Choosing a title for this blog took me a while. My first thought was 'Greenhawk'. That would have been a good indication of some of the themes I wanted to explore, but in the end I felt it was too limiting.
So I moved on to 'Using Weapons'. That was inspired by an ancient Greek quoted by Michel de Montaigne in his Essays. The story goes that an ancient Greek king was being praised for practising his weapons drill every day until well advanced in years (about 30, by ancient standards). A philosopher commented, however: 'Training is good for youths. At his age he should be using his weapons.'
Well, the weapons I've been trained in are the use of logic and evidence, and I want to use them to make public discourse a bit more honest. There will be no rants on this blog. So I liked the title but feared it might draw attention from gun nuts and the like, so regretfully rejected it.
God Save The Queen it is. And it's not irony.
I don't recall ever having seen anyone in this medium trying to make a serious defence of monarchy. This is probably because I've been looking in the wrong places, but here is mine.
A few years ago the New Statesman published an article titled '101 Reasons to hate monarchy' or something like that. Most of what followed were not actually reasons but slogans, thus confirming an opinion I had long been coming to - that New Statesman writers have thought processes which, when writing, simply consist of linking one slogan to another in the least cognitively stressful way. But their views need a rejoinder, albeit this rather delayed one, even if only because they are so common.
There are a lot of good and bad arguments on both side of this debate. What the monarchy does for the tourist industry is a bad 'pro' argument. I pass the Palace most days and feel fairly sure that the throngs of tourists outside would not be there if it were the residence of a President: but we have come to a pretty pass if we have to worry as a nation about the possible loss of a few thousand tourists.
They have a message for us, though, if we can see it. The Buckingham Palace crowds are as diverse as any multiculturalist could wish. Something is drawing these folk from Asia and the Americas and Europe and beyond to the place. What could that be? Monarchy has glamour, of course - and it is glamour that has global appeal. One great advantage of monarchy is that it is non-ethnic - one might say pre-national. In the plainest terms, it is subject to the vagaries of desire: there's nothing in principle to stop some Prince or Princess marrying a non-white spouse.
Conversely, abolishing the monarchy (after a long and highly divisive debate, for sure) would have the effect of removing one symbol of the UK's cohesiveness. It would force a redefinition of Britishness in more ethnic terms and probably encourage a more defensive and nationalistic attitude in mainstream society. None of these effects are desirable, still less would they be desired by republicans: but they are likely. As a much watered-down instance of the kind of thing at stake, consider the increased sense of English victimhood associated with Scottish and Welsh devolution.
There are objections to this 'multicultural monarchy' hypothesis, of course. The practical likelihood of Wills beginning the process seems remote. Loudmouths like Princess Michael of Kent don't help the case either. And the argument depends on a set of logical steps that can't be proved. Fortunately there's a better argument to reinforce the defence of monarchy - in my view a much stronger one.
It's noticeable how the Queen, in her Christmas broadcasts, uses one particular word every year. The word I'm thinking of isn't 'Commonwealth', though that's a word she does invariably use at some point. The word is service. And it's a key word.
There are cultural commentators who blame every social ill on the spirit of the 1960s. The themes are so well-known - not just in the UK but globally - that I hardly need go through them. The 1960s are blamed for a set of idiotic catchphrases. 'If it feels good, do it.' 'Let it all hang out.'
There are cultural commentators who blame every social ill on the spirit of the 1980s. The themes are so well-known - not just in the UK but globally - that I hardly need go through them. The 1980s are blamed for a set of idiotic catchphrases. 'Greed is good.' 'You have a right to what you want.'
Oddly, those who passionately believe in the wickedness of first set of slogans think the latter are quite
unobjectionable. And vice versa. It should be apparent, though, that both are damaging. In large part they are both, in their respective ways, calls to legitimise self-indulgence. In moderation, these slogans are not bad: when followed as maxims, they lead to a society of degraded manners and casual callousness - to put it mildly.
So what's needed? In short, the opposite of self-indulgence, that is, service. Choosing to do something to ease the suffering, or increase the joy, of others. And choosing that not out of a neurotic neediness but out of the possibility that one's own joy will thereby increase too. This is nothing that could ever be put into a party programme or manifesto, not in so many words. But it is a real answer to our problems.
So the Queen has shown herself to be an acute sociological thinker. At any rate she shows more insight into what's wrong with the UK than the New Statesman is ever likely to do.
God Save the Queen.