ONE does not need to be an ardent monarchist, or even a very tepid one, to recognise the significance of the end of the 70-year-long reign of Elizabeth Regina. Its events have framed my life (although I was actually born in the reign of George VI); while my parents’ lives paralleled hers. So, there is definitely something personal in all this even if it’s just a matter of a lifetime of memory and a sense of one’s ageing place in the passage of time. A number of commentators have alluded to this, including Polly Toynbee and Jonathan Freedland; and most notably Keir Starmer, leader of the opposition in the House of Commons who could easily be mistaken for prime minister.

A great deal that is trite, boring and repetitive has been aired during the eleven-day mourning period. The most deluded is the idea that common sadness at the loss of the Queen has buried the Brexit chasm. But there have also been valuable, reflective contributions. One is the point that the Queen was our last public connection with the Second World War. In one sense that is just as well: some of the British and most of its printed media are still, nearly 80 years later, unhealthily obsessed with the victory of 1945. But it is indeed true that Britain and the Commonwealth together with governments in exile like the Poles and Czechs and the Free French stood alone against fascism and enabled its eventual defeat. There is a great danger that with the passing of that wartime generation democratic societies will forget that freedom sometimes must be fought for. That is particularly timely now with a new Nazi regime, this time based in the Kremlin, waging war in Europe. In a sense World War III has begun and it must be won. As Rafael Behr put it so well in the Guardian, what was happening in Luhansk over the second weekend in September was far more significant than events at Balmoral.

With King Charles III now on the throne there is apparently growing confidence among the republican minority in Britain that their time is coming. And why not? In fact, monarchy is needed, in England in particular, now more than ever. It is extraordinary, but perhaps no surprise in these post-modern times, that while people rate elected politicians lower than proverbial used-car salesmen, more of them are being proposed. Elections work well at local level: municipal wards and parliamentary constituencies where something about the individual quality and suitability of candidates is likely to be known. But there are serious questions about voting on a grander scale.

There is a common and incorrect perception that more elections, more voting, produce more democracy. It can in fact result in less. Civil and human rights in the broadest sense and the rule of law are the bedrock of democracy and they can be sustained by both the elected and the unelected: it’s a matter of the integrity of the people involved. In 2019 Boris Johnson and his languid sidekick Jacob Rees Mogg persuaded the Queen to prorogue parliament at a crucial stage in the Brexit debate. This was soon found by the courts to be illegal and parliament returned. This was a matter of lying politicians and the Queen should have sent them packing; one of the occasions when she let the country down and failed in her constitutional role.

Ten years ago, at the insistence of the Liberal Democrat component of the coalition government, a now largely forgotten referendum on electoral proportional representation (PR) was held. Without support from the Labour Party, it predictably failed. Had it succeeded, the 2015 general election might well have delivered another coalition; possibly led this time by Labour. Under a coalition of any complexion no EU referendum would have taken place and the colossal disaster of Brexit would have been averted. On the overall vote there is usually a natural left of centre majority in British elections and the chances of a right-wing populist, English nationalist government would have diminished.

Instead, as was clear the moment the Brexit referendum vote was announced, Northern Ireland will assuredly disappear into the Republic for obvious economic reasons. Scotland will become independent; and Wales might be tempted too. The very concept of Britain, centuries old, will vanish together with yet more of the British identity of many of us. We shall effectively be deprived of nationality. And if the republicans have their way what is left will be the English Republic, a sort of Cromwellian, seventeenth-century throwback. The causes of the British civil war are arguable but the Protectorate it produced ended in dictatorship, as revolutions tend to do. If the Union breaks up, retaining the monarchy could be the best option available, providing a residual constitutional link between the three British nations and especially for an England without any partners except within NATO (one can assume that the Commonwealth will also have disappeared down the drain).

Let’s say there is an increase of anti-monarchism as memories of Elizabeth II diminish and a referendum is called. The campaigns, for and against will be bitterly divisive; and there will also be disagreement among republicans about what sort of president is preferred: executive, constitutional, or figurehead? If the republicans win there will be a spirited rearguard from monarchists; and then further antagonism around a presidential election. It seems a sure-fire recipe to finish off the country altogether.    

At the heart of these matters is the fact that Joe and Joanna Soap (most likely English rather than Celtic) are chronically misguided about their own history, especially the imperial bits and its brutalities (what on earth is taught in schools?); and even more ignorant about the realities of the modern world. Personally, I would not trust the Soaps to elect someone as significant as a head of state given the misjudgements and stupidities of the last decade. Clearly anyone with brains, expertise and foresight is deeply mistrusted and resented by large swathes of the public (this is not entirely new as I recall from my student days): so, no Mary Robinson or Vaclav Havel equivalent for Britain (or England); far too damned clever by half. A clown, liar, narcissist and charlatan like Boris Johnson is a more likely victor; a man of the people it is said. And what does that say about the people?

Given that appalling thought there is good reason to advocate an attitude of pragmatic constitutional monarchism based on a much-slimmed down royal family. So, surprisingly perhaps ‒ God save King Charles III; and William V and George VII for good measure. That’ll do for another 70 years.