'Hostage' to an anachronism?

By Hasan Suroor

LONDON, DEC. 5. Tomorrow, the Queen gives the new millennium's first speech to Parliament amid a renewed and predictably partisan debate on the relevance of the monarchy in the 21st Century.

It is not what the Queen would say - she would say no more than what has been written for her by Downing Street speechwriters - but the ambience of the occasion that the Republicans are underlining to emphasise the anachronism of the institution she represents.

Consider this: an MP designated as the Vice- Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household would go to Buckingham Palace when the Queen leaves for Parliament and would stay there until she returns in a replay of the ancient practice when a member of the Commons used to be held ``hostage'' against the possibility of the Queen being executed or imprisoned by the Republican ``hordes''. His ``detention'' in the Palace ensured that no harm came to Her Majesty.

At Westminster, meanwhile, there would be scenes of absurdly old- fashioned pageantry. Critics of the monarchy find such ``buffoonery'' at odds with the temper of the new millennium and the demands of a modern-day Parliament. ``It is not just that it is incongruous to open a 21 Century legislature with toffs called Silver Stick... dressed in silly clothes and walking backwards. The real trouble with this flummery is that it stops us taking democracy seriously'', says Mr. Peter Wilby, editor of the New Statesman in an article in The Observer. He objects to the fact that an elected Parliament should be subjected to a demonstration of such anachronistic rituals as though it were ``an offshoot of the heritage industry.''

Not all those who want the monarchy to go have problems with the idea of an MP being held ``hostage'' in the Palace for sometime or the Silver Stick walking backwards. They raise a more fundamental point: the very idea of having a hereditary Royalty maintained at public expense is repugnant to the ethos of an avowedly egalitarian society. It turns citizens into ``subjects'', a popularly elected Government into Her Majesty's Government and is a constant reminder of British imperialism which in turns breeds, as Mr. Wilby says, a ``false sense of who and what we are.''

The view from the ``other'' side is that monarchy, for all its ``flummery'', is a symbol of stability, a common bond which unites the people cutting across class barriers. Her Majesty's ``subjects'', it is pointed out, include the entire spectrum of British citizenry irrespective of whether they are Barons and Baronesses or commoners. After the flag, it is only the monarchy that has the power to get people lined up behind it to defend Britain and British values.

There is another reason why monarchy should stay, says the writer, Mr. Peter Hitchens, joining issue with Mr Wilby in The Observer debate. He thinks that the Queen is the only safeguard against the increasing centralisation of power in the hands of the Government. A ``toy Parliament in which the concept of Opposition is unknown'' is not a reliable check on governmental excesses, he says putting his money on the monarchy which he sees as one of the more effective ``barriers to the triumph of this illiberal system''. The need for such a barrier, he argues, is the greater today with a European superstate staring Britain in the face.

So, while the arguments fly fast and thick, the Vice- Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household would do his time at the Palace tomorrow morning until the Queen returns home safely; and as the Silver Stick in their silly clothes - well, be sure, they would be walking backwards!

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : International
Previous : E.U. slaps ban on bone meal
Next     : A voice that refuses to be stifled