CHRISTOPHER STEVENS reviews What’s The Monarchy For?,
What’s The Monarchy For? (BBC 1)
What’s The Monarchy For? The answer is plain: it exists to ensure Britain cannot follow the abysmal example of France by establishing a presidency.
And why would that be so terrible? Two words . . . President Blair.
If a politician could be elected as our head of state, it’s all too obvious which raving narcissists would be jostling and elbowing their way into the frame. Clamouring loudest for the job would be Sir Johnny B. Liar — and his shadowy cabal of friends might well ensure he got it.
David Dimbleby didn’t consider this, of course, during the first hour of his three-part inquiry into the purpose of the Royal Family. What he did establish, right at the start, was how essential the BBC is to the continued existence of the Windsors.
The Dimbleby dynasty played an especially crucial role, he implied. ‘I seem to have been reporting on the monarchy for ever,’ he explained, as archive footage reminded us how it was he, even more than the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was the presiding dignitary at the wedding of Charles and Diana.
‘We at the BBC have been, if you like, the royal ringmasters,’ he said, ‘helping the monarchy display itself as it wants to be seen.’
Instead of a scarlet tunic and top hat, Dimbers was sporting a natty pair of green braces. Now 87, he was looking a little rheumy around the eyes, but his mind is as sharp as ever.
Quizzing a succession of politicos and bigwigs including former Prime Minister Lord Cameron and ex-Attorney General Dominic Grieve, he stubbornly and energetically challenged every statement.
But the episode became bogged down in the question of whether King Charles wields too much influence. For decades as Prince of Wales, he was a tireless lobbyist, bombarding ministers and policymakers with up to 2,000 letters a year.
‘This is not the occasional note dashed off,’ Dimbleby pointed out.
‘This is a sustained industrial level over many years.’
It was also, he appeared to feel, an abuse of Charles’s constitutional position. That is a worn-out argument, based on dated attitudes, and it revealed Dimbleby’s chief weakness: his views of royalty (and of the BBC, for that matter) are rooted in the 20th century.
The Royal Family did once have an obligation to avoid expressing opinions about anything. But that has changed: nowadays, it’s expected of every public figure that they speak their minds. William and Catherine understand this, and use their platform to campaign against homelessness and for mental health charities.
Far from being an abuse of power, the King’s passion for good architecture and sustainable farming, among other causes, marks him out as a thoroughly modern monarch.
In an era when football pundits try to control Britain’s immigration policy and everyone’s a self-proclaimed ‘influencer’, that’s one more reason to be thankful for a hereditary head of state.
