 |
Checklist of topic handouts |
|
Common Questions |
|
Introduction |
|
HEADING: "I REMEMBER WHEN…" |
WRITE DOWN THE NAMES OF THREE EVENTS THAT YOU CAN RECALL, WHICH PEOPLE OFTEN REFER TO IN TERMS OF "I REMEMBER WHERE I WAS, WHEN I HEARD THE NEWS!…"
HEADING: IMPLICATIONS OF DEATH OF DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES
|
VIDEO: "PANORAMA - THE PEOPLE'S MONARCHY?" |
|
HANDOUT 3/1 - THE END OF EVERYTHING (QUESTIONS ON HANDOUT) |
|
Handout 3/1 - Article on death of Diana, Princess of Wales. |
The end of everything.
Bryan Appleyard argues that the death
of the Princess of Wales will have enormous
historical repercussions.
The applause that flowed into Westminster Abbey after Earl Spencer's funeral oration signified a new world order. I remember shivering with awe as what I had first taken for an intense shower of rain revealed itself as thousands of people clapping. A wave of public approval swept through the walls of the Abbey, engulfing the blocks of hated journalists and excoriated royals to break, finally, at the feet of Princess Diana's brother.
I shivered because, even before the thought had formed itself, I felt this was something new, something neither I nor anybody else had anticipated. But it was also something ambiguous. Of course Diana changed the world, I concluded in my report from the abbey. What I carefully did not say was whether it was for the better or the worse. I did not know. I still don't. But since then some aspects of that change have become clear. And ominous.
Diana's violent death was shocking in itself, but even more shocking in its impact. It unleashed the energy of some hitherto buried, primitive faith. Nobody could walk through the quiet crowds that gathered to mourn outside Kensington Palace without feeling the intense pressure of a kind of popular religious revolt.
The people were making her their saint whether the media or the royals liked it or not. She was to be the saint of bulimia and anorexia, of diet and fitness obsessed adolescence, of marital breakdown, of publicly confessed private misery, of hearts worn on sleeves, of pop, of fashion and of high-profile globalised goodness. She was to be the saint of a sub-political democracy of feeling, the saint of all those who, through ignorance, failure or injustice, felt left out. The applause came into the abbey from outside; it was started by those who had not been invited.
Then, suddenly, it was new Labour, new Martyr. In power for just four months, Tony Blair, in a flash of something like political genius, seized the initiative. By a single, early appearance on television, he identified with the popular grief, linked it to the touchy-feely populism of new Labour and turned the whole confection into a national paroxysm of caring that was to be orchestrated by his own spin doctors. And it all hinged on that killer phrase, "the people's princess", that has since entered the vernacular. It was cynical but brilliant. After that we - the media, the royals, Elton John, Diana herself - had little more than walk-on parts in what was to become a Festival of Spin.
In the days between the death and the funeral, Blair annexed the royals. Besieged and bewildered at Balmoral, they found themselves with a problem of what is euphemistically called "presentation" but, these days, is more correctly called "spin". In life, Diana had plainly been a loathed royal reject who, nevertheless, earned respect and a sizeable divorce settlement by the controlled and devastating use of her media power. In death, however, she was a raging monster of mass anger. Sure, her people were peacefully at the gates, laying flowers. But, in those delicate days, it seemed that one wrong move from the royals would have sent them storming the palaces like the Bolsheviks, reclaiming the monarchical mansions just as their applause had reclaimed the abbey.
The royals were vulnerable. They had suffered from years of appalling media advice and now was not the time to summon daft old courtiers. Now was the time for Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson, Blair's frontline spinners.
This will come to be seen as a crucial moment in British history. It was crucial because it was the moment at which, in death, Diana saved the monarchy from the wounded, haughty contemplation of its own dysfunction - but only by turning it into something not worth saving. For it was the moment at which Tony Blair became a monarchist.
Prior to that moment, his attitude to the monarchy had been lukewarm verging on the dismissive. There was, for example, the incident known by Tony Holden, the best of the royal watchers, as the "Hitchens wink". In opposition Blair gave an interview to the journalist Christopher Hitchens for the American magazine Vanity Fair. Asked about the monarchy, Blair gave an anodyne answer. But it was accompanied by a startling, subversive wink, a visual statement so gross that Hitchens felt obliged to record it. Did it mean he regarded the monarchy as a joke, a political sitting duck waiting to be shot?
Then, in power, he adopted a regal pose of his own, processing through adoring crowds. He made it clear that he might well have better things to do than calling on the Queen every Tuesday in the manner of Prime ministers since Churchill. Add to that the fact that, after May 1, the vast majority of the parliamentary Labour party was almost certainly republican and it becomes clear that the crown was far from safe under new Labour.
But, since the death of Diana, all that has changed. The spin-doctors moved quickly. By the day before the funeral even the Queen was on message, delivering a television tribute that dripped with spin.
The monarchy has now ceased to be a silly, wink-worthy irrelevance and become a suitable case for "modernisation". Streamlining, already in progress, has been accelerated with the demise of the royal train, the royal yacht Britannia and any number of bizarrely titled palace officials. The millions of public money that supports the royal household is to be opened for scrutiny by the National Audit Office and parliamentary committee. A whole flock of secondary royals are to be ejected from Kensington Palace, which is to become a "people's palace". Stories now appeared weekly about the radical, Blairist reformation of the monarchy.
Spin was everywhere. On his South African trip Charles was suddenly genial towards the very pressmen he had disdained for so long. He ushered Prince Harry into the presence of the Spice Girls. He let it be known he would not challenge the tax bite on Diana's estate because, it was claimed, it would not go down well with the people. The mark of Mandelson was on the man. Even the Queen had loosened up. In one particularly startling sign of her Dianification, she was photographed having her hand massaged by an aromatherapist, a gesture that, only a few months before, she would surely have regarded as grotesque. She even appeared among the crowds at her golden wedding celebrations holding a balloon, the sort of fun touch at which Diana had excelled.
In fact, it was the golden wedding that finally and fully proclaimed the extraordinary anschluss between Blair and the monarchy. On the one hand the Prime Minister affirmed his newfound monarchism - identifying himself as Disraeli to Elizabeth's Victoria and praising her wisdom to the skies. On the other, both the Queen and Prince Philip indulged in the language of caring and relationships. She even seemed to draw the Blair family into the charmed circle by referring to their own golden wedding in 2030. She spoke also of the PMs she had known.
The first, Winston Churchill, had charged with the cavalry at Omdurman. She said: "You, Prime Minister, were born in the year of my coronation."
This was, without question, a grandmotherly embrace. But it was the result of a deal. Blair's spinners had steered the royals through the post-Diana crisis and he had adopted a positive, even loving monarchist tone. The Queen, in return, gave him her public blessing and agreed to the "repositioning" of the monarchy.
And all because a drunken chauffeur had rammed a Mercedes into a concrete column in Paris. Politics is a strange carnival of contingency. "Events, dear boy, events", as a Tory grandee once put it.
Arguably the Queen had no choice. Her own repositioning of the royals in the early 1960s had gone disastrously wrong. Advised by William Heseltine, her then secretary, she had refocused the monarchy on the concept of the ideal family. A television documentary admitted us to the ideal household. But her family failed her, descending into a nightmare of marital collapses, punctuated by Fergiesque high jinks and burning castles. Public support for the monarchy had, according to one survey, halved in 14 years and her Christmas message was watched by only 11m people last year compared to 28m in 1987. Even without the death of Diana, a new initiative was needed if the monarchy was to survive. But survive as what?
Like all politicians, Blair will go as suddenly as he has come. Indeed, to me, he seems more ephemeral than most. His glaring political pragmatism makes him an inconstant and obviously doomed companion. An economic crisis - and there will be one within 18 months - and a backbench revolt - there is already one of those - will test his brilliant management of events to the limit. When the time comes, might not republicanism be an easy piece of meat on the bone to toss to the dogs of his new democracy?
Plus there is this matter of spin. Spin means organised lying and the key word in that phrase is "organised". All politicians in a democracy are obliged to lie, but spinners lie systematically. They institutionalise the process. Spin supersedes all other realities. Once you start spinning you can't stop because, if you stop, there is nothing left to be said. But all spinners will, sooner or later, lose credibility. They will fade and die to be replaced by more fashionable doctors. That is how contemporary democracy works - by the constant succession of different but equally illusory systems of presentation.
No monarchy can afford to depend on such a state of affairs. Monarchy is about continuity and a certain symbolic fullness or it is about nothing. Spin is temporary and empty. Even if the Queen and Prince Charles were the most gifted spinners - which they are not - they could not hope to surf the waves of public sentiment for long.
So the royal future is, I believe, as bleak as ever. Even if the monarchy does survive Blair, its options are desperately limited. It can either continue with its programme of Dianification, the pursuit of depthless imagery and easy gesture. Or it can streamline itself into quiet insignificance, reducing its burden on the public's purse and patience by becoming irrelevant. This, in the long term, is the course I would recommend. It is difficult, maybe impossible, because it involves damping down the media frenzy of interest in the Windsors. But spin is certain death and the restoration of ancient, monarchical magic is out of the question. There is no real choice left but quiet survival.
Diana changed the world in ways that have yet to become clear. But her impact on the politics of royalty is already evident. Hers was, without doubt, a great death. I, like almost everybody else, was moved to tears in the abbey.
The Church of England - another institution facing the threat of Blairist modernisation - staged a ritual of overwhelming aesthetic grandeur that lifted even Elton John and the feudings of the Spencers into the splendour of a great and extraordinary history. We may never see anything like that again. And that, almost certainly, is the point. For our tears were tears of loss - not, I now realise, the loss of Diana but of something much, much bigger.
|
HEADING: THE CONTEMPORARY ROLE OF THE MONARCHY. |
PRINCIPAL FUNCTIONS OF THE ROYAL FAMILY
Function |
IMPORTANCE |
||||
Very |
Quite |
Not Very |
Not At All |
Don’t Know |
|
| Represent the UK at home and abroad | 67% |
25% |
4% |
2% |
1% |
| Set standards of citizenship and family life | 59% |
26% |
8% |
4% |
3% |
| Unite people despite their differences | 52% |
30% |
8% |
6% |
4% |
| Ensure allegiance of the armed forces | 52% |
24% |
10% |
7% |
7% |
| Maintain British traditions | 51% |
34% |
9% |
3% |
2% |
| Preserve the Christian morality | 43% |
26% |
17% |
10% |
4% |
| Preserve the class system | 13% |
16% |
23% |
43% |
5% |
| Distract people from problems in the country | 9% |
16% |
25% |
42% |
7% |
In order to try and determine the effectiveness of the Royal Family, and to consider how well people feel they perform these functions, we are now going to conduct a survey.
Remember from the work that we have done on opinion polls, that the survey will not be representative.
However, it will give us some indications as to the popularity of the Monarchy today.
In order to compile this survey, twenty of you will be required to ask five different people the questions on the table which you have just taken down.
However, instead of asking people whether or not these functions are important, I would like you to ask people how well they think the Monarchy performs these functions.
We will need to build-in some degree of sampling within the surveys. For this reason, it is important that you, as people asking the questions follow some simple rules in asking the questions:
You must only ask five people,
Those five people must be as follows:
Yourself – you should go through the questions and answer them;
Either your Mother or your Father;
One other family member;
Two people within College who are unconnected with the Politics course – one must be male and one female.
All respondents must be 16 or over.
All this information is explained on the questionnaire sheets.
When all the information has been gathered, we will put it all together and consider the results.
Attitudes to the British Monarchy
Ask five respondents the questions indicated below.
Indicate respondents’ answers by ticking the appropriate box.
Firstly, answer the questions yourself – you will be respondent 1.
Secondly, ask either your mother or your father/guardian – they will be respondent 2.
Thirdly, ask one other member of your family – they will be respondent 3.
Respondents 4 and 5 should be two people within College who are unconnected with the Politics course. One of these respondents must be male and one female.
Function |
The Royal Family is performing this function… |
||||
Very Well |
Quite Well |
Not Very Well |
Not At All Well |
Don’t Know |
|
| Represent the UK at home and abroad | |||||
| Set standards of citizenship and family life | |||||
| Unite people despite their differences | |||||
| Ensure allegiance of the armed forces | |||||
| Maintain British traditions | |||||
| Preserve the Christian morality | |||||
| Preserve the class system | |||||
| Distract people from problems in the country |
|
HANDOUT 3/2 - FUNCTIONS OF THE ROYAL FAMILY |
A distinction can be made between functions of the Royal Family that are:
Representative/Symbolic Functions
|
Representing the UK at home or abroad |
More than nine out of every ten people questioned in the 1988 poll considered this to be very or quite important. As a symbolic function, it is a task normally ascribed to any head of state. Because, the Queen is not "party political" the sovereign is able to engage the public commitment of citizens in a way that politicians cannot. When the President of the United States travels within the USA or goes abroad he does so both as head of state and as head of government; as head of government, he is a practising politician. When the Queen ends the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference, she does so as symbolic head of the Commonwealth. The British government is represented by the Prime Minister, who is then able to engage in friendly or not so friendly discussions with fellow heads of government. The Queen stays above the fray. Similarly, at home, when opening a hospital or attending a major public event, the Queen is able to stand as a symbol of the nation. Invitations to the Prime Minister or leader of an opposition party to perform such tasks run the risk of attracting partisan objection.
At least two practical benefits are believed to derive from this non-partisan role, one political, the other economic. Like many of her predecessors, the Queen has amassed considerable experience by virtue of her monarchical longevity. In 1993, she celebrated her fortieth year on the throne. During those forty years, she has seen nine Prime Ministers come and go. Her experience, coupled with her neutrality, has meant that she has been able to offer prime ministers detached and informed observations. (The Prime Minister has an audience with the Queen each week.) The value of the Queen's role to premiers has been variously attested by successive occupants of Downing Street, notably in the 1970s by the two Labour Prime ministers Harold Wilson and James Callaghan. Her relations with both were reputedly much better than with Conservative premiers Edward Heath and Margaret Thatcher.
The political benefit has also been seen in the international arena. By virtue of her experience and neutral position, the Queen enjoys the respect of international leaders, not least those gathered in the Commonwealth. During the 1980s, when relations between the British government of Margaret Thatcher and a number of Commonwealth governments were sometimes acrimonious (on the issue of sanctions against South Africa, for example), various Commonwealth heads attested to the unifying influence of the Queen. There were fears that, without her calming influence, the Commonwealth would have broken up or that Britain would have been expelled from it.
In terms of economic benefit, some observers claim - though a number of critics dispute it - that the Queen and leading members of the royal family (such as the Prince of Wales) are good for British trade. The symbolism, the history and the pageantry that surround the monarchy serve to make the Queen and her immediate family a potent source of media and public interest abroad. Royal visits are often geared to export promotions, though critics claim the visits do not have the impact claimed or are not followed up adequately by the exporters themselves. Such visits, though, normally draw crowds that would not be attracted by a visiting politician or industrialist.
|
Setting standards of citizenship and family life |
This in 1988 remained an important task in the eyes of all but a small percentage of those questioned. The Queen in particular, and members of her family in general, are expected to lead by example in maintaining standards of citizenship and family life. As head of state and secular head of the established church, the Queen is expected to be above criticism. She lends her name to charities and voluntary organisations. Other members of her family also involve themselves in charitable activities. The Princess Royal (Princess Anne) is president of the Save the Children Fund, and before her death, The Prince of Wales was patron of several charities which will now be helped by the Memorial Fund.
During the 1980s, the Queen was held to epitomise family life in a way that others could both empathise with and emulate. Significantly, during the national miners' strike in 1984, the wives of striking miners petitioned the Queen for help. However, the extent to which this role is fulfilled by the Queen has been the subject of debate in the 1990s. By 1992, the Queen was head of a family that had not sustained one successful lasting marriage. As we shall see, this has proved an important element in contemporary debate about the role and future of the British monarchy.
|
Uniting people despite their differences |
The monarch symbolises the unity of the nation. The Queen is head of state. Various public functions are carried out in the name of the crown, notably public prosecutions, and as the person in whom the crown vests the monarch's name attaches to the various organs of the state: the government, courts and armed services. The crown, in effect, substitutes for the concept of the state (a concept not well understood or utilised in Britain) and the monarch serves as the personification of the crown. Nowhere is the extent of this personification better demonstrated than on British postage stamps. These are unique: British stamps alone carry the monarch's head with no mention of the name of the nation. The monarch provides a clear, living focal point for the expression of national unity, national pride and, if necessary, national grief.
The effectiveness of this role is facilitated by the monarch transcending political activity. Citizens' loyalties can flow to the crown without being hindered by political considerations. The Queen's role as head of the Commonwealth may also have helped create a 'colour-blind' monarchy, in which the welfare of everyone, regardless of race, is taken seriously. The extent to which this role is effectively fulfilled, though, does not go unquestioned. Critics, as we shall see, claim that the royal family occupies a socially privileged position that symbolises not so much unity but rather the social divisions of the nation; and they also draw attention to the fact that the royal family itself employs few black workers or employees from other minority groups.
|
Allegiance of the armed forces |
Ensuring that the armed forces give their allegiance to the crown rather than to the government is an important function, though it is interesting - and perhaps surprising - that respondents to the 1988 poll accorded it the importance they did; more than 75% judged it to be very or quite important - ahead of maintaining continuity of tradition and preserving a Christian morality. The armed services are in the service of the crown. Loyalty is owed to the crown, not least by virtue of the oath taken by all members of the armed forces. The Queen takes a particular interest in military matters, including awards for service. Such a relationship helps emphasise the non-political role of the military and also provides a barrier should the military, or more probably sections of it, seek to overthrow or threaten the elected government. (In the 1970s, there were rumours - retailed in the press and on a number of television programmes - that a number of retired officers favoured a coup to topple the Labour government returned in 1974.) In the event of an attempted military coup, the prevailing view -though not universally shared - is that the monarch would serve as the most effective bulwark to its realisation, the Queen being in a position to exercise the same role as that of King Juan Carlos of Spain in 1981, when he forestalled a right-wing military take-over by making a public appeal to the loyalty of his army commanders.
|
Maintaining continuity of British traditions |
The monarch symbolises continuity in affairs of state. Many of the duties traditionally performed by her have symbolic relevance: for example, the state opening of Parliament and - important in the context of the previous point - the annual ceremony of trooping the colour. Other traditions serve a psychological function, helping maintain a sense of belonging to the nation, and also a social function. The awarding of honours and royal garden parties are viewed by critics as socially elitist but by of supporters as helping break down social barriers. Each year 30,000 people are invited to royal garden parties. Few decline the invitation.
|
Preserving a Christian morality |
The Queen is supreme governor of the Church of England and the links between the monarch and the church are close and visible. After the monarch, the most significant participant in a coronation ceremony is the Archbishop of Canterbury, who both crowns and anoints the new sovereign. The crown appoints Bishops, albeit acting on advice. National celebrations led by the Queen will usually entail a religious service, more often than not held in St Paul's Cathedral or Westminster Abbey. The Queen is known to take seriously her religious duties and is looked to, largely by way of example, as a symbol of a basically Christian morality.
The attempts to preserve this morality this century have resulted in some notable sacrifices. Edward VIII was forced to abdicate in 1936 because of his insistence on marrying a twice-married and twice-divorced woman. However, divorces and the recent conduct of the Royal Family have not enhanced its’ standing. Prince Charles, Andrew and Princess Anne have all been divorced. Though attitudes towards divorce may have changed, divorces and separations in the royal family have none the less raised questions about the royal family's capacity to maintain a Christian morality. This applies particularly in the event of Prince Charles becoming king and seeking to remarry, although the effect of the death of Princess Diana upon this is unclear.
|
HEADING: FORMAL POWERS OF THE MONARCHY. |
Many of these powers are exercised through the Royal Prerogative. Refer back to the opinion poll figures given on attitudes to the Royal family:
(b) How do you think attitudes will have changed since, and why?
|
ACETATE: CRITICISMS OF THE MONARCHY |
(A) POTENTIAL FOR POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT
(B) UNREPRESENTATIVE
(C) OVERLY EXPENSIVE
(D) UNNECESSARY
|
HANDOUT 3/3 - THE MONARCHY: PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE |
The days that followed the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, must have been some of the most difficult in the Queen’s entire reign. The two major events of 1997 – the election of Labour and Diana’s death were indicative of a changing nation in which the Monarchy currently seems ill-at-ease. In the 1970s and 1980s, critics of the Monarchy were on the fringes of political debate, but now the issue is much more central.
The various marital splits, the toe-sucking, cake-obsessed, Fergie, the horse-faced Camilla, sqidgy-Gate and the failure of the Queen to fund the restoration of Windsor Castle herself, have contributed to a popular mood less supportive of the monarchy than before – and this was before Diana’s death and the public reaction to it. Future options for the monarchy can therefore be grouped under three headings: abolition, reform, and leave alone – the latter probably not being a realistic option anymore.
OPTION 1: ABOLITION
Until the middle of 1992, fewer than 15% of people questioned in various polls wanted to see the monarchy abolished. A Gallup poll in May 1992 found 13% of respondents giving such a response. By the end of the year, the figure had increased to 24%.
These figures show an increase in those wanting abolition of the Monarchy, but they mask an increasing indifference in the wider population. In 1987, 77% of respondents in a MORI poll thought that Britain would be worse off without the Monarchy; in 1989 the figure was down to 58% and in 1997 (after Diana’s death) it had fallen to 44%.
The Conclusions that may be drawn are that there seems to have been a decline in the positive appeal of the Monarchy, and increase in indifference, but not yet a mass clamour for abolition.
In January 1997, ITV held what was laughingly called a debate (it consisted mainly of 3,000 people shouting at each other) at the end of which 2.6 million people phoned a hotline – 66% voting to retain the Monarchy. The poll was, of course, totally unrepresentative – and therefore meaningless.
OPTION 2: REFORM
Recent years have seen a growing body of support for some change in the nature of the monarchy and especially in the Royal Family. The preference seems to be for a more open and less lavish monarchy, with the Queen spending more time meeting members of the public and with other members of the royal family, especially the 'minor royals', taking up paid employment (as some have) and blending into the community. A Granada TV poll in 1996, which involved interviewing people before and after discussing the subject with experts, found that the biggest percentage of affirmative responses was for the statement that: "Members of the royal family should mix more with ordinary people". The percentage agreeing was initially 66% and, after discussion, it increased to 75%.
There is also some support for a change in the order of succession. A small number of people favour the Queen abdicating in favour of Prince Charles, but the number is declining: it reached a peak at 29% in a 1994 Gallup poll, but was down to 16% in March 1996. A larger percentage support "skipping a generation" and allowing Prince William, to succeed to the throne in place of his father: in March 1996, 39% of respondents in a Gallup poll favoured that option, against 46% who did not.
These proposals not only do not enjoy majority support, they would also require a change in the law. A decision by the Queen, or by Prince Charles upon or at the time of his succession to the throne, to abdicate is not one that can be taken independently. Under the Act of Succession, Prince Charles will become king automatically on the death of his mother. There is no formal power to abdicate. That would require - as it did in 1936 - an Act of Parliament.
Another change that has variously been discussed, but which has less immediate relevance, is that of allowing the eldest child to succeed, regardless of gender. (Given that Prince Charles is the eldest child of the sovereign and his eldest child is a male, it will be two generations before any change becomes relevant.) In 1996 it emerged that the senior members of the royal family, prompted apparently by Prince Charles, had formed a small group (the 'Way Ahead Group' composed of senior royals and Buckingham Palace officials) to meet twice a year to consider various changes to existing arrangements. One proposal considered by the group has been to allow the eldest child to succeed to the throne; another is to end the ban on anyone married to a Roman Catholic succeeding to the throne.
The measures taken by the Queen in recent years - notably the decision to pay income tax and to limit the civil list - appear to enjoy popular support. More steps designed to make the monarchy and the royal family more open - yet at the same time less open to personal criticism - would appear likely to bolster support for the institution. The deliberations of the 'Way Ahead Group' have been designed in part to bring the institution up to date and enhance such support.
OPTION 3: LEAVE ALONE
The monarchy as it stands has some strong and very loud admirers. Conservative MPs have generally moved quickly to defend the monarchy from criticism. "The monarchy", declared Conservative MP John Stokes in the House of Commons in 1981, "…appeals to our sense of history, tradition and pageantry. There is no spectacle in the world to surpass the ceremony of the Queen opening Parliament… long may those marvellous ceremonies remain".
When a Fabian Society pamphlet, Long to Reign Over Us? was published in August 1996 advocating a referendum on the monarchy, Michael Portillo, immediately portrayed it as an attack on the institution of monarchy. "’New Labour’ should be warned that they meddle with the monarchy at the nation's peril", he declared.
Both he, and Princess Diana are now political history (although he has the option of returning) and ‘New Labour’ is well-and-truly with us. Some critics, such as Bryan Appleyard [Sunday Times article – Handout 3/1] argue that Blair has an anti-Monarchist agenda – although as yet, there is little sign of it. Ironically, the death of Princess Diana may have saved the institution for which she had so much contempt – for it is her son who will one day become it’s head. In death, Diana may have saved what, in life, she could have destroyed.
We are now going to consider various future options for the Royal Family.
EACH PAIR TO SELECT TWO OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS (HANDOUTS 3/4 (1) – (8)):
STUDENTS TO COMPILE ARGUMENTS BOTH FOR AND AGAINST STATEMENTS:
STATEMENTS (ONLY FIRST HANDOUT) SHOWN BELOW:
STATEMENT NUMBER 1: "THE QUEEN SHOULD ABDICATE IN FAVOUR OF PRINCE CHARLES".
STATEMENT NUMBER 2: "PRINCESS DIANA’S DEATH MEANS THE END OF THE MONARCHY".
STATEMENT NUMBER 3: "THE MONARCHY SHOULD BE ABOLISHED".
STATEMENT NUMBER 4: "PRINCE CHARLES SHOULD NOT BECOME KING".
STATEMENT NUMBER 5: "’NEW LABOUR’ MEANS THE END OF THE MONARCHY".
STATEMENT NUMBER 6: "THE MONARCHY WILL NOT SURVIVE THE NEW CENTURY".
Section 1 – arguments for abolition of the Monarchy (shown in video-film):
|
Our Monarchy costs double the amount of the six other European Royal Families combined; |
|
Prince Philip takes lavish holidays costing £5 million with a crew of 277 at his beck and call; |
|
This is at the same time as taxpayers who often can’t afford any holiday at all; |
|
The Royal Family is no longer the role-model that it once was; |
|
Charles is not fit to be King; |
|
The Royal Prerogative makes Government centralised & unaccountable; |
|
Queen retains considerable personal powers; |
|
Both the Queen and the House of Lords are unaccountable, not elected and illegitimate; |
|
Tourists would still come to Britain without the Royals; |
|
Royal visits overseas do not, in fact, increase trade; |
|
Monarchy does not represent modern Britain and serves to perpetuate backwardness; |
|
Abolition of the Monarchy would lead to the dis-establishment of the Church of England – a much needed reform; |
|
The honours system is corrupt; |
|
President would not be "grey and boring". |
Section 2 – arguments for retention of the Monarchy (given in studio discussion):
|
Japan is an extremely hierarchical country, yet is very modern; |
|
Abolition of the Monarchy does not automatically mean modernisation of Britain; |
|
The Royal Family is good value for money; |
|
The continuity which the Royal Family embodies is good for Britain; |
|
A Presidency would give more power to politicians; |
|
Monarchy facilitates change by being a stable focal-point; |
|
The Royal Prerogative is, in reality, not that powerful; |
|
The Queen, in fact, represents classlessness, because everyone can give their allegiance to the Queen. |
