Should we Save Our Queen?

Kevin Rudd, the new Labour (as opposed to Nulabour) Australian Prime-Minister has promised a referendum on whether or not the Queen should be replaced as the country’s head of state. It’s made Mick Humes in The Times, very excited, wondering when too the United Kingdom will rise up and throw off the “monarchial leftovers of the Middle Ages”.

He follows the usual republican arguments as to why we no longer need a royal head of state, namely:

1. In 2007, it is an anachronism the British should be considered as "subjects of the Crown" rather than "free" citizens.

2. The Crown prerogative is undemocratic.

3. The Queen is neither electable nor accountable.

Point 1) is answered quite ably here. Legally we are "citizens" of the British state, if psychologically people are happy to consider themselves also as "subjects" of the Queen, then that is completely up to them.

Regarding Point 2), the United Kingdom is presently constitutionally in a mess and the resulting democracy deficit is the biggest it has suffered since probably prior to1918.The haphazard devolution of powers to the assemblies of N.Ireland, Scotland and Wales, the botched reform of the House of the Lords, the European Union’s increased role in formulating our legislation, all mean that we, the electorate, have less and less say over those vital issues, such as civil liberties, which affect us the most. It is also unfortunate that over the last decade we have had a government, first under Blair and now Brown, which is unrivalled in modern British history in its control-freakery- the large majority at the three general election in that period has only compounded the problem. The "Crown prerogative" (which today, in effect, gives the Prime-Minister as opposed to the monarch itself, unlimited powers in certain areas) is undemocratic, but in the modern UK in terms of the danger it poses to democracy, it is the least important of all those factors I've mentioned above. It could even be argued, as it is here, that:

...in modern times the residual Royal Prerogative may conversely provide some protection against an oppressive government (which practically controls Parliament). Thus it has been suggested that Royal Assent might properly be delayed or withheld where legislation is found, after passing both Houses of Parliament, to be illegal under international or European Law.

There is, however, one power under the Prerogative, which should be reconsidered, and that is the right of the Crown (i.e. the Prime-Minister) to unilaterally declare war- although again, in practice, in recent history, the support of parliament in its "advisory" capacity has been invariably sought by the government of the day.

Moving onto point 3), no, the monarch isn’t elected obviously. Although if we reverted to a republic tomorrow, I believe that a certain Mrs. Elizabeth Windsor would walk any presidential election at this moment in time. The monarchy or, at least, the woman at the head of it, is presently popular, but throughout history public opinion has proved fickle in that regard, the week preceding Princess Diana’s funeral, for example, showed how quickly the British could turn against their royal family; so, their loyalty or even "love" does have its limits. Will Charles III command the same loyalty and love that his mother does? - it’s extremely doubtful and in the present media-driven world, unless he is very careful not to get too carried away hugging them trees or talking to his petunias or whatever, it is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that the pressure for that referendum Hume favours would increase.

So, although they’re not elected, the royal family are accountable for their actions to their people….move too far away from public opinion and they will suffer a backlash expressed through the tabloids, the radio talk ins and the telly chat shows.
And could such a backlash topple a centuries’ old institution such as the monarchy? In the present-day United Kingdom , I believe it could.

Michael Foot's father told him to judge a man by which side he would have been on at the Battle of Marston Moor — for Parliament or the King.

I’m quite clear which side I’d have been routing for, I’d have been standing 100% behind Oliver’s Army. Moreover at certain other times in hsitory since then, I would have, for the overall good of my nation, supported the removal of certain monarchs.
Because like most British people I believe, whilst my loyalty to the monarchy is conditional, my loyalty to my nation is not and at times when those two loyalities are in conflict, it will be my nation which will win everytime. At the minute Queen Elizabeth is doing a good enough job for me, she is a national asset and despite the fact that a heriditary monarchy is inherently undemocratic, I quite like the fact that alone, amongst almost every other western nations, we have kept this link to our past.

But in the event of a change of circumstances or personnel?
There is no guarantee whatsover that my loyalty to the monarchy would remain.