'll note that implications of emotiveness do not feature.
ReplyDelete