The Crown without Her Majesty

We are inexorably headed towards a Crowned Republic, much to the displeasure of both monarchists and republicans

Mr. Byers from Australians for Constitutional Monarchy contends in the post below that a "minimalist monarchy" is probably the way to go. He need not use the future tense, for that is the way the monarchy has gone. Quite frankly, it is difficult to see how more minimalist the monarchy can go, since all of us, save for the United Kingdom itself, have effectively evolved into de facto Crown Republics. We are not quite there 'yet', Her Majesty still constitutionally embodies the Crown, but with each passing year she becomes more like that Blessed Charles of Austria, who renounced participation in all state affairs without actually abdicating the throne - irretrievably, as it turned out.

In what way does Elizabeth II participate in the state affairs of the Crown Commonwealth anymore? Everything has been pretty much delegated to the Governors-General now, except for their fait accompli appointments. When Letters of Credence and Recall are no longer exchanged in the Queen's name, when the nationalisation of all honours no longer permit Her Majesty to bestow even the Victoria Cross upon worthy subjects, what is there left exactly? Well, Her Majesty does keep closely informed we are told, she does visit us from time to time, she is still Colonel-in-Chief of our regiments. But for how much longer is a question we are left to ponder.

It is reasonable to argue that we are inexorably headed towards a Crowned Republic because the Monarchy hangs by a slender, albeit formidable constitutional thread. Slender because our Queen is vulnerable to the charge that she is "foreign", formidable because Her Majesty's Crown is an indigenous scone to the old and settled democracies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. For our countries the Crown is not some colonial relic or quaint anachronism, it is the core, the fundamental, the irreducible basis by which our ancestors structured our governments and our society. It is far too entrenched to fade silently into the night.

But Her Majesty one day will. And when that day arrives, unless our collective attitude towards the monarchy changes from "that of the urchin, secretly urinating on some shrub in the hopes that it will die", a new King will not be acclaimed by the Privy Council and confirmed by Parliament. Mark my words, through some constitutional trick our political elites in their current frame of mind will disembody the Crown from its soul, and we will lose the human dimension of what monarchy is supposed to represent. In that case, it is hard to fathom how we would be terribly different from a republican system, for as one commenter noted, a "minimalist monarchy" and a "minimalist republic" are both essentially the same thing, since a Crowned Republic is both monarchist and republican. A republican crown would be no different than a republican flag, for just as a flag is a mere piece of cloth, and a country a mere clump of earth, a crown deprived of its head is but a mere shiny trinket, just another bloodless abstraction like the "state".

Still, it wouldn't be a total loss, I suppose. Although our currency would be further defaced with more dead politicians or with smiling children holding hands under a rainbow, we might count ourselves lucky to have kept our armorial bearings and regimental heritage, perhaps even retaining the royals as "honourary colonels". Life would go on much as it does today, our connection to the roots of antiquity would continue, the crown would still permit a more appealing presentation of state, and The Monarchist, though gravely wounded, might even keep his day job and live to fight another day.

This is not a defeatist post, but a call to man the barricades. Facts and trends can be difficult things, and unless we experience a collective change of heart, the historical evidence clearly points in one direction for the future: towards the creeping regicide of Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors.