The Queen’s diamond jubilee has met expectations. It was a great excuse for a party. The rain came but the party went on as we convinced ourselves that we were having just as good a time in the cold and wet. And a small band of republicans protested against the cost of the jubilee and the anachronism of choosing a head of state on the sole qualification that they’re the son or daughter of the last one.
I’m not a monarchist, but I take a different view. To paraphrase Winston Churchill rather ironically, a monarchy may be the worst way of selecting a head of state but the alternatives don’t strike me as an improvement – for Britain. At a time when politicians seek new and outlandish ways of making the people despise them (step forward David Cameron and Jeremy Hunt, ministers for Murdoch), the idea of making the head of state a political appointment is one most of us can easily resist.
Others will find this appalling. Yet they have to accept that they are in a minority (except perhaps in Scotland and the obvious parts of Northern Ireland). No one was forced to take part in street parties this weekend. No one told us to buy bunting. And no one was fined for not displaying it. It showed that communal moments still unite the nation, whether they’re royal occasions or television events such as Strictly or Britain’s Got Talent. We still like to be part of a crowd. We still want to share experiences.
Our unusually undemocratic system also has benefits for our civic society. The Queen is a figurehead. She has no political power. She stands above the fray, letting the politicians get on with governing. She provides dignity and continuity, something few politicians of the modern era have achieved. In an era that doesn’t produce statesmen and women (can you imagine dignifying David Cameron, Nick Clegg or Ed Milliband with that description?), the Queen represents the nation.
All this may change, of course, when the Queen dies. Charles has been more opinionated than his mother. But republicans shouldn’t assume. The modern monarchy has had its crises, notably the rise of republican clubs after Queen Victoria became a recluse after her consort Prince Albert died. Victoria reinvented herself as Empress of India, and her jubilees sealed her renewed popularity. Prince Charles as king may yet prove as popular as Queen Victoria’s heir, the hedonistic Edward VII.
One last thought. Will Charles reign as Charles III? Or will he choose a different name as king, like his grandfather George VII? This may be one of the greatest branding decisions of the 21st century. Assuming he doesn’t break with tradition and abdicate immediately in favour of his own son William.
Ertblog 
If I recall the little I know of constitutional custom, abdication would require Charles to go into exile, so I think it’s unlikely to happen. Perhaps the bigger risk is that the present queen follows her mother and keeps going for another 20 years or so by which time the heir may well himself be somewhat frail – mentally as well as physically. Imagine trying to crown an 85 year old who can’t remember his own name and keeps wetting himself…. Not what you want in the age of HD TV!
One of the advantages of a non-monarchistic society is that the nation has a uniting(?!) annual celebratiion – such as 4th July in the Unites States, Bastille Day in France or 25th May in Argentina. These national days usually celebrate a revolution where the country got rid of its monarch or rulring foreign nation. As someone commented on the coverage today, we don’t have a national day to celibrate, so we tend to save them all up and have a big bash every so often. .
Today was a great example of what we do well. it’s a shame we can’t organise the weather, but then if we could, perhaps we wouldn’t see such a show of what has been described as the British Spirit.
By the way, my favourite moments were the steam train going back and for over the bridge, and the choir singing with such gusto while clearly soaking wet.