The Spectator - October 20, 2018

established 1828

W

hether it was intended so or not,
the decision by the Duke and
Duchess of Sussex to choose Aus-
tralia as the place to announce that they are
expecting their first child was a public rela-
tions triumph. For years the royal family was
criticised for having a tin ear when it came
to reading and dealing with the public, but
no one could say this now. The tone of the
younger royals’ tour to the southern hemi-
sphere has been one of approachability, with-
out compromising the dignity of the posi-
tions which Harry and Meghan hold.
Their visit also runs counter to the con-
ventional wisdom of some republicans — in
Britain as well as Australia — that support
for the monarchy is dependent on personal
affection for the Queen and that the institu-
tion will be doomed upon her death. Now
that Elizabeth II is, for reasons of age, no
longer able to conduct long-haul tours, her
grandchildren have achieved what her chil-
dren never quite managed: to show that they
have the ability to follow on and capture the
support of the public where she leaves off.
Royal marriages have long been about
survival — many throughout history have
been about ending wars, uniting kingdoms or
resolving hostilities between warring families.
While the unions of Harry and Meghan, and
William and Kate, are about none of those
things, they have in their own way obeyed
the same principle: they are marriages which
have been instrumental in restoring the rep-
utation of a royal family which was deep in
the doldrums just a few years ago.
First, we saw a middle-class woman
whisked — and welcomed — into royalty.
Now, with Meghan, the world has witnessed a
mixed-race woman similarly join the world’s
best-known royal family. There has been
no awkward match-making by courtiers, no

attempt to block the prince’s choice of part-

ner on the grounds of class, race or marital

history. In 1936 the king’s love affair with an

American divorcee nearly broke the royal

family. In 2018 it has been accepted without

a murmur. For the first time in decades the

royal family looks in tune with the times —

and without having to strain itself in order

to do so.

It is good that it does. There is nothing

to say that Britain, Australia or any other

country has to have a monarchy. It would be

perfectly understandable if Australia decid-

ed to break its monarchical ties with Brit-

ain. There are many who would argue that

it would be an essential step in Australia’s

coming of age, the point at which it would

finally outgrow its colonial master. There

are few in Britain who would seek to stand

in the way of Australian republicanism.

Yet monarchy has proved remarkably

durable in Australia. We are nearly a gener-

ation on from 1999, when Australians voted

55 per cent to 45 per cent to retain the mon-

archy, defying the wishes of a Constitutional

Convention of appointed worthies. In the

event, every state bar the Capital Territory

rejected the proposed appointed presiden-

cy. There is little indication that the result

would be any different now. While some

polls have put support for a republic at

just over 50 per cent, the polls in 1999, too,

showed republicanism on course for victory.

In the end, however, the public denied the

political class what it wished for — which

was its own aggrandisation.

That is the point about republicanism —

in Britain, Australia and elsewhere. While

it can seem notionally attractive, its appeal

tends to wane when people realise what

would almost certainly replace it: a party

politician as head of state. ‘Would you like

Britain to be a republic?’ is a question which

is sure to elicit a different answer to ‘Would

you like Tony Blair or David Cameron to be

installed at Buckingham Palace and to swan

around the world representing Britain?’ The

current incumbents of the White House and

the Elysée Palace do nothing to promote the

cause of republicanism — one a narcissist

and the other with the air of Napoleon. It

is marked how modest, both in lifestyle and

cost to the taxpayer, Elizabeth II — and all

other monarchs of western democracies —

seem in comparison.

The beauty of a constitutional monarchy

is that it keeps politicians in their place —

while still ensuring that ultimate political

power lies with the people. For an elected

leader, the presence of a monarch is a con-

stant reminder that he or she is a servant of

the state and that the election was a job inter-

view, not a confirmation of personal power.

The institution of the monarchy and the

character of the monarch are different things,

of course. It is quite possible to be in favour

of one and not the other. There are those who

support the monarchy, but who do not look

forward to Prince Charles becoming king.

Yet, following a rough patch in which the

lives of the royal family seemed to descend

at times into a bad soap opera, it has become

easy to support both royals and monarchy

alike. Republican sympathies are in abey-

ance in Britain — and on the evidence so far

of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s tour to

Australia, they are unlikely to triumph in the

near future in that country either.

Modern family

The younger royals’ marriages

have been instrumental in restoring

the reputation of the royal family