The British monarchy is here to stay
The real question, therefore, is how it should be reformed to retain its appeal to 21st century Britain
Sunder Katwala , guardian.co.uk,
The Queen's 80th birthday will bring many tributes to her dedication and service to Britain. It should also herald a new public debate about how the monarchy should adapt so as to remain part of the common glue which binds 21st Britain together.
The Queen will never abdicate. She believes she made an oath to God at the coronation which makes that impossible. Her sense of duty would not permit her to break it. Buckingham Palace has signalled that there will be a greater sharing of formal duties with her heir.
The next coronation, for example, should be a rather different occasion from that of 1953, to symbolise a monarchy for a rather different Britain. It will be equal in splendour but should be a multi-faith and multi-ethnic occasion for a Britain united in all its diversity, symbolising Charles' desire to be 'defender of faith'. The Coronation Oath should be different too, not just to give future monarchs the right to retire if they wish but because the basis of modern monarchy should be a vow to serve the people and our democratic institutions, rather than the sovereign's anointment by God.
It is strange that the only debate tends to be about whether to retain the monarchy or not, even though that is not seriously in question. For all the monarchy's troubles in the 25 years since Charles and Diana's fairytale wedding support for a republic has barely changed, remaining consistently just under one in five. (And half of those turn out to prefer 'reform' to abolition when polls add that choice as well as keeping the monarchy as it is or abolishing it).
The monarchy will be with us in 50 years time. But to survive and thrive it will require the instinct for pragmatic adaptation which Elizabeth II has shown. That tradition is too often overlooked by the institution's supporters - the "Ming Vase Monarchists" who fear the institution is so fragile that any change will endanger it. It is strange that those who claim to care most about the monarchy seem to betray a lack of confidence in it.
To succeed, reform should be preceded by extensive public debate, rather than the back of an envelope Royal and governmental improvisation that was needed at the time of the Princess of Wales' funeral. By definition, such a debates must begin well in advance. It is impossible and inappropriate to wait until the death of a monarch, however many years hence, when the succession must be instantly proclaimed as a period of national mourning begins.
Successful reform would benefit from more public engagement than in the past. Yet our political system seems unable to have a serious discussion about royal reform which can avoid making it an issue of party political controversy. Politicians feel it would be discourteous to discuss the monarchy. Yet this deference is misplaced when the royals themselves can not lead on this, as on any issue of public controversy. We risk turning this significant national institution into the "Bermuda Triangle" of the British constitution. And it is the monarchy which suffers from this politics of "benign neglect" where even the most modest but important symbolic reforms seem impossible.
Who in Britain today would oppose changing the royal succession rules, which offensively would see a first-born daughter of Prince William lose out in the succession stakes to a son born after her? The government back in 1998, promised to reform this (pressed by Jeffrey Archer of all people). Buckingham Palace has made it as clear as is constitutionally proper that it wants change; William himself is said to see it as symbolically important. Lord Dubs and former Leader of the House Ann Taylor have tried to remind the government to act by sponsoring private members' bills to reform the succession rules, not least because it would be invidious to make this change after it would affect the individuals first and second in line.
Yet Lord Chancellor Charles Falconer stonewalls, declaring that the government "abhors gender discrimination" in any form but has no plans to remove it. "Equal rights for royal princesses" may not be an equality cause to bring thousands to march in Whitehall. But how did a Labour government find itself outflanked on gender equality, not (yet) by David Cameron, but by the House of Windsor? And of course, it is the monarchy, not government, which will take the flak if nothing is done before it is too late.
A renewed 21st century monarchy could contribute much to important contemporary debates - shaping a positive definition of Britishness, reshaping the public role of religion in a society of many faiths and none, and celebrating the broader ethos of public service for which the Queen at 80 is justly feted.
