Monarchy Rules: Fresh Princess of Britannia

The British Monarchy: out-dated? Wonderfully historic? Elitist? We have had a monarchy in some form or another since the Romans abandoned us and that monarchy has controlled the whole country, for the most part, since the Norman invasion of 1066. Even today this hallowed and ancient institution continues to evolve, most recently as a result of the Commonwealth reforms widely applauded by all but staunch republicans.

Yet one must ask the question: why has it taken so long for these changes to be put into place? Indeed, not only these monarchical reforms, but other key reforms enacted down in Perth – such as the anti-homophobia decree.

When you think of the great British monarchs, names like Elizabeth I and Victoria come to mind. Indeed I would suggest that Elizabeth II deserves to be up there as well. If some of our greatest rulers have been women, why have we waited so long to legally make sure that if Kate and Will have a little baby girl, that little princess is first in line to the throne regardless of if she has younger brothers?

Furthermore, in a country that is renowned and in some circles celebrated for its diversity of culture and religion, why couldn’t a Catholic marry into the royal family? Even now a Catholic still can’t be crowned King (or Queen, as the case may be).

Ok, so enough complaining. The reforms did get enacted and that’s what we should be focusing on. However, amid all the general relief that the monarchy had finally caught up, voices of dissent perforated the self-satisfaction that hung like a merry haze over Perth.

The campaign group ‘Republic’ was dissatisfied with the reforms, saying that they do not go far enough. A quick glance at their website shows fury over Prince Charles forcing parliament to get his permission for twelve bills. God forbid the monarchy actually do what they are supposed to!

The whole point of a constitutional monarchy is that the two centres of power, parliament and the crown, act as checks on one another.

Obviously in our modern society parliament holds more power as Britain is proudly a democracy. Of course groups like ‘Republic’ argue that by having a monarchy we are not a democracy. So should we, the people, get a say in who sits on the throne at Buckingham Palace?

Yet perhaps the system does need bringing into the world of tablet computers and video calling, maybe our monarchy needs to become an iMonarchy. Can we find a compromise in monarchical reform? There have been some truly awful monarchs in our past, the entire house of Stuart for example, or George IV, a man so fat he was allegedly as wide as he was tall. How different would our history be if parliament had been able to say “Thanks but no thanks, how about your brother?”

But how do you determine how bad a monarch is, and if parliament can veto one, can they veto them all? Would we be left with a glorified republic? Is that what we want? Are we already in a quasi-republican state?

Here seems as good a place as any to address what the Queen actually does. People go on and on about how much money the monarchy costs the government and how it brings nothing to the country, but how true is that?

For all you naysayers there are some things you need to know. The monarchy actually earns money through land rent alone, most of which is given to the government. So before we even consider tourism and everything that goes with it, the monarchy has paid for itself.

Furthermore, that summit in Perth was very important for Britain as it renewed economic and diplomatic ties as well as giving us a chance to force countries to adopt what we have to come to see as basic humanitarian policies, such as the legalisation of homosexuality.
This achievement was possible because the Queen is the head of each of these states, and yes we are linked due to big bad evil colonialism, but now we are putting a previously oppressive relationship to a much better use.

The Queen is one of the country’s most important diplomatic assets and for that reason alone she justifies her position. However, this is all very easy to say when we have an excellent monarch on the throne. For now it is impossible to say what would happen should we end up being ruled by another George IV, but who knows what Charles will do?