The death of Diana, Princess of Wales: is the British monarchy likely to survive?
Echo Issue Outline 1997 / 34 - 35: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
What they said ...
`I used to be quite a royalist, but not now because of the way they used Diana. They just used her to produce an heir'
Ms Boeg-Clarke a 65-year-old retired caterer
`... the real business of our monarchy is not mere glamour. It lies in the professionalism of the Queen as our head of state, the hard but rewarding slog of the Prince's Trust ...'
British constitutional expert, Lord Blake
The death of Diana, Princess of Wales, on August 31, 1997, has lead a number of commentators to speculate that the royal family may have to alter its public image or place the continued existence of the monarchy in Britain at risk.
Other commentators have suggested that the life and death of Diana will have no lasting impact on the British Monarchy which will continue to play an integral part in Britain's government and social structure.
Background
Britain is a constitutional monarchy. This means that the monarch is the formal head of state. Most of the powers of the monarch are ceremonial. On almost all matters the monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II, acts on the advice of the elected government. The tasks of making laws, administering justice, and governing and defending the country are carried out by others in the Queen's name.
The monarch is considered to symbolise the permanence and stability of the nation, as an institution above politics.
However some of the Queen's powers are more than ceremonial and have the potential to impinge on the political sphere.
The Queen has the power to appoint a Prime Minister. Generally this is a formality with the Queen appointing as Prime Minister the leader of the party which secured a majority at the most recent general election.
However, on the official Internet site of the British Monarchy, it is indicated that in exceptional circumstances, where a Prime Minister did not have a majority in Parliament the `Queen might need to exercise the discretion she still retains to ensure that her Government is carried on.'
This comment seems to suggest that the monarch has the power to dismiss a Prime Minister whose party ceases to have a majority in Parliament.
Less controversially, the Queen expresses her views on government matters to the Prime Minister at their weekly audiences. These meetings and all communications between the monarch and the government are as a matter of convention treated as strictly confidential.
The monarch is also the Head of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is an association of former British colonies which are now independent countries. Some indeed are republics.
Some members of the Commonwealth are referred to as Commonwealth realms. These are countries where the British monarch is also technically their head of state.
In practice the Queen only acts as head of state for a Commonwealth realm when she visits one of these countries. In her absence the role of head of state is performed by a Governor-General.
The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the ministers of the country concerned and is completely independent of the British Government.
Australia is a Commonwealth realm and has a Governor-General as head of state who acts for the Monarch.
The republican debate in Australia largely centres around whether we should continue to have Governors-General who represent a monarch who lives in and is head of state for another country. Some critics maintain that Australia needs an Australian head of state representing nothing but Australia.
In Britain there have not been substantial calls for the removal of the monarchy.
Many British critics of the monarchy have complained about the cost to the public purse of maintaining the monarchy. However, since the Queen agreed in 1992 to voluntarily pay income tax there have been fewer criticisms on this score, though dissatisfaction with the cost of maintaining the monarchy has not completely disappeared.
The British Monarchy also has a special connection with the Church of England. The monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and as part of his or her title is the Defender of the Faith. (The phrase, the faith, is understood to mean the Church of England.) This implies that the monarch has an obligation to protect and maintain the Church of England. The obligation appears to be mutual as the monarch and other members of the royal family are publicly prayed for at Church of England services.
Many commentators have claimed that the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, has represented a crisis for the British Monarchy.
The claim has been made that Diana's death heightened popular dissatisfaction with her treatment by the royal family. In the week prior to her death there were many criticisms of the royal family for having remained in Scotland at Balmoral, rather than returning to London to share in the public mourning.
The Queen was also criticised for adhering to protocol and not having a flag flying at half mast over Buckingham Palace for most of the week after Diana's death. It was also said that her speech paying tribute to Diana was belated and only came in response to popular disquiet at the Palace's silence.
At the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales, her brother, Earl Charles Spencer gave the eulogy. During his speech he appeared critical of the Queen for having insisted that Diana lose her royal title after her divorce from Princess Charles. He also pledged that he and his sisters would attempt to ensure that her two sons, the Princes William and Harry, were brought up as Diana had planned.
The speech was greeted with applause by the hundreds of thousands of people listening outside Westminster Abbey and the applause was then taken up by most of those inside the Abbey. Earl Spencer's speech and the wide-spread public support for it have been said by some to indicate a turning-point for the British Monarchy.
There are a number of Internet sites that provide useful background information on this issue. The first is the Internet site of the British Monarchy. This site does not consider the possible future of the monarchy, however, it provides a brief, clear overview of the constitutional role of the monarchy and also outlines its role within the British Commonwealth.
There is also an interesting critique of monarchy and an analysis of its possible future in the wake of Diana's death titled, `Diana, the monarchy and the crisis in Britain' by Alan Wood. This is useful as background information, providing a clear and challenging analysis of monarchy from a Marxist perceptive.
From a very different perspective there is also what is essentially a defence of the Church of England as the established church titled, `Should the Church of England be Disestablished' by Stephen Trott, Rector of Purford with Boughton. This includes a clear account of the place of the monarchy within the Church of England.
Arguments suggesting the British monarchy is not likely to survive
It has been suggested that one of the prime functions of the monarchy is to act as a national symbol, helping to unite Britain. It has further been claimed that if the monarchy forfeits the support and regard of a majority of Britons, it will cease to carry out this unifying function and one of the primary reasons for its continued existence will have disappeared.
Commenting in the Bulletin, in an article dated September 16, 1997, Michael Elliott has observed, `There is an old saying that the monarchy is a "mirror to our better selves". In the 1980s, as the royal family lurched from archaic ritual to modern disfunctionality, that claim seemed a mocking joke.'
Elliott than goes on to suggest that Diana was the only royal who managed to act as a positive symbol for many Britons. `It is axiomatic that she was the only royal who could connect with those Britons who had once been marginalized.'
According to this line of argument the British royal family has become discredited and is increasingly seen as irrelevant to many Britons, particularly those who do not fit comfortably into the conventional British mainstream.
It has further been argued that in recent times the British royal family has begun to lose its claim to national moral leadership.
According to this line of argument, another of the primary functions of the British Monarchy is to exemplify ethical behaviour in terms, for example, of self-discipline, adherence to duty and support for family values. It has been suggested that the divorces of the Queen's children and of her sister, Princess Margaret, have helped to undermine the royal family's moral authority. It has further been claimed that the popular perception that the royal family treated Diana in a callous and exploitative manner has also served to reduce the family's claim to national moral leadership.
Diana Simmonds, in an article published in The Bulletin and dated September 16, 1997, has stated, `The royal family has long been a moral vacuum ... Its attitude to the young Lady Diana Spencer - akin to the way the Queen and her mother view their prized brood mares and fillies ... left a taint that was both horrible and indelible. And, although the Windsors tried to wash their hands of that taint via divorce and the removal of her royal title, her death has made it impossible; and her brother's passionate defence of his sister and her sons merely underlined that.'
Disapproval of the royal family's treatment of Diana was voiced by a number of those who publicly mourned her in the week following her death.
An indication of this disapproval was given by Josephine Boeg-Clarke, a 65-year-old retired caterer, who was interviewed outside Kensington Palace. Ms Boeg-Clarke declared, `I used to be quite a royalist, but not now because of the way they used Diana. They just used her to produce an heir.'
It has also been claimed that in addition to a diminished moral authority, the position of the British Monarchy in relation to the Church of England may have been damaged.
If Prince Charles assumes the throne after his mother he would normally be expected to acquire the title of Defender of the Faith, marking the special position of the monarch in relation to the Church of England. Charles acknowledged adultery and the possibility that he might marry his long-time mistress, Camilla Parker Bowles, a divorcee, has called into question the relationship between the monarchy and the church. It has been suggested that if the Church of England appears to condone Prince Charles infidelity and marriage to a divorced woman, this could damage the standing of the church itself, while a separation of the British Monarchy from the Church of England might serve to weaken the monarchy.
Indeed there are those who claim that the manner in which the marriage of Prince Charles and Diana, Princess of Wales, was weakened and then ended in divorce has already compromised the Church of England and the moral authority which the monarchy claims to derive from its special relationship with the established church.
Columnist for The Australian, Frank Devine, has noted, `The complaisance of the Church of England, while its future supreme governor turned notorious adultery into divorce, removes one of the cornerstones of the monarchy's stability.'
Relatedly, it has been claimed that any possible popular backlash against the monarchy might be particularly directed against Prince Charles as Diana's former husband.
The Australian's European correspondent, Ean Higgins, has attempted to sum up claims which he suggests have been made by a number of British media commentators. Ean Higgins has reported, `With Charles already held in low esteem for his infidelity to Diana with his deeply unpopular mistress, Camilla Parker Bowles, the death of the princess has only increased his image problems with the British public.'
There has been some speculation that were Charles to prove a highly unpopular heir to the throne, he may be persuaded to relinquish his claim in favour of his elder son, Prince William. This might then leave Prince Charles free to marry Camilla Parker Bowles without the complications that could arise he were to take such an action and then attempt to become both monarch and defender of the faith.
However, there are those who have claimed that even if Charles were to relinquish his right of succession this would not solve the problems faced by the British Monarchy.
It would take a formal Act of Parliament to alter the line of succession to bypass Prince Charles and go directly to his son, Prince William. It has been suggested that the ensuing national and parliamentary debate might not merely focus on who should be king but could call into question the continuance of the monarchy.
According to this line of argument, any attempt to alter the line of succession could result in calls to abolish the monarchy itself.
Arguments suggesting the British monarchy is likely to survive
It has been suggested that much of the apparent popular dissatisfaction that has been recently expressed with regard to members of the royal family is a matter of form, not substance.
According to this line of argument, people in Britain do not want to abolish the monarchy, rather they want it to present a more human or humane face.
It has been claimed that one of the reasons many people responded positively to Diana, Princess of Wales, was that she appeared approachable, caring and did not seem bound in by protocol. However, some of those who hold this view go on to argue that despite these elements of her popular appeal, Lady Diana Spencer would not have been interesting to the general public had she not married Prince Charles. Thus, it is argued, the fundamental basis of her appeal lay in support for and interest in the monarchy.
Following on from this, there are those who claim that the British Monarchy, as an institution, is greater than any of the members of the royal family who represent it.
According to this line of argument, there may occasionally be members of the royal family who attract a great deal of media interest or whose behaviour is inappropriate and unpopular, however, the importance of the institution of monarchy and the role that it plays in Britain's public life means that it will survive regardless of the degree of interest in or possible indiscretions of individual members of the royal family.
Mrs Joan Trembling, in a letter published in The Herald Sun on September 4, 1997, noted that some critics of the monarchy have adopted `the silly habit of confusing the royal family with a system of government.'
Mrs Trembling went on to claim, `There are only two members of royalty who have any significance for the monarchy - the reigning monarch and the obvious successor - and then only because one wears the crown and the other will do so in due course.'
Those who hold this view note that England has been a monarchy, with only one period of interruption, for some thousand years. Further, it has been noted, over this time there have been a number of different royal families, including some who have been recruited from other nations.
Supporters of monarchy claim that its longevity indicates the durability of the institution and further claim that this durability is not dependent on whoever might be wearing the crown at a particular moment in history.
It has also been suggested that a high media profile and celebrity status are not appropriate for the royal family and the monarchy.
According to this line of argument the functions of monarchy are best served by relatively discreet, self-effacing individuals. It has been claimed that monarchy is not about the cult of personality and that what is required is a quiet and steady adherence to duty.
It has been suggested that these are the qualities represented by the Queen and may also come to be seen as the strengths of Prince Charles, should he become king.
According to this line of argument, the sort of media attention and popular adulation attracted by Diana, Princess of Wales, may actually damage the monarchy's chances of long-term survival.
British constitutional expert, Lord Blake, has claimed, `... the real business of our monarchy is not mere glamour. It lies in the professionalism of the Queen as our head of state, the hard but rewarding slog of the Prince's Trust, the gruelling journeys undertaken by Princess Anne on behalf of deprived children. This is the core work of the royal family. This is where its value lies and where in seemingly small ways, it continues to strengthen the bonds of nationhood.'
Relatedly, it has been claimed that there needs to be a distance between the people and their monarch and in particular that there have to be clear limits set regarding the nature and the amount of media attention the members of the royal family receive.
It has also been suggested that the monarchy needs to be seen as neutral and remote from contemporary events.
According to this line of argument, the detached, low-key posture generally adopted by the royal family is most likely to ensure the continued survival of the monarchy.
Charles Moore, the editor of the Daily Telegraph, declared, `If they (members of the royal family) are constantly being interviewed and constantly being asked their opinions about things, this actually wears away at the whole system.'
There are, however, those who believe the monarchy will survive only if it changes.
According to this line of argument, popular reaction to the death of Diana, Princess of Wales and the hostility of many Britons toward the royal family for apparently having failed to respect Diana in life or in death, indicates that the royal family will have to change its public image.
Those who hold this view maintain that a more human and approachable demeanour will help to ensure the continued survival of the monarchy. There are even those who suggest that this process of modification has begun and that the various concessions that were made in the lead-up to the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales, show that the royal family is capable of change.
There are also those who suggest that the survival of the monarchy may be best guaranteed by the crown passing from the Queen to Prince William.
A number of Diana's comments about her eldest son and his suitability to become king have been referred to. Diana, Princess of Wales, was recently reported as saying, `All my hopes are on William, now ... I think it's too late for the rest of the family. But William ... I think he has it, I think he understands.' Recent opinion polls suggest that over fifty per cent of Britons believe that when the time comes Charles should stand aside in favour of his son. There are those commentators who have suggested that such an apparently popular move would help secure the future of the British Monarchy.
Further implications
It is almost certainly too early to say what the impact of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, is likely to be on the British Monarchy. Many commentators appear to be centring their comments around what the monarchy needs to do in order to survive rather than whether it should or is likely to. Opinions vary widely. There are those who appear to regard the Diana phenomenon as an aberration and who recommend that the royal family proceed as they traditionally have. On the other hand there are those who appear to believe that without a substantial change of image and alteration to the royal family's usual customs and behaviours, the monarchy will not survive.
It has been argued by some that only by relinquishing its constitutional role can the British royal family achieve a normal life for its members.
According to this line of argument for as long as the British royal family retains the power and status that comes from its formal role in the British constitution then it will attract the sort of media attention that makes it very difficult for its members to live their lives.
National affairs editor for the Herald Sun, Tony Parkinson, has claimed, `Only by disentangling the Crown from its direct constitutional role can the Windsors aspire to sane and normal lives, away from the hot eye of unforgiving media scrutiny.'
However, for many Britons such a reduced role for the monarchy may represent too great a change.
It is interesting to note that since the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, support for the monarchy has fallen by only two per cent in England, however a majority of Britons favour Prince Charles relinquishing his right of succession to his son William. This does not seem to indicate simple opposition to the monarchy. The vast majority of those surveyed did not believe their country would still be a monarchy in a hundred years time. Again, while there appear to be popular calls for change, such poll results do not suggest that the fall of the monarchy is immanent.
It has been suggested that the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and the negative nature of her relations with the British royal family may increase the growth of republican sentiment in Australia. There is some evidence that this may be the case.
In a Bulletin Morgan poll carries out the week after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, 53 per cent of respondents favoured an Australian republic. This is a jump of six percentage points since the last Morgan poll on the subject conducted in June last year.
Sources
The Age
5/9/97 page 7 news item by Maureen Johnson, `Royal way of mourning leaves sour taste'
5/9/97 page 19 analysis by Mark Baker, `Public grief for royal rebel a snub to establishment'
7/9/97 page 8 (Special commemorative edition - Diana: the last farewell) analysis by Simon Hoggart, `The family that was left behind'
7/9/97 page 14 (Special commemorative edition - Diana: the last farewell) analysis by David O'Reilly, `Whither the Windsors?'
8/9/97 page 2 news item by Mark Baker, `Royal assent for a revolution that was born in the streets'
8/9/97 page 3 analysis by Christopher Henning, `Is the House of Windsor to become an eternal outsider?'
The Australian
4/9/97 page 6 news item by Ean Higgins, `Backlash threatens Charles' crown'
4/9/97 page 13 comment by Frank Devine, `A noble way to farewell the monarchy'
6/9/97 page 19 comment by Christopher Hitchens, `She will not go quietly'
6/9/97 page 18 editorial, `Princes now best hope of The Firm'
8/9/97 page 4 news item by Ean Higgins, `Outrage translates to action'
The Bulletin
16/9/97 page 16 analysis by Damien Murphy, `Death of the family'
16/9/97 page 18 comment by Diana Simmons, `His mother's son'
16/9/97 page 27 comment by Graham Richardson, `Di deals death knell to outdated monarchy'
16/9/97 page 61 comment by Michael Elliott, `Diana's Britain'
The Herald Sun
2/9/97 page 10 analysis by Edith Lederer, `Royal show uncertain without its star'
2/9/97 page 19 comment by Trang Thomas and Tony Abbott, `The royals after Diana'
3/9/97 page 18 editorial, `The Windsors and a republic'
3/9/97 page 19 comment by Tony Parkinson, `Royal moment of truth'
4/9/97 page 20 letter by Joan Tremelling, `Death no threat to system'
5/9/97 page 20 editorial, `Whither the Windsors?'
6/9/97 page 13 news item by Richard Kay, `Row over in time'
7/9/97 page 5 news report by Derek Ballantine, `Brother blasts royals'
7/9/97 page 6 news item by Richard Kay, `"All my hopes are on William"'
7/9/97 page 9 analysis by Jane Symons, `Funeral power struggle'
7/9/97 page 9 news item by Phil Murphy, `Poll pips Charles'
8/9/97 page 2 news item by Mary-Anne Toy, `The words that shocked royalty'
8/9/97 page 18 editorial, `A candle in the winds of change'
Internet
NOTE: It appears that the English Board of Studies may be refining its guidelines on the use of Internet sources for CAT I.
Currently it is probably preferable for students to restrict their use of Internet sources to Part 2 of CAT I.
Please consult your teacher for direction on this matter.
When using Internet sources it is important to determine the origin of the material as this will assist you in deciding how reliable it is.
There are a number of Internet sites that provide useful background information on this issue of the monarchy's survival The first is the official Internet site of the British Monarchy. This can be found at http://www.royal.gov.uk/today/
This site does not consider the possible future of the monarchy, however, it provides a brief, clear overview of the constitutional role of the monarchy and also outlines at its role within the British Commonwealth.
There is also an interesting critique of monarchy and an analysis of its possible future in the wake of Diana's death titled, `Diana, the monarchy and the crisis in Britain' by Alan Wood. This can be found at http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~socappeal/diana.html
This is useful as background information, providing a clear and challenging analysis of monarchy from a Marxist perceptive.
From a very different perspective there is also what is essentially a defence of the Church of England as the established church titled, `Should the Church of England be Disestablished' by Stephen Trott, Rector of Purford with Boughton. This can be found at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3362/Church.html
This includes a clear account of the place of the monarchy within the Church of England.