Quite rightly the media have been generous in ladling out big helpings of praise for the Queen this week. An Italian friend and reader here expressed surprise that I had not added a dollop. The only reason was that – until now – I could not think of anything to add.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a monarchist from soup to nuts, not that I have ever dined with HM (my brother has, twice). The thought I would like to introduce is that, entirely hypothetically, would a less satisfactory monarch be so popular after 63 years? First, if they had been unsatisfactory they might not have lasted so long and might have been toppled by republicans.
Our short history as a republic, OK Commonwealth, did not last long and while there may be admirers of Cromwell, in my home country the Curse of Cromwell is still a potent oath. A succession of elected presidents would be what we’d have; some charismatic, some corrupt, some dull as ditchwater. You only have to look across the Irish Sea to see what I mean.
But let’s suppose we did have a sub-optimal monarch for 63 years. What would we think? My guess is that there would be a similar outpouring of affection. Cromwell asked to be painted “warts and all” and today I believe that we would come to love royal warts. I strongly believe that the continuity of the monarchy trumps elected figure-heads.
The more alert reader will be thinking that this continuity is a bit bogus. Yes, just as bogus as His Holiness being in the Apostolic Succession, but it too serves its purpose.
The United Kingdom and the Comonwealth have been particularly fortunate for the past 63 years but the institution of the monarchy is what is important in the long term.