THE RELUCTANT MONARCHIST
I couldn’t get into all that sentimental schmaltz that pervaded our media a month or two ago. I’m talking about the queen’s death. Echoes of Princess Di and all that, which equally left me in disinterest. But I did gauge that it wasn’t quite the right time to post anything on the matter which was less than self-flagellatory.
See, I’m not an avid monarchist. But, equally, I’m not an avid republican. Certainly, I buy into all those arguments about unelected and privileged gentry who have neither the skills nor mandate to rule, other than their accidental birth into a family line which had attained power many moons ago through violence.
Like I say, I buy all that.
But I am conflicted by the concept and the practice of republicanism. For example, If we’d have had in recent times a head of state we would have enjoyed the presidencies of Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Boris Johnson. Now you may like or loathe any of them, and here is the point, they were irrefutably divisive.
“Ah,” you say, “a president is the leader of a whole nation and not its factions”.
Really? Try Donald Trump and Joe Biden for size.
The inescapable conclusion for me is that our monarchy is less divisive than ever a politician would be. And for that reason I favour it 51-49.
I am a reluctant monarchist.