Columns by Mike Crowl, from the Dunedin Star Midweeker, Dunedin, New Zealand

Column Eight - 10th Aug, 1994

Monarchy

My suspicion is that I wouldn't (couldn't) have written this today.  Prince Charles, unfortunately,
has so undermined his own position.   Nevertheless, the concept of the position remains valid, I think.

I see Paul Keating has been making noises about republicanism yet again. No doubt, if Mr Bolger wasn't embroiled in a by-election, he'd be just a few steps behind. They seem convinced that they know the mind of the people regarding the monarchy. I wonder if all their fuss about republicanism is ill-founded, and not universal. Politicians question why we need a queen - or a king. They seem to tackle the subject from a very pragmatic point of view, looking at he nuts and bolts of the royal machinery, but missing the philosophy behind it all. Rather like someone telling us how a car runs, what makes each part of it tick, but never taking it out of the garage for a drive. I believe the monarchy is more than just an institution, more than just a particular family living lives of great wealth. The monarchy is more than the people involved, far more than just Elizabeth or Charles; their positions are far greater than the persons. Kings and queens go much deeper into the psyche of human beings than our modern practical, reasonable view of everything cares to admit. I have a feeling that in a century or two, nations will start finding ways of reintroducing royal families again because I suspect the need for royalty far exceeds the cost. It's curious the way humanity has a need to exalt a person. In a recent CBS special we saw again the rise and fall of Hitler and Stalin, and the horrors they perpetrated. The strangest thing was the way people of the times revered these two men; even in death, Stalin, who was arguably the worse of the two, was mourned by most of his people with a depth beyond our present comprehension. And one elderly man said it was fitting that Hitler should have died a 'romantic death;' he was too mighty a figure to rot away in prison. Hitler himself wasn't mighty in any way, but the glory of his position - at that time - was. Shakespeare, in his historical plays, tends to support the concept of the divine right of kings - not a divine right to act dishonourably, but still a divine right to act. None of this is to say that the people who have fulfilled the royal role were perfect, or that they acted honourably at all times. Many have abused their position, as Shakespeare himself made clear. Does that mean, however, that the present royal family should be subject to an ongoing tirade of destructiveness, or that their private lives should be open to all the world? Should we continue to allow the media and politicians to pull down people merely because they have been born into a position of trust? Prince Charles, in the recent television interview, an interview I suspect he'd come to see as necessary, appeared as a man of general good sense. I was impressed to see him dispel many of the media rumours and myths about him. He has a heart for his people, including the many who have immigrated into his country over the last decades. He has seen his fairytale marriage (and isn't that an interesting concept?) fall apart. He continues to work for his people, often against the opinions of those who, while elected by the people, seem to have money at their heart-centres rather than justice and mercy. Politicians are here today and gone tomorrow. They're elected at the whim of the people. Each time we have a change of prime minister, it's rather like a step-parent coming into take over the role of our real parent. And that step-parent, as is the case in many modern marriages, may only stay for a while. Kings and queens bring a sense of stability to the human family (just as parents who stay married do). Politicians come in ordinary size; kings and queens have something of the extraordinary about them. I find it interesting that Christian people have an expectation that one day Christ will not only return, but return as King. Doesn't that make us wonder if, in the depths of our hearts, there isn't some basic human desire for monarchs?

Return to the Index