British republicans and monarchists alike have been upstaged by the British people. The Tories-the Tories-failed to grasp this. In what they thought was a carefully planned ambush of the Labour party, they picked up the Crown in the form of the Royal yacht only to drop it on their own foot. They should have known better, for the writing could not have been projected on to our screens in bigger letters.
In an extraordinary and raucous show staged in January by Carlton TV in the Birmingham stadium used for Gladiators, the monarchy was turned over. The phone-in for or against its continuation generated 2.5m calls. Most were from the redial buttons of partisans. None the less, the redialling balanced out and the proportions seemed broadly accurate: 66 per cent supported keeping the monarchy.
The show generated a furious response. Most of the argument was about the spectacle, as mediacrats exchanged views about the power, responsibility and limits of the media. Meanwhile the bottom lines, as totals are called these days, were generally ignored. They were, however, of considerable interest. In particular, an orthodox poll before the programme showed 69 per cent support the idea of a referendum on the monarchy.
Thus at least half of those who support the monarchy also want to choose it. As this segment will swing any result, it seems a majority of the public wants to keep the royal family but in a most non-royal way. For a referendum that kept the crown would none the less spell the final end of divine right. The servants, it seems, are intent on taking over the Victorian house for themselves. They will install central heating and other modern conveniences that release them from drudgery. But they will keep the grand fireplace (if not all the small ones). By doing so, the fireplace will come to symbolise no longer their subordination but their ownership.
Since Bagehot, official theory has told us that the monarchy is merely the dignified aspect of an efficient, secular republic. In fact, as scholars have shown, the British system is intrinsically monarchical even if its absolutism is mainly exercised through the royal prerogative powers of ministers and senior civil servants. But the throne, too, exercises its unaccountable power. As Diana reminded us in her Panorama interview, none of the royals want a Euro-style constitutional monarchy.
It now seems that the throne will be unable to withstand the pressure to become just a decoration. The yacht fiasco shows how far opinion has moved. The government believed their decision would be acclaimed, especially by their own supporters, while Labour would be exposed as either disloyal or, as so often in the past, slavishly royal. And preferably both. Brown and Blair kept their nerve and the public opposed paying ?60m for a new Britannia out of tax revenues.
Sun readers voted over 5 to 1 against. Typical views included Richard Wright, "It is disgusting and obscene. The homeless must be sickened to hear about millions being wasted on a yacht to send a bunch of parasites around the world in luxury," and the former soldier Simon Phipps, "If the Queen wants a new yacht, she should pay for it."
The latter voice points to a new development in British politics. The Conservatives have always depended on the support of working class voters loyal to flag and country and often ex-service. Patriotic, tough-minded yet deferential, these were true subjects of the crown. The yacht episode suggests that the breed is mutating. We are witnessing the emergence of Murdoch Man. Murdoch Man also is working class and Tory voting. He is, however, Europhobic and republican.
One of the opponents of the monarchy in the Carlton debate was the very opposite of Murdoch Man, Claire Rayner. Except when it comes to republicanism. She told me that she sees the monarchy as being like a great boulder that dams the stream of people's energy and creativity. It generates deference, snobbery, secrecy and frustration. Shift the boulder and the river of democracy will be released. The programme's format prevented her from saying this on air, which is a pity. But I am not convinced there is any such single boulder.
Our political energy is dammed all right, but by a complex fortification that includes civil service secrecy, parliamentary sovereignty, the House of Lords, the winner-takes-all electoral system, Treasury driven centralisation, as well as the monarchy. No one single reform will break the dam. Creaking though it is, it can survive any isolated change, even abolishing the throne. A referendum on the monarchy that chose to keep the Windsors would change the system more than a committee of the great and the good declaring Betty Boothroyd president-a move chief republican Stephan Haseler has sometimes advocated. Democracy is more important than republicanism.
Don't get me wrong. I would vote for a republic. But it would be far better to have a monarchy chosen by democratic methods than a republic imposed on us by the elite. The royals would become subject to us rather than our being subjects of them. If this is already the people's wish then Murdoch Man is part of a much wider claim to full citizenship pushing against the dam.
