Brian Wilson: Time to concentrate on the possible

Somewhere between Tom Jones and Shirley Bassey, I was trying to define my attitude towards monarchy and my thoughts turned, improbably, to the old Socialist Party of Great Britain who used to put up a candidate in Partick and get about 80 votes.

The SPGB were defined as the “impossibilists” of the British Left. Their considered view was that aspiring to social reform in one country was a waste of time which would only delay the revolution. Socialism could only prevail when 51 per cent of the world’s people were prepared to vote for it.

Since there was no immediate prospect of this happening, they could get on with their lives undisturbed while observing the frailties of humanity from their lofty ideological peak. The great advantage of impossibilism was that it allowed its adherents to feel intellectually superior without the requirement to actually do anything. In fact, doing anything would be counter-productive.

It occurred to me that my attitude to monarchy has morphed into the impossibilist tradition – I’m against it, but since not a lot of other people are, there isn’t really much point in worrying about it until they change their minds. On the basis of this week’s evidence, that is not going to be any time soon. So chill out, watch the concert and have a G&T.

My resistance to the concept of monarchism may have something to do with my devotion to the meaning of words. Such terminology as “Your Majesty” and “His Royal Highness” cannot cross my lips if I pause to think about what they actually mean. Majesty? Highness? What rational human being would address another in such terms? It is the language of superstition rather than of respect.

Certainly, my attitude towards the institution involves nothing personal. I subscribe 100 per cent to the view of the Queen as a remarkable individual who has been extraordinarily good at her job and entirely honourable in observing her constitutional role. I have a lot of time for Charles and respect his efforts, often misrepresented, to be a force for good in the world. He will be an excellent constitutional head of state. I just wish I could vote for him.

As for Princess Anne, I particularly recall a conversation which revealed her encyplopaedic knowledge of Britain’s prisons because she takes her duties as patron of the Butler Trust on prison education so seriously that she always includes a private visit if her engagements take her into the vicinity of a place of incarceration. Such honourable commitment earns respect, regardless of social status.

So nothing personal. But there is still a big difference between accepting the reality of the status quo and endorsing the institution – and that is the distinction which should not be lost in the revelry. For the influence of the institution extends far beyond the individuals at its pinnacle and buying into the consensus that “the Queen does a wonderful job” does not come as part of a package which also enshrines deference to the social order which flowed from monarchy and remains at the core of British society.

The structure of land ownership, the system of education, the elites of government, the distribution of wealth, the disbursement of titles, the shoring up of privilege … in each of these respects, much has changed over the past couple of centuries as democracy has chipped away at the social pyramid which has royalty at its apex. But in some crucial respects, more has stayed the same. Monarchy remains a human shield for the world’s most resilient class system.

Even if the cheering crowds do not think of it that way – and why should they? – the beneficiaries of the system most certainly do. They successfully defended a House of Lords based on heredity into the 21st century and continue to operate an honours system which shores up the social hierarchy on which it was founded 1,000 years ago. Meanwhile, the education system reinforces a presumption of the right to rule or at least to control the temporary custodians of power.

As Michael De-La-Noy wrote in his book on the subject: “The honours system is rooted in the concept of the universe upon which Christian society came to base the very structure of society. That concept took the form of a pyramid, a permanent and stable edifice in which each brick – each person – had a well defined place … The king took his orders from God and passed them down through a hierarchical army of law enforcers”.

At one level, it seems ridiculous to translate that mumbo-jumbo view of society into current conditions. Democracy has long since intervened and nobody doubts that the figure at the head of the pyramid is a constitutional adornment rather than a ruling monarch. But equally, nobody should doubt that there is still plenty of substance in the edifice below. The bricks are still pretty firmly in place.

Translated into political terms, the distinction between monarchy and social pyramid should be a lot clearer than it sometimes is. As democrats, we can plausibly decide – democratically – to live with a system of monarchy. But as democrats, we should also be a lot more ambitious about deconstructing the pyramid. Only then would the question arise of whether one could survive without the other.

This is at least as true in Scotland as anywhere else. In his classic work (sadly, not taught in Scottish schools), Our Scots Noble Families, Tom Johnston wrote that “the first step in reform, either of the Land Laws or of the House of Lords, is to destroy these superstitions” which had created the myth that “these ancient noble families hold their privileges and lands at the earnest behest of Divine providence” rather than through “murder, massacre, cheating or court harlotry”. All as true today as when Johnston wrote it nearly a century ago.

And that is where we stand. The monarchy is untouchable and sustained by popular consensus. The promoters of this week’s events can rightly congratulate themselves on a public relations triumph which will pump life into the institution for another generation.

There is as much chance of Britain (or Scotland) becoming a republic as of the SPGB attaining world domination. We can all agree.

But that should also allow the radical within us to concentrate on other, more attainable matters.

We should not only get on with reforming the House of Lords, abolishing the class-based Honours system, dispensing with titles, taking land reform seriously, demanding an egalitarian system of educational access … but we might also understand the necessity of pursuing these objectives.

Which is, quite simply, that for as long as the pyramid remains intact, not a lot else really changes.