I wondered whether I could avoid commenting on the death of Prince Philip here. On reflection, I decided I could not.
At a personal level I can entirely sympathise with the Queen's loss. And although they will be to some degree reconciled to it, I can also sympathise with the loss that the rest of his family will be feeling. It is quite extraordinary that Prince Charles has reached his seventies before losing a parent. I doubt it makes it much easier.
That, though is not the issue I am most concerned about here, important as noting these feelings is. What is also extraordinary is that at the age of 63 I have never known anything but the Queen as the UK head of state, with Philip by her side. In fact, to really remember anything else you would now have to be over 75, so long has the Queen been on the throne and Philip been her consort, without that title.
The Queen, of course, carries on. She seems in remarkable good health. Her mother made it to beyond 100. I see no reason to expect that she will not. But, inevitably, Prince Philip's death reminds anyone that this era will come to an end. A reign that began when there was still an empire, post war rationing, very little television, a more explicit class system than we suffer now, and dependence upon industries now long gone will one day draw to a close.
What then? The House of Windsor will not end, but is it really the basis from which the heads of a modern state should be recruited? The very fact that there are many who seem to think that the succession should skip Charles (who could easily be 80 before he inherits) suggests that the idea of primogeniture is already open to question. The possibility that an heir within this family might already be unfit is, then, considered plausible even by some who support the monarchy. What if that was universally true? Might it be that the rather uncomfortable idea that genes determine ability to govern could have had its day?
I have little doubt that for much of the time Prince Philip did rather doubt the idea that he governed. It would not in the slightest bit surprise me if many of those sharing the privileges that wealth and its associated status provide in our society are also in denial about any supposed benefit, because they too can live frustrated lives. Our inability to appreciate what we have is almost unlimited, it seems. But govern, in a very real sense, he did.
I am not blaming him or the Queen for that. They were people of their era. I accept that. The question, though, is a simple one. Has that era passed? And if so, what next?
There is still time to ask. It is right to do so, even now, because this matters to those to come, and by its very nature the progress of an hereditary monarchy is always dependent upon deaths occurring. That makes this the moment to reflect, in my opinion.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I agree with you that any personal loss of this nature is sad. Elizabeth and Philip it seemed to me had a strong and enduring relationship that is worthy of respect.
The Queen is to me in a bit of a position. She has no real option but to carry on because I think that there are ‘certain’ people expecting her to – she feels obligated to preserve something. To keep it going.
For all we know, the children or heirs might be of the opinion that that whole thing is an anachronism (rather like I felt Philip reportedly felt himself). The heirs might be more aware of modernity and perhaps how irrelevant this all is (except of course serving as a sort of point of reference for upholding and perpetuating the class system – more latterly however, legitimising vulgar and corrupt wealth).
As for me personally however – and I choose my words carefully – this is a personal matter for Elizabeth and her family. It does not affect me one little bit. I will keep doing what the thousands of let down families of the Covid victims have done – get back in the saddle and get on with my life irrespective of ‘top down’ authorised silences and flags at half mast and all that.
You see, had the Royal Family shown one iota of concern for their loyal subjects, had the Queen maybe not signed off the prorogation of Parliament and her family been a bit more critical of the nastiest, cruellest, vindictive and callous Governments in our modern history and shown more concern for the condition of her subjects, I would be a little more empathetic and willing to share her loss.
But I simply cannot bring myself to be so.
What goes around comes around as they say.
It does effect you PSR and all of us , as so many of your excellent sentences point out.
These relics of feudalism serve no purpose other than to entrench the powers that be by the subservience of the population. We should not mourn the passing of privilege.
This seems a reasonable summary of the quirky goings on of the European dynastic system –
https://theconversation.com/prince-philip-dies-his-marriage-to-the-queen-and-their-part-in-1-000-years-of-european-royal-dynastic-history-155696
“With the passing of the Duke of Edinburgh, one of the last representatives of a system that had endured for a millennium passes into history.”
“I wondered whether I could avoid commenting on the death of Prince Philip here.”
Yes you could have, very easily. You have expressed your republican views many times before and will do so again. You haven’t needed any particular occasion and so this particular occasion didn’t need tour comment.
So you could avoid commenting, but chose not to. Having commented, you now have no choice but to leave it to others to form their own opinion on whether you possess tact, respect and decency.
But I have the choice to firm an opinion on your ability to interpret my comments
And you clearly fail
Touchy, aren’t we Mr Giles? What delicate easily offended little flowers you right whingers are. Funny how you complain about so-called ‘cancel’ culture, but take offence yourselves even when none is given.
I can’t see anything in what Richard’s written that lacks tact or respect. He’s simply asked questions about the role of the monarchy in the modern world.He hasn’t made any personal attacks on any of it’s members. In fact he expressed sympathy for them in being trapped in a situation of powerlessness, albeit privileged powerlessness.
Precisely
David
It is clearly about what happens next is it not? A generation is on the cusp of departing, of ending. It’s a legitimate question.
There are thousands if not millions of people in this country who respect their monarch. But what for?
We have seen Parliament abused; dissent and debate quashed and cynically manipulated; so-called ‘unwritten rules’ ridden rough shod over and new self serving ones created. The so-called checks and balances in our democracy have failed us. If you think the U.S. system is in a bad way, then look at ours. We’ve been getting away with it for years.
We are in a worse position – believe you me. We are looking into an abyss right now.
The monarchy in this country cannot have it both ways – to derive its wealth and position from our system of rule but then just act as a silent, pliable obedient facilitator – nay – ‘enabler’ of people like Boris Johnson (a proven liar) and the ERG (a party within party which is OK if you are right wing apparently) and stupid, mean callous people like George Osbourne.
So, with the death of Phil, I think it normal in such matters to ask ‘What next’? Where do we go from here?
A lot of money is tied up in the House of Windsor – and for what exactly? Its riches are beyond their functional contribution to society in my view. Yet this last 11 year all ‘Her’ Government has done is make her subjects even poorer.
Sorry but it has to be said.
“you now have no choice but to leave it to others to form their own opinion on whether you possess tact, respect and decency” –
I have always thought that Richard possese those qualities. He made some good points ref the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
As for “tact, respect and decency” sometimes it’s good to be tactless, respect is earned and decency is open to interpretation.
Thus I offer my own unvarnished views on Mr Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/britains-prince-philip-husband-of-queen-elizabeth-dies-aged-99/
Naturally, they would never be allowed to be printed in the Uk, but Euractiv is not in the UK.
Mike
The next comment this person made proved he was a troll
Two of his friends (or maybe him under other identities) joined in to prove the point
All have been treated as spam
If you take the somewhat peculiar view that the Queen must be a member of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (inheriting the name of her house from her great-great grandfather, who died 160 years ago; and despite her grandfather (and most others in his generation) renouncing their German titles and him renaming the house) then Philip certainly won’t be a member of that house anyway. He called himself Mountbatten, but his father, Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark, was a member of the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. So.
For what it is worth, Richard raises some interesting points in a reasonable, respectful, decent way, and I really didn’t understand why David felt moved to make such vituperative comments. The monarchy has evolved and adapted over the last 120 years and I fully expect it do so again. The Queen is approaching 95 years old and we are approaching a point of inflection, and it makes sense to consider what we might want for the future. Perhaps not this week, but soon.
Michael!!
Remind me to stay on the right side of you!!!
Nice one Mike. How nice to know that in charles_mundefined (or something like that), you have such a fan! As I said myself to the ‘now proven to be a troll’ Mr Giles it really is amazing just how touchy so many right wingers are. And hypocritical.
They feel free to dish out the insults and abuse to others, but how dare anyone give them a taste of their own medicine, or attack/criticise one of their own sacred cows, like the monarchy. Keep going Mike. They don’t like it up ’em, that’s for sure.
Interestingly enough Prince Phillip felt his children had turned out well, given the difficult circumstances they grew up in.
Make of it what you will, but it seems to me that the biggest argument for the abolition of the Monarchy is the effect it has on those born into it.
I do not propose to comment on Prince Harry & Megan because that situation has a way to go yet but certainly there have been mental health issues within The Japanese Imperial Family, wether they are related to the fact that those suffering are members of the Imperial Family or are unrelated to it I am not quite sure however there must be a suggestion that they are.
I agree John about the effects being royal has on the people. Every time there is a new addition I feel really sorry for him/her.
We’ve been taught these last 30/40 years that the poor/normal people of Britain need to lose their ‘dependency’ on the British State.
Yet it seems to me it is our monarchy and its family at the so-called top of society that is the most dependent on the State for its existence and upkeep. It’s a weird arrangement. They must feel powerful but vulnerable all at the same time – and on the latter point, willing to fight and go along to get along to keep themselves where they are.
It’s cruel system to be honest which is why if it were dissolved it must be done fairly. It is society keeping them in that gilded cage as much as themselves.
Like you I have lived my entire life with the same monarch and consort. So there is definitely a feeling of historical occasion at the passing of one half of that constant.
What does seem odd, is that your polite recognition of this event has attracted more comments on your blog than the much more important issue below of the US being open to the idea of a minimum worldwide rate of corporation tax. We have got so used to the US not caring about the right solutions for the world as a whole that people haven’t properly appreciated their readiness to engage again. There is suddenly a very important discussion to be had which could be of benefit to all of fair-minded humanity.
But back to the monarchy. It is indefensible, but that is partly because there is no constitution defining its boundaries — I see potential advantages to a properly constituted hereditary monarchy in the right democratic context. Can anyone really make a case for President Boris being better than Queen Elizabeth, or King Charles (or so on)? You can repeat that exercise with all of our recent leaders with the same conclusion, though one or two in the past might have functioned a little bit better had they known their terms would be limited to eight years. And the rest of our parliamentary democracy (inas much as it works) only makes sense within the system of monarchy.
I think the issue is a decent constitution. Johnson has proved what we have now fails completely when it is a “gentlemen’s agreement” that can be ignored by the ignorant. It needs to be codified. Leaving aside the parliamentary/executive aspects which are the most important, the roles and resources of the monarch need closely defining. It is absurd that the Queen apparently gains from licensing off-shore wind farms: the only sense in which the sea bed belongs to “the Crown” means it is an asset for the nation. There are other resources that are not personal but public resources purely for use by or at the disposition of the Head of State at the time, such as Buckingham Palace. And no doubt beyond that, if you can disentangle them, personal assets of the Windsor family.
Much to agree with there
I agree wholeheartedly about the need for a properly thought-through, written constitution for the UK. It’s ludicrous that the limits of power are not defined and therefore at the whim of the sitting government. However, if it is to be applied to the UK as currently constituted, it must reflect the tenets of international law and therefore must specifically permit and provide for the secession of any member nation. That in turn requires the UK government to accept that the Union is a union of equal parties with equal rights, not a hegemony reserved to the ruling party in Westminster. I won’t be holding my breath on that point.
I wouldn’t
Many years ago someone said to me that based on his experiences the USA would be complete (Insert profanity of choice) were it not for the way they revere the constitution.
You only have to look at the way Vice President Mike Pence dealt with the last Presidential Election, by the book despite being under great pressure to ignore the result and declare Trump President again.
In the UK however successive Governments have simply ignored out unwritten constitution when they find it convenient to do so.
What we need is not only a Constitution but some ‘ownership’ of it by our Political Class.
Two points I might make in connection with this are that were we to have a PR based system of Government there is then the question of how that might reshape British Politics and that IMHO the greatest threat the UK faces is its Political and managerial class.
” I don’t have strong feelings about the Queen as a person.
What I detest is how we’re trained to see the monarchy as relatives, with whom we have reciprocal.
That’s a deliberate con. Their role is to humanise the persistence of aristocracy, empire, & egregious inequality ”
i came across this opinion and felt it sums up how i feel about it perfectly . However, on the other side of the fence there is a lot of reciprocal love which keeps this pretence going . something that they are rather good at.
Amidst all the so called outpouring of so called public grief, the simple, unstated fact is that this man is utterly irrelevant. His good fortune in being a minor European blue blood selected to become part of the U.K. royal family is the sole reason anyone has heard of him. The orchestrated domination of the media of any royal news is a straightforward reflection of the absurd attachment of a large section of the British public to the aristocratic elements of the wider elite. It has profound cultural origins steeped in the history of empire and what are now delusions of glory. A serious discussion about the absurdity of monarchy, its anti democratic character and its direct link to the broader elite and wealth disparity is long overdue outside the liberal intelligentsia and it is not going to be led by any of the current party leaders.
“the absurd attachment of a large section of the British public to the aristocratic elements of the wider elite. It has profound cultural origins steeped in the history of empire and what are now delusions of glory.”
Hear, hear Paul. Although I was gratified to see the number of complaints the Beeb received over its clearing of all channels for endless guff about this event, there is much in what you say. I think it accounts for the absurd levels of support the Tories get from people who actively suffer from their policies, especially the English working class voter. As we’re probably going to see soon in Hartlepool.
Whatever they might pretend otherwise, the Tories are fundamentally an elitist project; funded by elites, supported by them, and consisting of them. And yet they are seen as ‘the natural party of government’ by many non elite voters who seem willing to forgive them anything. Corruption, lies, incompetence…..
This, I think, is the serf like grovel factor in the pysche of too many Englsih voters. No wonder Mike Parr calls them serfs.
RIP to His Royal Highness.
He benefited from inequality of opportunity but definitely a life well lived.