The recent brouhaha over the Queens millionth year on the throne (I had a curry like that once) has brought many a whiney wind bag out of their shell to have good old moan up about the Monarchy.
Now, I can see that having an unelected individual born into extreme privilege and high office seems unfair. It is unfair. “Why them”, they ask. “What have they done to deserve it” they bleat. I have some sympathy for this point. Why them indeed? Is it the inbreeding, the lack of chin, the racist Granddad? “It’s out of date and undemocratic”, they complain. Again, factually correct.. but so what?
What are the options? An elected President seems the most obvious choice. Sarkozy, Bush.. Fucking A, let's do this thing.. erm..
What will this give us above what we have now? Right now we have a Monarch who’s role is largely ceremonial, the royal family cost the country a fair bit to maintain but most figures suggest the royal houses, gardens and general paraphernalia such as the changing of the guards are of net benefit to the country in purely financial terms. Not to mention the shop after shop selling Coldstream Guard dolls, Beefeater aprons and other such tut that is surely enhanced by the Monarchy. People buy into it as it's real. It's not history, it actually exists and it's benign.
The monarch does not have much choice but to serve the people. She sits through endless children’s plays, visits endless hospitals, old people’s homes, walks around gardens, admires dreadful artwork and occasionally has to sit in scorching heat watching some interminable four hour “cultural” welcome to Australia in which she hears more kids singing (although in an annoying nasal tone with a rising inflection? and the end of every line? like everything's a bloody question?). Her day-to-day life is a long way from my idea of fun.
She is wealthy of course, but what does that mean to her? What would that wealth mean to you? A big house, nice cars, great holidays.. you’d choose your favourite things.. she can’t. She’s the Queen. She gets what she is given. Which is a massive palace and all the trimmings for sure, but it’s just home to her. I doubt the money means anything to her, so to envy it, or feel she is not deserving of it in some way just seems petty to me. I can’t get my head round that argument, if she does not have it who does? What happens to all of it?
Perhaps the President should get it all. A president elected at great financial cost would need a presidential address, would have to have somewhere to host State dinners, would need huge amounts of security, would need a fleet of limos and a plane, would need oh.. all the things a Queen needs. So the cost would be the same (if not more due to lost tourism).. And the benefit? An elected head of state. So now that we’ve gone to all the bother of electing a head of state we’d better confer some actual power to them too.
So we’d gain more bureaucracy, gain more expense and we’d lose the tourist dollars and frankly the sense of pride many of us have at the pomp of it all. I can’t see the point. The Queen is an irrelevance to me on an emotional level, but I know she benefits the country in PR terms if nothing else.. Those that complain tend mainly to feel that everyone should be equal, when this is plainly an impossible ideal, out of touch with anything approaching reality. And in any case an elected president would almost certainly be an establishment figure in the first place, born into expensive schools and opportunity. So really, what’s the point of changing a system that works perfectly well and gives many huge satisfaction, brings tourism to the UK and is the envy of the world. Viewing figures for the Royal Wedding alone prove that.
We'd also lose the ability to sing God Save YOUR Queen to Australians, which surely is one of life's great pleasures.
We’d sacrifice far too much and gain absolutely nothing.
What do you think?
