Republicans should resist the absurd idea that the future of the Britishmonarchy depends on the behaviour of any one individual, writesRoy Hattersley.
Last week some newspaper columnists advanced a novel constitutional theory. They announced that, were the rumours about the Prince of Wales true, the throne itself would topple. The idea that the future of the monarchy might be determined by the behaviour of Prince Charles - or any other member of the royal family - is absurd and should be resisted by republicans. If a badly behaved heir-apparent justifies a revolution, a well-behaved one validates the continuation of the present system.
The arguments in favour of replacing the hereditary sovereign with an elected president concern the rival merits of institutions, not the conduct and character of individuals. Those arguments are worth repeating, for they put into perspective the current tabloid frenzy about accusations I find as fascinating as the parallel rumours that Elvis Presley ate himself to death and Howard Hughes refused to shave for the last six years of his life.
The monarchy enshrines and encourages the idea of a hierarchical society, with one family at the top of the heap because of birth and blood. It encourages the whole nation to look backwards towards the glorious past rather than forward to an uncertain future. And it requires otherwise sensible people to do and say silly things.
We had a whole year of silly things during the 12 months that encompassed the deaths of Princess Margaret and the Queen Mother. Both women were posthumously endowed with virtues that everyone knew, in life, they did not possess.
I lost count of the number of elderly ladies who appeared on television to say that Princess Margaret "lived life to the full". In translation that meant men, alcohol and tobacco. It was almost impossible not to be irritated, but the proper reaction was: "Who cares?"
I suspect - despite Sir Michael Peat's inapt intervention - that the rumours about the Prince of Wales "incident" are untrue. But my stronger reaction is a profound desire to hear no more about them. Prince Charles and his associates should no more enjoy a legal immunity from press exposure, which is denied to her majesty's subjects, than they should be exempt from death duties.
The royal family's attempts to secure that privileged status is a matter of legitimate concern. But it is just part of the Windsors' self-destructive ambivalence about publicity. They expect front-page coverage for good news and suppression for bad.
Sensible people do not care what the Prince of Wales gets up to. I am perfectly prepared for him to enjoy the same rights to privacy as the rest of us. I am even willing to accept - motivated by compassion rather than subservience - that he should be able to turn press attention on and off like a tap.
However, I hope that there is someone hanging around the court who is bright enough to realise how irrational that notion is. A belief in the hereditary succession makes the royal family public property.
The Windsors exist in their present form - and some of them succeed to the throne - because they are a family. The Prince of Wales owes his present eminence to his genes. His son is pencilled in to be king one day because of his DNA. It is not reasonable - though it may be expedient - to argue that one particular family possesses inherent virtues and, at the same time, insist that its shortcomings should never be discussed.
Royalist ultras may claim that the divine right of kings and the coronation oath entitle the sovereign to reign despite all sorts of crimes and misdemeanours. Shakespeare wrote several plays that examine that contention. But the modern monarchy does not endorse that proposition. We are told that the system works because the family devotes its life to the service of the nation. Prince William endures the hardship of St Andrews University as part of his preparation for being king. Paradoxically it is the royal family - sometimes directly and sometimes by implication - who proclaim that everything about their personal lives is important.
Sensible republicans take the opposite view. The Windsors are different from us because they are very rich and they are exceptional because birth and breeding have led them to expect continual deference. But basically they have the same mixture of virtues and vice that is found in any other family. If they would accept that fact, their lives would be made much easier. Of course, it would also destroy the modern justification for their special existence.
We republicans ought to treat their foibles with charity, as we would treat the foibles of any other family. Our hope should be for a constitution that makes their private lives none of our business.
In the meantime we must remember that if Nelson Mandela became king, with a resurrected Mother Teresa as his consort, we would still be opposed to the institution of monarchy.
- (Guardian Service)
Roy Hattersley, the former deputy leader of the British Labour Party, is a regular Guardian columnist
