page 19

Couldn' Think of One

This letter to a Wellington newspaper clearly demonstrated that facet of the Monarchy which is its mainstay-emotion. Surrounded by an aura of mysticism and adulation, the Monarchy survives in a time of stainless steel sinks and plastic flowers to provide a breath of antediluvian grace. A thread of sentimentality—a yearning for the finer things in life, perhaps, or a respect for tradition-runs through any discussion of things Royal.

One of the official handouts would have it that the principal purpose of the Monarchy is to provide "a personal focus of loyalty." This focus of loyalty becomes ingrained in our characters at a very early age. Rare is the New Zealand primary school that lacks a portrait of the Queen. Equally rare is the New Zealand wedding reception during which the Queen is not toasted. Picture theatres still begin or end shows with scratched and faded shots of a Queen blessed with the quality of eternal youth. On a more official level all Government action is initialed in the name of the Queen or the Crown—that is, the state is the Crown. It is obvious, however, that this focus of loyalty need not be a personalised one. One only need remember the awe and respect with which the American Constitution is held by camera-toting, globe-trotting Middle America to realise this. What we are talking about here is, in the final analysis, patriotism: respect and admiration for one's country may be enough but it is obvious that a theoretically omnipotent personality may provide a stronger focus by being extremely easy to identify with.

An extension of the above is the idea of the Monarchy as a unifying force, not only nationally, but internationally. Sir James Donald argues that, despite the political differences of opinion within the Commonwealth, all of the countries involved consider loyalty to the Crown a fundamental part of their political system. Clive Thursby argues the opposite: some of the Commonwealth countries are republics; few, beyond elaborate lip-service, are really loyal and most (such as New Zealand) are looking elsewhere for national identity and big-power patronage. Today, it might be argued, the Commonwealth does little more than provide opportunities for cultural exchange.

A second purpose which the Monarchy serves lies in providing a sense of stability and continuity. Governments change (hopefully), politicans fade away (hopefully), policies change, but the Crown remains—stodgy and immutable. British subjects can thus see their country in the Monarchy rather than in changing, and often bungling, governments. Thursby suggests that if some degree of pageantry is deemed necessary in government, it is better that it involves someone who holds no real power. Should this be the case people may then be almost as vociferous as they wish in their denunciation of ruling politicans and their policies without being seditious. The Americans seem to have this point somewhat confused insofar as political dissent in the US can be, and is being, easily mistaken for opposition to the office of President and thus, ultimately, opposition to the Constitution. Consequently the combination of pomp (the physical manifestation of the state), and power (the actual running of the state), may necessarily mean that serious dissent is dangerous to the state itself and not merely dangerous to the continued rule of those who are administering the state. A possible conclusion is thus that the British Monarchy, by remaining aloof from partisan affairs, actually helps to ensure the continuity of the political system, quite apart from merely providing a sense of continuity.

Not all the purposes for which the Monarchy exists, however, are as abstract as these. According to Time "the Queen and her relations provide the finest body of bazaar openers, foundation stone layers and medal awarders that a ceremony-loving people could wish for." This, of course, is a feature of the Monarchy's 'focus of loyalty' function. To a Lithuanian the sight of Princess Anne presenting a leek to the Welsh Guards during St. David's Day celebrations may be a little odd. To all those involved, however (with the possible exception of the leek), the act is important as an example of regal involvement in everyday life.

Besides these functions the Monarchy still has some remaining political functions and discretionary powers—the right to disband the Army and to dismiss the Civil Service, for example. The exercise of this power has long been forbidden by constitutional convention but is, nevertheless, still theoretically possible. Even those functions which the Monarch can still execute, such as the summoning of Parliament, are done at the initiative of the governing party. In spite of its inability to exercise these powers independently it could be argued that the Monarchy does actually assist in the running of affairs of state by acting as a convenient, respected, and impressive rubber stamp, hallowed as it is by centuries of power, fear, and use.

A last function of the Monarchy is that of providing a never-ending spectacle. Royal activity in Great Britain amounts to public entertainment on a massive scale and undoubtedly earns the Royal Exchequer many dollars. Though challenged briefly by Carnaby Street and Lord Somebody or Other's lions, the Monarchy reigns supreme at least as Britain's major tourist attraction. Tourists can marvel at the seemingly endless and interesting array provided by Her Majesty's waves. Prince Phillip's quips. Princess Anne's hats and Prince Charles blues. They can loiter outside the gates of Buckingham Palace waiting for a glimpse of themselves transformed; they can revel in pomp and circumstance and in a "sense of history"; they can quiver with hysterical anticipation at the thought of shopping at Harrods alongside Princess Anne; in short they can almost rub shoulders with greatness and take a part in history and the news. Royal tours achieve much the same thing on a lesser scale. They provide a superficial justification for the status quo and assure us that all is well in the slate of New Zealand.

The Monarchy thus serves a number of purposes and fulfills a number of functions, some obviously more worthwhile than others. It is neither possible nor fair, however, to reject or accept the institution on the basis of only one of these. Even it the arguments tended to favour the abolition of the Monarchy, the upheaval and disorder resulting from the change would be considerable—the ends just might not justify the means.

Whether the functions that the Monarchy fulfils are worthwhile or not, there are a number of features arising from its existence that are open to criticism. One accusation made is that the Monarchy, and everything associated with it, is an expensive irrelevancy in the 20th Century. Even if the New Left isn't on the way in. Hereditary Monarchies, it would seem, are on the way out. Principles of equal opportunity for all, and advancement solely on the basis of merit, are more in tune with the supposedly egalitarian nature of our society. Much of the ceremony which surrounds the Monarchy is derived from the days when the divine right of kings was in vogue. Divine right is now largely discarded—has the ceremony any relevance now that its basis is nearly forgotten? The Royal Family have perhaps already answered this question by attempting to place the Monarchy on a less formal level. The success or failure of their endeavour may be more important than even they realise.

Closely allied to this notion that the Monarchy is irrelevant is the fact that it is also head of the Establishment; which, as described by Kingsley Martin in The Crown and the Establishment, is "that part of government that has not been subjected to democratic control." The Establishment's core has always been, and still is, aristocratic or neo-aristocratic. The catch is that the Establishment exists, with the Monarch as its focal point (perhaps as unwitting one), in an age when most societies profess to be classless. The Honours which are handed out twice a year form an integral part of this Establishment. Although there have been no hereditary peerages granted in the last few years there have been quite sufficient life peerages and knighthoods to create the framework of a class structure. Colin Mclnnes continues this point in his article by outlining the contradiction involved in our admiration for those who receive these honours and our denunciation of anything associated with snobbery.

A final point on which the Monarchy has been criticised is its cost. This issue, directly involving the taxpayers' money, must surely be one of the must basic. Those who argue that the Monarchy is a drain on the United Kingdom taxpayer, however, often forget the money which the Monarchy draws to the U.K. as a tourist attraction. It is true, nevertheless, that many superfluous Crown possessions could be cashed without lowering the Queen's standard of living or destroying her resplendent image. This could be an area where the Royal Family could help burnish its own image. The Commonwealth taxpayer, however, has grounds for complaint—Royal tours and Governors General cost money, much money; the returns are small, at least in a tangible sense.

It has been argued that the economics of it all are irrelevant; if the people want a Monarchy, and it seems that most people do, then they should have one. As long as curious crowds can remain engrossed in the sight of an excited bureaucrat industriously sweeping the carpel on which the Queen is to tread (as they did at the Overseas Terminal last week) the Monarchy needs no justification.