Of course, when two people get married, it's a sweet sight.
Nobody objects to that part. On the contrary: republicans are the
only people who would let William Windsor and Kate Middleton have
the private, personal wedding they clearly crave, instead of
turning them into stressed-out, emptied-out marionettes of monarchy
that are about to jerk across the stage. We object not to a
wedding, but to the orgy of deference, snobbery, and worship for
the hereditary principle that will take place before, during and
after it.
In most countries, parents can tell their kids that if they work
hard and do everything right, they could grow up to be the head of
state and symbol of their nation. Not us. Our head of state is
decided by one factor, and one factor alone: did he pass through
the womb of one aristocratic Windsor woman living in a golden
palace? The US head of state grew up with a mother on food stamps.
The British head of state grew up with a mother on postage stamps.
Is that a contrast that fills you with pride?
No, it's not the biggest problem we have. But it does have a
subtly deforming effect on Britain's character that the ultimate
symbol of our country, our sovereign, is picked on the most
snobbish criteria of all: darling, do you know who his father was?
Kids in Britain grow up knowing that we all bow and curtsy in front
of a person simply because of their unearned, uninteresting
bloodline. This snobbery subtly soaks out through the society,
tweaking us to be deferential to unearned and talentless wealth,
simply because it's there.
We live with a weird cognitive dissonance in Britain. We are
always saying we should be a meritocracy, but we shriek in horror
at the idea that we should pick our head of state on merit. Earlier
this month, David Cameron lamented that too many people in Britain
get ahead because of who their parents are. A few minutes later,
without missing a beat, he praised the monarchy as the best of
British. Nobody laughed. Most monarchists try to get around this
dissonance by creating – through sheer force of will – the illusion
that the Windsor family really is steeped in merit, and better than
the rest of us. This is a theory that falls apart the moment you
actually hear Charles Windsor speak.
The claims then drift even further from reality. We are told
that the Windsor family is great for tourism. In fact, of the top
20 tourist attractions in Britain, only one is related to the
monarchy – Windsor Castle, at number 17. Ten places ahead is
Windsor Legoland. So using that logic, we should make a Lego man
our head of state.
Then we are told the monarchy is a "great defender of
democracy". As a logical proposition, this is almost self-refuting:
to protect our democracy, we must refuse to democratically choose
our head of state. But more importantly, for people who talk a lot
about "respecting" our history, it is startlingly historically
illiterate. The last monarch but one – Edward VIII – literally
conspired with Adolf Hitler to run this country as a Nazi colony.
It's only pure luck that he happened to have fallen in love with an
American divorcee and had already quit the throne. That's the point
about monarchy: you get whatever happens to squelch out of the
royal womb. It might be a democrat, or it might – as it was two
monarchs ago – be a vain and vicious enemy of democracy. To suggest
it will dependably and always be one or the other is daft.
We have also invented a strange series of mental tics to protect
the monarchy. Mention a republic and lots of people give the
Pavlovian snap-back: "Hah! So you want President Thatcher do you?
President Blair?" There is an odd assumption behind this. Did the
presence of a hereditary monarch stop Thatcher or Blair doing
anything they wanted to do? No. Nothing. Did it even stop them
acquiring regal airs? No. Obviously not. This is simply an
instinctive spasm of deference - don’t trust us with picking the
leaders! Make sure there’s an aristocrat watching over us, stopping
us getting funny ideas! How have these notions lingered in our
national DNA for so long?
Deep down, the impulse to choose our head of state trumps our
aristo-deference. A YouGov poll last year found that 64 per cent of
British people want William and Kate to be next in line for the
throne, ditching Charles entirely. So, my fellow Brits, let's think
about this. By a clear majority, you want to set aside the
hereditary principle, and choose our next head of state. I agree.
There's a word for that: republicanism. If you wanted to elect
William Windsor as our President, fine. That's a democratic
decision, not a monarchical one.
There's going to be an attempt over the next fortnight to paint
republicans as the Grinch, trying to ruin the "big day" for William
and Kate out of a cocktail of kill-joy curmudgeonry and
mean-spiritedness. The opposite is the truth.
The monarchist spin-machine, the tabloids and the tea-towel
industry have created a pair of fictitious characters for us to
cheer, while the real people behind them are being tormented by
their supposed admirers. Think back to the 1981 royal wedding and
you realise how little we know about these people we are supposed
to get moist and weepy over. While millions wept at the "fairytale
wedding", Diana was ramming her fingers down her throat, Charles
was cursing that he didn't love her, and they both stood at the
aisle raging against their situation and everyone around them,
while the nation cheered.
Similarly, from beneath the spin, the evidence is pretty clear
that William and Kate will be smiling at us through gritted teeth.
We now know from several impeccable sources that for a long time as
a young man, William raged against the monarchy and wanted no part
of it. He once screamed at photographers: "Why won't you just let
me be a normal person?" Alistair Campbell's diaries show that
William is "consumed by a total hatred of the media", who he
believes – pretty accurately – ruined his mother's life and
contributed to her death.
This hasn't faded: he jibed in his most recent interview that he
always aims to "outfox the media". But he knows the monarchy today
is a rolling media road-show selling nothing but itself. That's
why, in her last interview with the BBC's Jennie Bond, Diana said
William had told her longingly that she was "very lucky to be able
to give up your HRH" – her royal status. Republicans want to set
this couple free to have good, happy lives in the Republic of
Britain – which they would clearly take as a blessed relief.
When we republicans object to the hollow pantomime, we are not
being negative or nasty. We are proposing a positive vision.
Britain is full of amazing and inspiring people – so many that if
we were to choose a ceremonial president, as they do in Ireland, we
would be spoiled for choice. I can't think of anything more
patriotic, and more deserving of a tumult of Union Jacks waving at
a thousand street parties, than the belief that every child in
Britain should grow up knowing that one day, if they do everything
right, they could be our head of state. And I can't think of
anything less patriotic than saying that the feudal frenzy of
deference and backwardness we are about to witness is the best that
Britain can do.
For updates on the republican response to the royal wedding,
follow Johann on twitter at twitter.com/johannhari101
You can subscribe to Johann Hari's podcast from the i-Tunes
store by searching for 'The Johann Hari Podcast', or by clicking here
j.hari@independent.co.uk
Amol Rajan
A weekly update from the Editor
