38656356325923

American observer put it, ‘You tamper with institutions at your peril.’ The British
monarchy has lasted 1,200 years. Dismantling it would not be easy, nor would the
finding of a satisfactory and safe alternative. It would be extremely difficult to
disentangle the monarchy from the constitution and such a leap in the dark could be
dangerous. Indeed recent polls suggest that around 80 per cent of the British people still
want the monarchy, or at least they want Elizabeth as Queen.
The British monarchy has survived where others have not because of its adaptability.
As a recent constitutional authority put it, 2 George Washington would recognize as
similar to his own the position of the present President of the United States, whereas
George III would certainly not be able to equate the powers of the monarchy in his day
with those of his great-great-great-great-granddaughter, Elizabeth II. The constitution
can be adapted to changing circumstances. The monarchy need no longer be identified
with the Anglican Protestant Church of England, as indeed Charles recognized when he
spoke of preferring ‘Defender of Faith’ rather than ‘Defender of the Faith’ to be included
in his title on his accession. Some people have suggested eliminating the religious
element altogether as outdated and substituting ‘Defender of the Constitution’. The Act
of Settlement with its emphasis on Protestantism and exclusion of Catholics would and
should be changed. The Royal Marriages Act, which only came into being at the whim of
George III who thought it unfair that his brothers should marry who they liked where he
could not, should be abolished.
Quite apart from Elizabeth’s constitutional role as a safeguard against dictatorship –
the armed forces, for instance, swear allegiance to her and not to the government or the
state – there is her real, although intangible importance as a focus of national identity
and continuity in a rapidly changing, increasingly internationalized world. On Monday,
8 May 1995, Elizabeth with her mother and sister stood on the balcony of Buckingham
Palace watching the VE Day commemoration celebrations. Below and in front of them,
the Mall was packed with 300,000 people, gathered, just as they had been fifty years
before, in a spontaneous celebration of national unity. The Queen Mother was seen to
wipe away a tear, no doubt remembering that day when she had stood there with her
husband and Winston Churchill to acknowledge the cheering crowds, shouting ‘We want
the King!’ Then, Elizabeth and Margaret had been just two young girls among the sea of
faces. Fifty years on, the Queen Mother was within three months of her ninety-fifth
birthday, Elizabeth had celebrated her sixty-ninth just weeks earlier, Margaret was
nearing her sixty-fifth. In the words of one young media commentator, ‘The sight of
those three old women on the balcony brought home to me what it was all about…’ It
was not clear whether he was referring to VE Day or to the monarchy. It could have
been either or both. VE Day, in the eyes of those celebrating it, represented a victory,
however brief, of good over evil. It was a commemoration of men and women who had
sacrificed their lives for that victory.
Elizabeth represents values which most people still recognize even if they don’t either
practise them or aspire to them themselves – courage, decency and a sense of duty. Her
total dedication to her task, without regard to self-interest or gratification, has to be the