The charges levelled against the Royal family by Meghan Markle and her husband Prince Harry have provided an opportunity to debate the rationale behind the existence of the institution of Kingship – even if it is the Constitutional Monarchy – in the 21st century world.
If Englishmen under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell can raise a banner of revolt against absolute monarchy in mid-17th century and go to the extent of even executing the then King, Charles-I on January 30, 1649, where is the need for carrying an old and outdated institution, which often remains in the news for some unusual actions or remarks by its members – the latest being on the colour of the skin of the child in the womb of Meghan. The abolition of monarchy would work as a good riddance from reading in newspapers or watching on television channels frequent stories about the love affairs, separation, divorce, and escapades in the Royal family.
Whether it is Constitutional Monarchy of the United Kingdom or some other countries, most prominently Japan – where the Emperor, in a way, is still worshipped by some people – or the brutal Kingdoms or Sheikhdoms of Peninsular Arabia, this is undemocratic.
True, England witnessed the Restoration of Monarchy in 1660 after Oliver Cromwell, who ruled as Lord Protectorate between 1653 and 1658 when he died, it was Parliament which finally prevailed, especially after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. But the Constitutional Monarchy continued ever since then.
Why should there be an extended family of royals on whom a huge amount of taxpayers’ money is wasted every year for no valid reason. Why not make the United Kingdom a Republic in which the Head of the State – even a titular one – is elected for a fixed tenure. For example, India elected 14 Presidents since it became a Republic in 1952. In contrast, Elizabeth became Queen of the United Kingdom at the age of 25 years in the same year and continues to hold this position 69 years later. She is now 94.
Cromwell and his Puritan supporters (that is, Parliamentarians) might have gone a step too far by executing Charles-I, but they had at least thought about 400 years back that there is absolutely no need for monarchy of any form in the country. So why are the Britons of the modern age so orthodox and conservative about this institution in this post-modern age? By that yardstick one can certainly say that Britons of the latter age are backward in their approach in comparison to their forefathers in Renaissance years when a lot of churning had been going on not only in England, but in the entire Europe.
When Cromwell and his supporters overthrew monarchy after a civil war Europe was still groping for a concept called Republic. Now that democracy had got matured the world over why still carry the burden of Constitutional Monarchy.
Anyway, Prince Harry’s case is not much different from his parents, who had divorced on August 28, 1996, that is 15 years after the marriage, which was marred by several strange incidents. He was then only 12. His mother, Princess Diana, died in a rather unusual car crash when her vehicle, which was running at a very high speed, as it was being chased by paparazzi in Paris. Her boyfriend Dodi Fayed, 41, son of Egyptian business tycoon, Mohammad Al-Fayed, the former owner of Harrods departmental store and driver Henri Paul, also died. This incident took place in the wee hours of August 31, 1997.
As Dodi was a son of a Muslim billionaire, the death was followed by stories about the conspiracy which led to the killing. The British media was filled with various sensational reporting. In some of them accusing finger was even pointed towards the Royal family.
For full 15 years the marriage between Charles and Diana was rocked by happenings which continued to provide ‘masala’ or spicy stories to the media. The readers of newspapers or TV viewers were rather compelled to pay attention to such absurdities inside and outside Buckingham Palace.
The list of strange happenings in the British Royal family is much longer and it is a favourite topic for tabloids.
Curiously, George-VI, the father of the present Queen, Elizabeth could become the King of Great Britain in 1937, following his predecessor and brother Edward-VIII’s decision to marry a commoner. He had to abdicate the throne after a few months in 1937 when he decided to marry an American divorcee, Wallis Simpson.
Britons often boast of civilizing the world and take credit for the spread of democracy, tolerance and liberal values. But they are not large-hearted enough to allow their own King to marry a commoner and force him to leave the throne.
Similarly, if the allegation of Meghan – as levelled in a TV interview is true – the doubt raised over the colour of the skin of her yet-to-be-born baby by a member of the Royal family is nothing but racism, which in itself is a crime everywhere in the civilised world. When will the culprit be arrested and charged?