Of what he now sees as the inevitable abolition of the monarchy, Peter Hitchens writes:
And New Britain will finally be born, in which we worship rock stars and revere footballers, and in which politicians (as they long to do) can wear military uniforms, ride in carriages and take the salute.
At 48, almost all of these have been the case for as long as I can remember. The only exception is that uniforms thing, which happens neither in the United States, nor anywhere in Western Europe.
That the republican and the monarchist arguments are as weak as each other means, both that the case for change has not been made, and that that change need not be the end of the world. But the monarchy simply does not occupy a space that politicians therefore cannot.
And which politicians? It is probably not, but what if it were true? What if all three of the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the monarchy really were on the brink of collapse? What would Britain be like after they had all gone? We need to be preparing for that, if not in full expectation, then at least in absolute seriousness.
It is funny, isn't it? Does he picture Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Sergio Mattarella and Michael D. Higgins in military uniforms? Does he take the Royal Family seriously in their uniforms with chests full of medals when they either never served or did not very much for not very long? They'd call that Stolen Valor in America. They don't do anything like it in China, only actual military people wear uniforms. Same applied in the USSR.
ReplyDeleteGood point. They are actual Commanders in Chief like the US President so part of the military ranking system but only the Chinese one ever wears uniform and he really served like the old Soviet leaders had although that's irrelevant now. They didn't usually do the dressing up either, when you saw that sort of thing on the balcony it was serving generals. Military rank and file had huge love for the old Queen but are much less sure about the King and generally don't like the Royal Family who do nothing concrete for them in service or as veterans, it's all photo opportunities in panto uniforms.
DeleteThey did and do the fatigues thing, of course, but they are visiting real military exercises when they do it, and even if they were not, then they would be able to carry it off. British politicians have been pretending to try the same thing for as long as anyone can remember, but they have always looked absurd, from Margaret Thatcher on her tank to Keir Starmer in camouflage from the waist up while still in his suit trousers, and standing on a box to give the impression that he was tall as a soldier. The present point, though, is that they already do it.
DeleteThere is no space occupied by the monarchy that politicians have not been in forever, and if the best that monarchists could find would be cutting ribbons or turning on lights, which politicians already did (as do rock stars and footballers), then they would effectively have surrendered.
Steinmeier was in the Air Force, by the way. And Hitchens's points of reference are always Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or some such place past or present. That is bad Sixth Form stuff, and exactly what he excoriates in foreign policy.
In what way is the Prime Minister not commander in chief? You could give it ceremonially to a goat like a mascot but the goat wouldn't be sending anybody to war. What difference would it make if Starmer wore a uniform? Prime Ministers already take salutes although none since Callaghan has ever been in the Forces. Thatcher was given a state funeral with full military honours as probably every former PM will have to be after that. So much for the monarchy stopping these things.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. It is essentially the same as being a Colonel-in-Chief.
DeleteYou have to wonder about things like the Oath of Allegiance, ever since the 80s about half of MPs at any given time haven't meant it, do all policemen, soldiers, vicars, and all that?
ReplyDeleteOn MPs, probably a lot longer than that. There were any number of republican MPs in the late nineteenth century, for example.
DeleteOn the rest of them, well, would they rise up against the prospect of a republic? If so, then they would be most likely to have to do so against the populist Right. Even that, though, is unlikely in the extreme.