That feeling of collective grief has remained until the time of writing and will likely carry into next week. Naturally, there has been wall-to-wall coverage projecting this mood that has dominated both news and social media. It reflects the reverberating impact her death has had on large proportions of the general population.
Public sentiment akin to this should not be a surprise. For almost all in Britain, this is the first monarchical change in their lifetime. To take away a public figure, whose presence and aura became uniting and acted as an inspiration to millions in the 70 years she reigned, was always going to shake the country dramatically.
I would be inhumane not to acknowledge and understand this sentiment. In this period of mourning, people react differently. The passing of someone as prominent as the Queen evokes emotions, all of which are individual. No matter the emotion, people's reactions should not be invalidated. Undoubtedly, it will take many people time to process this and it would be amiss to deny that.
With all that said, at such an important juncture, it is now the perfect time for the end of the monarchy. The institution, taking out the human element to it, is profoundly outdated and belies the notion of a fair, equal British society.
In recent days, many would - and have - criticised people for asking the question, in lieu of the fact that her death is still so raw. Indeed I felt it best to give a few days for the dust to settle and emotions to calm before writing this. Nevertheless, if we cannot question the monarchy when it is so heavily dominating the news, then when can we make the argument? For that is the essence of protest. It is at its most effective when it challenges and impacts most.
And challenging the monarchy does just that at the moment. From topics such as climate change to energy crises, media input is generally balanced. Such is the depth of sentiment towards the late Queen, the monarchy is not subject to that the same impartiality.
Written and broadcast news does not present two sides of a coin. Perhaps some of that is down to sensitivities, and it must be conceded that memories of the Queen are not really relevant to the monarchical debate. Nevertheless, now the dust has settled, a significant proportion of the coverage centres on the new King, Charles III, who's ascension to the throne is oddly automatic. In the attention that has swept across the nation, very few in the public eye have been keen to ask just why this must be done so hurriedly. And when individuals do dare to publicly assert a countering viewpoint, they are arrested, dare I say it, almost dictatorially?
I know, I know, it's a constitutional necessity. It's a tradition. It's just how it works. That doesn't make it the right thing to do. Even from a human point of view, we are dragging the 73 year-old King around the country, meeting everyone and their dog, a few days after he has lost his mother. I suspect no-one envies that.
A sense of perspective is needed here. For weeks, the UK has been in the midst of a "cost of living crisis", exacerbated by increasing oil and gas prices. The result is expected to "hammer" UK households, as people adapt to soaring bills and inflation levels. Not that it is deemed newsworthy now, with Clive Myrie even terming it "insignificant" in comparison to the Queen's health.
Although the life of a broadcaster is likely haunted by the fear of slip-ups like that, that does appear to be the opinion of traditional news and social media. The death of a 96 year-old public figure is very saddening, but not compared to a crisis that social care leaders fear will lead to tens of thousands of excess deaths in the elderly this coming winter. The example illustrates a number of problems with the monarchy as we know it.
The media fanfare forces upon us emotions that we don't keep for those at risk of homelessness, death or starvation. We are expected to show increased compassion for someone who, respectfully, is likely to have led a life of extreme privilege. Whilst doing so, we neglect to think about those in practical need. I mean, how difficult would it have been to get people to donate to foodbanks as tribute to the Queen instead of endless flowers?
In a society that likes to proclaim we treat everyone fairly, with respect and kindness, the veneration of one family exists as a significant contradiction. The royal family are idolised because of their bloodline and their bloodline alone, making the country's adoration of them the purest form of racism. There is not much equality when hospital appointments, other funerals and even food banks (!) are being closed on Monday for the Queen's funeral.
The closures almost suggest that food bank users will be watching the funeral, which seems bold. That attitude is symptomatic of how we view them. When problems arise for the poorest in the country, the government and much of the public conveniently ignore their decreasing living standards. These attitudes have equal bigotry, given that the Institute of Race Relations estimate that between 2016 and 2019 white British households had a monthly income of £110-170 more than BAME groups.
It seems astonishing then, that so little public money gets to these deprived groups - and so much gets spent on the monarchy. The grandeur of state events such as funerals and weddings might be unique to the country but it comes at immense taxpayer cost. In 2020-21, the taxpayer-funded Sovereign Grant was a staggering £86.3 million. No doubt after the Platinum Jubilee and the funeral these costs will skyrocket, and the indirect cost of policing and resources adds it up further.
Meanwhile, the Trussell Trust estimates that 2.1 million people had to rely on food parcels in the 2021/22 financial year, an increase of 14%. The mind really does boggle.
Not only does taxpayer money fund their lifestyle, but their hoards of wealth could and should be redistributed. £12 million to be spent getting Prince Andrew off a trial by a sex accuser? Buckingham Palace getting a £360 million refurbishment in the midst of the pandemic? Even the Queen, much despite her public legacy, has lobbied for royal exemptions from more than 160 laws since 1960, one of which sought to hide her "embarrassing" private wealth.
It's the same story as usual. The absurdly rich members of society seeking for more benefits to enhance their wealth. Unlike other millionaires and billionaires, who's popularity is often linked to their business or political reputation, the monarchy get an almost free pass because they are the royal family.
Hoarding their wealth in current times is immoral, but not compared to the reason they have this wealth. Put simply, the remnants of colonialism that continue with the royal family are justification enough for its abolition.
When the Queen ascended the throne in 1952, 19 African states were still under colonial rule, as was the majority of Caribbean. Although the British Empire ended in the few decades after, it was not without strenuous British efforts to resist colonial uprisings, such as Cyprus and Kenya.
The Empire, over the centuries, has continually subjugated Black and Brown countries and the monarchy is inescapably tied to that damning legacy. After all, it was responsible for its creation, responsible for the atrocities and pillages caused, responsible for the chaos left.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the harm done to ancestors throughout Africa, Asia and the Caribbean could be forgotten, if there would ever be some compensation and recognition. The fact remains though, that this has not happened. Britain has cowered in the wake of how history has remembered their Empire and avoided discussion or reimbursement. Even the diamond in the royal Crown, mined in India, is an example of Empire's theft.
HM Queen Elizabeth is not blameless in that colonial legacy. Not once throughout her 70 years on the throne did she attempt to apologise for the atrocities caused by colonialism. Had she done so, which incidentally would have had a proper unifying effect, it would have been a positive step in detaching the royal family from colonialism. The next step would have been for some of their wealth to be redistributed to recompense the nations Britain ravaged.
All of this is now possible for Charles. But I won't hold my breath on it happening.
It would be nice if popular media culture could - when they have mourned - recognise these flaws in the monarchy. No-one is expecting a full-blown revolution in days, but some truths need to be told.
Fundamentally, the monarchy is a symbol of many forms of inequality. It highlights the general apathy towards increasing economic inequality within Britain, which its wealth could help the problem exponentially. Likewise, its history is tied to racial inequality, for the current state of the world is inherently shaped by the British Empire. Only when it pays its dues could the institution begin to be respected as a forward-thinking one.
We are at a crossroads when it comes to the monarchy. Will we continue to support an institution that goes against the very equality of twenty-first century society? Or can we reform it to fit with how the society of prosperous nation should be?
As for why these conversations need to happen now? Stalling the inequalities will result in further unnecessary harm. So please, when the mourning finishes, can the conversation for a republic properly be respected?
Comments
Post a Comment