Royal Pain: The British Republicans' Waiting Game

By Flamini, Roland | World Affairs, September-October 2011 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Royal Pain: The British Republicans' Waiting Game

Flamini, Roland, World Affairs

When Britain's Prince William and his wife of three months Kate Middleton, now the Duchess of Cambridge, visited Los Angeles, celebrity capital of the world, in July, the kind of feverish scramble for invitations to the three receptions given in their honor was a thing virtually unseen since the epic contest among leading actresses of the day to play Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With the Wind.

Wills and Kate may have had their ten-day honeymoon in the Seychelle Islands, but their global honeymoon shows no signs of having run its course. Kate Middleton is rapidly approaching the status enjoyed by Princess Diana as the most photographed woman on earth. So it would seem that the chronically dysfunctional British royals have at last got themselves a winner. And they do--at least on the international scene, but perhaps less so where it matters most: in the United Kingdom.

The BBC estimated that twenty-five to thirty million television viewers watched either all or part of the channel's respectful, wall-to-wall coverage (or independent television's more spirited version) of the marriage between Prince William, son of the late Princess Diana and second in line to the British throne, and his college sweetheart, Catherine (Kate) Middleton. A further million people packed the royal route in London.

Sure, that's a lot of people, but it didn't meet the British media narrative, which was that the United Kingdom's entire population of sixty-two million found itself swept up in the excitement of the Wills-and-Kate nuptials. In numerical terms, it seems that half the country did, and the other half just took advantage of the official holiday to ignore the whole affair.

The Cameron government might have hoped that the royal event would lift the spirit of a nation struggling with tough austerity measures. But that would be reading too much into it, as the Guardian commented (shortly after dropping its longstanding support for a republican Britain in favor of a continuation of the monarchy).

"The wedding was not a looking-glass event, reflecting the infantilization of a subject nation," the paper said in an editorial. "The curtain rose and then fell. The circus came and went. It did not change anything. Britain is not now a happier or a safer, a more purposive or a less unequal place than it was before Prince William placed the ring on his bride's finger ... "

And it is not much friendlier to the royals after all the glorious huggermugger has come and gone. MORI, a leading British pollster, has been asking the same question since 1993--"Would you favor Britain becoming a republic, or remaining a monarchy?"--and getting more or less the same result: eleven million Britons, or roughly a sixth of the population, say they are committed republicans who would like to see an elected president as head of state in place of the monarch.

It could be said that another twenty million Britons who apparently opted not to follow the prince's nuptials may not favor a Republic of Britain: still, they form a sizable groundswell of public indifference--and that makes them the group to cause the British royals most concern. Prince Charles, next in line to the throne, has a realist's view of the future, as is indicated by his minimalist observation: "If people don't want [the monarch'y], they won't have it."

Such is the dream of Republic, a movement started in 1983, and the leading exponent of the republican cause in Britain. A smaller, more recent, and more virulent movement is ThroneOut. The Republic website ( trots out the familiar arguments: the monarchy is an anachronism that perpetuates a divisive class system in which being a member of the aristocracy is more important than merit and ability. Today, the idea of the monarch at the apex of a hierarchical society runs counter to most people's values.

Republic's website goes on to say that the hereditary system "leaves the position of head of state to chance.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)


1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25,

Cited article

Royal Pain: The British Republicans' Waiting Game


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25,

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.