 |
| Prince Charles and Prince William (Image: The Telegraph) |
It was rather difficult to escape the coverage surrounding the Platinum Jubilee celebrations that had just taken place. Over four days, people across the UK decorated their gardens with Union Jack flag buntings, attended street parties and watched endless broadcasts to mark Queen Elizabeth II's 70 years on the throne. Many argued this extended weekend came at a time when we all needed to come together for something positive.
Some decided not to join the festivities and have used the weekend to speak louder against the monarchy, suggesting that the entire system be abolished. Of course, this campaign has been going on for a number of years, but when broadcasters tried to find both sides of the argument for this weekend, they weren't short in options of people who argue that the Royal Family don't represent the modern world and that it's time they went.
For a long time, I've stepped away from this particular debate. Quite honestly, I didn't have a decisive opinion - I've never completely supported the monarchy, but I certainly wouldn't go as far in thinking the Family should banish for good. As ever, I'm on the fence. However, here, I'll attempt to bring royalist and republican arguments together and come up with solutions that meets both needs, and it doesn't necessarily mean abolishing the monarchy. Actually, my thinking is what I sense would happen in the next decade or two anyway - I'll explain later.
The primary focus should be on reforming the Royal Family, but before I suggest how, it's important to understand why the monarchy still exists in modern Britain. We can argue that the Queen and her relatives are incredibly rich and don't need all their homes and fortune while many in the country are struggling to make ends meet. We can also argue that monarchy 'do nothing', which I struggle to believe. Equally, I'm not convinced that without them, the tourism sector would struggle. Is it really true that people from all around the world come to the UK just because of their presence? I doubt it, despite what the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, says.
What is true is that we've not experienced a world without them. And their actions alone create history and lead our futures, even greater than the actions by our government. They are assigned to lead and do so in a non-political way. Britain has gone through a lot of social change since 1952 and the royals have been heavily involved in these. In a way, Queen Elizabeth II and members of her Family appear to have normalised many of these changes; from divorce to welcoming 'outsiders' into the family (as in those away from royalty) where it was previously frowned upon. I don't think society will have moved on without them needing to lead the way.
Some may argue that we don't need figures to tell us how the country should be steered, particularly if we don't vote for those individuals. Do we, therefore, leave it up to politicians to show the moral high ground? Even if they ought to, they're not doing a good job. The Royals' words matter, and in turn are rightly scrutinised like everyone else - the scandal surrounding Prince Andrew and the ill-treatment of Princess Diana being case in points.
Without their input on global causes such as climate change, I doubt world leaders would take these matters as seriously as they are today. My only wish is that they are more open and transparent on what they think. People like to take pride in the Queen's silence, but this has also impacted her in a way which only fuels the dislike towards her and her Family. I share the sentiment that they need to appear more human and be more outspoken, which is why some of us feel the likes of the Duchess of Cambridge and Princess Anne are a breath of fresh air. The ITV documentary to mark the latter's 70th birthday is something I feel we need to see more of.
Once it's their turn, Prince Charles and Prince William will need to review their reign plans. It's important they read their nation in a way that perhaps their mother and grandmother didn't. What do they do with Prince Andrew? Will they stay put at Clarence House and Kensington Palace respectively, or is Windsor Castle the destined residency for a King? In a world where social media views become main headline news, the voice from those against the monarchy would bound to be part of their psyche. I know it'll be in William's, as I argued before that he may have shared their sentiments after his mother's tragic passing.
The way they should reform won't be simple, but I feel these three ways will likely to keep their status intact and popularity at an all-time high. First is for them to rely less on UK taxpayers for funding. The second is to review residencies, and those that aren't used should be open to the public as museums, and the third is to simply get more involved. Figures show that more of our money is going towards funding the Royals. I'm more than certain that if people chose where their taxes went to, the monarchy will start to panic. Many have admired Harry and Meghan for walking away and start making their own money, and other royals including Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie have done the same for years. By Princes Charles and William following similar suit, it could ease pressures from the public, and they won't be out of pocket if they thought strategically.
On residences, they'll need to look closely at what homes they need to keep to sleep and what will be surplus to requirements. For example, the Queen officially moved out Buckingham Palace last year; will future monarchs do the same? If so, they may want to use the building for key dates such as coronations, parties and knighting people, but for the other days, it won't hurt to leave it open to the public. There are hidden histories and discoveries that I'm sure folk from around the world will embrace. Treat unused palaces and mansions the same way we see the Louvre in Paris and the Sistine Chapel in Rome. Heck, I'd pay.
Regarding my third solution, we're starting to see this with Prince Charles. It was revealed previously that he wrote private letters to former Prime Minister Tony Blair and Labour ministers on key policy areas. His interventions are vital and should never have been hidden. According to Blair's predecessor, Sir John Major, the Queen would have been an asset to his cabinet. Shouldn't every working member of the Royal Family have a seat at Westminster and the devolved nations? As I said before, they're meant to be above government and represent Britons. If we don't know what members of the monarchy think and are silent on global events, then the arguments of their abolishment are only going to get louder. And right now, I'm not convinced we should follow the American model.
Comments
Post a Comment