Charles at 60

Over here in the UK this week, we’ve been celebrating that our oldest junior executive is getting his free bus pass. Yes, this week, Prince Charles, the beloved eldest son of our monarch, Queen Elizabeth II has reached the age of sixty, hale and hearty. First of all, Prince Charles has to be congratulated, for being, like me, a Scorpio, one of the nobler signs of the zodiac system. (So, I’m told at any rate.) Nevertheless, there has been a great brouhaha over the fact that the prince, when he ascends the throne:

A. Wants to redefine his role as defender of the faith to become, defender of
faith

B. Wants to continue with his current ability to express opinions and champion particular causes such as the campaign for organic food and in support of tackling climate change.

All worthy causes, everyone agrees, yet perhaps not edifying for the role of king in the world’s oldest constitutional monarchy. This quandary got me thinking. Perhaps it’s time for us to revisit the idea of monarchy and consider what use it can have in a modern twenty-first century democracy. In the days when monarchy served as a preserve against chaos, warriors and peasants gave up their rights to bear arms and be the defenders of their own livelihoods by holing up in villages and fortresses protected by the strongest warrior their societies could produce; by and large, the means by which this was established was brute force and often, by the very democratic notion that the warrior with the strongest arm would become king. Isn’t it time we reverted to this time-worn principle?

Instead of considering whether to abolish the monarchy perhaps we should consider making the position of monarch an elected office, to which those able, noble and willing put themselves forward as the embodiment of the nation. The monarchy is a well established institution in British society, respected and a buttress against the ravages of change and turmoil in our increasingly diverse and multicultural world; making this office which has all the conferred grandeur of age an elected office would obviate all the debate about monarchy vs. Republic, old vs. New, and tradition versus modernity. We could still have a royal family but it would be one constituted of an ordinary family elevated by the people to the role of Heads of State. In a period when we are already re-considering the role of such age old institutions as the House of Lords, it would be fitting to revisit the role of monarchy with the view to preserving what is best – the role of the royal family as the embodiment of brutishness and the first ambassador for our country – in a time when the world expects us to become more of what we are – an old nation, respectful of its traditions but ready to renew itself and innovate. What could be more innovative than a monarchy determined not by heredity but by the will of the people?