To survive, the Monarchy must resist the urge to modernise

The year 2022 will go down in history, not for its proliferation of prime ministers or other dramatic events, but as the date when, after seven decades, the reign of Elizabeth II came to an end. British history has always been punctuated by regnal dates and this was an exceptional period. The death of the late Queen reminded this country of its identity.

What would otherwise have been an alarming void in public life was reassuringly filled by the seamless operation of royal succession, whereby the man who had entered his mother’s bedroom at Balmoral as Prince of Wales emerged as King Charles III: the Queen is dead, long live the King. The tradition that the royal standard is never flown at half-mast because the sovereign never dies – which provoked self-indulgent outrage among the constitutionally illiterate after the death of Diana Princess of Wales – became a symbol of stability.

That seamless succession contrasted with the chaos and infighting in the political sphere surrounding the selection of a new prime minister, which we had an opportunity to experience twice during 2022. That speaks eloquently to the contribution made by the Monarchy to national stability. The Monarchy is hugely valued by the people of Britain and the days of mourning following the Queen’s death gave vivid testimony to that underlying, if often apparently dormant, popular sentiment. For those hostile to Britain, its traditions and identity those were uncomfortable days.

Their hope was – and remains – that a new reign might furnish an opportunity to sow discord between an inexperienced monarch and the public, and that is the agenda they are currently pursuing, aided by an offshore platform of malice directed by a renegade member of the royal family. The Monarchy should ignore the provocations directed at it, while shrewdly and calmly assessing any threat. Above all, it must never act precipitately, as it did in the case of Lady Susan Hussey.

Formerly, if a complaint had been made by a guest at an event in the Palace, the mechanism of potential redress would cautiously have been activated. The complainant would have been invited to put the grievance in writing, instead of on Twitter, directed to the appropriate royal official. That would have given time for all the details to emerge. Instead, in the style of the Twitter lynch mob, Lady Hussey was “cancelled”, brutally and unjustly, after 62 years of faithful service.

That injustice sits uncomfortably with the Sword of Temporal Justice that will be carried before Charles III at his coronation on 6 May. For more than a millennium, justice has been one of the primary attributes associated with a Christian monarch; summary “cancellation”, at the bidding of the Twitter mob, is not justice. The speed with which the Palace moved to defenestrate Lady Susan Hussey was much praised by the BBC and other woke elements, since it signalled the royal family had been added to the near-universal list of those intimidated by the mere articulation of the fetishised term “racism”.

It was a sign of weakness and an encouragement to the enemies of the Crown, who saw the Palace walls finally breached. It must never happen again. There were good reasons for the traditional reticence of the royal household, the refusal to engage with people and issues that concealed entrapment. It is those who are most loyal who have a duty to expound these matters, at the risk of royal ire, to a household tempted to experiment, to make the new reign seem more “modern”, with potentially disastrous consequences.

Why mend something that is not broken? The Catholic Church did that in the trendy 1960s, with consequences we have witnessed since. The Monarchy has a perfect template for success in the late Queen: why deviate from proven success? Formality with a human face, a great sense of humour and a true care for her subjects, expressed in unsparing service rather than emotional incontinence. The Palace must not heed the transatlantic ranting of Californian therapy candidates. Modernisation, except in practical areas, would be fatal.

The Coronation ritual derives from that of Edward II in 1308: it should not be abbreviated. Who seriously believes that people who queued for 27 hours to pay their respects for 30 seconds to the late Queen have such an attention deficit that they would find the full service tedious? In 1953 the popular feeling was that it was over too soon. The lengthy obsequies of the late Queen engaged the whole world, notably the well-disposed majority of Americans.

If the intention in shortening the Coronation service is to accommodate the participants, that is a notion that would have horrified Elizabeth II. Peers in lounge suits (one of the rumoured, one hopes apocryphal, changes being canvassed) would constitute a national humiliation, if we recall the splendidly choreographed moment in 1953 when they donned their coronets at the same moment when the crown was placed on the Queen’s head.

There are dangers, too, in a “slimmed-down” monarchy. The public appreciates the good intention to relegate those members of the royal family described as “non-working” to a secondary position; but there are practical considerations. The enormous number of charities with royal patronage cannot, in pure arithmetic terms, be serviced by the core family members alone. If some are deprived of patronage, that would be a retrograde step.

One of the most emotive bonds between the Monarchy and the voluntary services is the sense of being appreciated that volunteers derive from a visit by a royal patron. It might only be Princess Adelaide, an obscure collateral descendant of Queen Victoria, but it will still mean a lot. Why not give some members of the royal family part-time responsibilities? And while, on special occasions, the public wants most to see the core members of the royal family on the Palace balcony, it likes to see lots of children too, as an encore.

There are two distinct, but closely entwined, entities involved: the Monarchy and the royal family. The Monarchy, enjoying such powers as Bagehot graciously allocated to it (only in Britain could a journalist be allowed to define the constitution), provides an ultimate authority, a last-resort guarantee against coups and other extreme abuses, furnishing invaluable continuity and stability.

The royal family, from which the monarch is drawn, is the human and therefore fallible and vulnerable component of this constitutional settlement. That implies sporadic problems in each generation, but any such glitches are of minor account, compared with the invaluable stability, identity and sense of tradition that the Monarchy contributes to public life.

The next decade must be navigated with caution by the Palace. The precedents set by Elizabeth II need to be honoured, not displaced. There is a small but influential minority of people of pronouncedly ill-will that can be relied on to snipe at the Monarchy at every opportunity. The Crown needs to maintain altitude above that scrum of destructive critics, appeasement would only encourage more attacks. Above all, the time has come to ignore Noises Off from Montecito and deny two exemplars of the current phenomenon of lifelong adolescence the oxygen of engagement.

As we look ahead to the new reign, the auspices are good. King Charles III introduced himself to his people in a televised broadcast speech that he handled superbly. The public knows he has a good heart and, provided he continues to avoid the pitfall of climate preoccupations, his popularity is assured. As regards the constitutional and ceremonial aspects of his office, he is impeccably informed and accomplished. Our King is also the best-dressed man in the world.

The line of succession, too, gives every reason for optimism regarding the future of the Monarchy. So long as the Prince and Princess of Wales resist the temptation to go Sussex-lite on issues such as mental health, or to rush to judgement, as in l’affaire Hussey, the prospects for future reigns seem bright indeed.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life