LONDON'A little after three in the afternoon this Saturday, just as the Oxford-Cambridge crew race set out along the Thames in London, the Queen Mother died peacefully in her sleep at Windsor. She died at 101 years old, having seen the whole of the 20th century. The major networks cancelled or pushed back their prime-time programming to air hours-long tributes to her long life. People gathered around Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle late into the evening. Tony Blair, notorious dismantler of royal power, appeared on every network looking grave and saddened, praising the Queen Mum's lifetime of service.
The force with which the Queen Mum's death hit England was a bit startling from an American point of view, though hardly unexpected. It was a reminder that the monarchy in Britain still serves as a powerful symbol for the British people, despite the trials of Elizabeth II's reign.
The last decade had not been a kind one to the British monarchy. Queen Elizabeth II has seen her technical relevance eroded, her governments eager to tax her assets and her children divorce. Ultimately more seriously, with the sweeping constitutional changes, arguments for the abolition of the monarchy have become more credible and commonplace. With all the scandal and departure from traditional images, one has to wonder what is to become of the House of Windsor. Abolishing the monarchy is hardly a new idea. Obviously it has been done before'in fact, it has even been done before in England. But the persistence of the monarchy in Britain, its striking popularity and the evolution of parliamentary democracy distinguish the British monarchy from other feudal relics.
Still, the cost and rationality of maintaining a monarchy in a country that still struggles with class issues remains a valid issue itself, and one that will not be obscured for long by the outpouring of affection for the Queen Mum. Why, ask critics like Edgar Wilson, should the public pay to support \a bunch of unemployed, condescending, luxury-loving parasites?"" And how can a nation justify supporting a spoilt, glamorous royal family with billions of its own when its politicians haggle over budgets for social services?
Cost is perhaps the weakest of the arguments against the monarchy, however, as the real cost of its maintenance has only decreased in recent years. At the beginning of the 1990s, the government's Head of State expenditure hovered around ??83 million, but by 2001 had dropped to ??34 million. Of that, nearly half'approximately ??15.3 million'went to property services, essentially to maintain properties important to English and British heritage. This can be compared to the approximately $300 million spent on the office of the U.S. President last year. With the exception of the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the late Queen Mother, public funds do not go towards royal allowances. Rather, the Queen repays Parliament for the allowances of the remainder of her family. She began paying tax on her personal income, capital gains on personal income and Privy Purse in 1993. Every year the Queen has taken on more financial responsibility for her position and there is no reason to doubt that this will continue in the gradual way it has for the last 10 years.
Many critics also find their countrymen's attachment to the monarchy irrational and arbitrary. A monarchy in a 21st century developed country is barely believable, much less rational. It is a myth with barely more legitimacy than Santa Claus, designed to justify the arbitrary passage of the role of sovereign from generation to generation within one family. The hopelessly incompetent, idiotic and indiscrete are theoretically weeded out by politics, but none of these traits disqualify a person from being king or queen. The support for the monarchy, higher than any president's approval ratings under normal circumstances, seems just a little insane.
Of course, republican critics could be writing about any national symbol. In fact, those accusing the British of an irrational attachment to an outdated monarchy could be writing about almost any nation. The American attachment to the stars and stripes, especially in times of political stress or when faced with threat, is no less peculiar for focusing on an inanimate object rather than an institution. While admittedly ""irrational,"" a nation focusing on some unifying symbol to create a common sense of membership is hardly unhealthy, if not always wholly positive.
Not long ago, George Will summed up the British monarchy as a sort of harmless pleasure. Brits on both sides of the debate would probably agree that it is much more than that. Strangely, people identify with the monarchy. Unlike politicians, their human foibles make them no less popular. Indeed, their weaknesses seem to make them more fascinating, more popular. An entire tabloid industry is built around chasing royals about to get pictures of them doing mundane things like bathing while pregnant or hugging their children. Churches all across the country prayed for the Queen and the Queen Mum today as if they were members of the parish. The term ""Queen Mum"" hints at a sort of psychological intimacy with the Royal Family that is not easily understood by outsiders. It is clear, though, that the British claimed the monarchy as their own a long time ago, not the other way around.
