Was the Queen right to speak out about the BNP?

(c) Steve Punter

Adding to widespread condemnation from all sections of the British political spectrum, HRH the Queen has now stepped into the BNP debate, strongly criticising their use of patriotic British imagery and calling on all royals to unite against a racist political party.

Queen Elizabeth almost never comments on British politics and for the most part people like it that way. Is it fair to applaud this latest contribution merely because the majority of right-thinking people agree with her? What if she had come out in support of Nick Griffin and his noxious party?

Legally, the Queen is on solid ground. She is one of the few non-politicians who has a constitutional right to intervene in British political life. It is the Queen, for example, who will dissolve Parliament shortly before the next general election. Of course, in practice, she will act on the advice of Gordon Brown, but she could call it tomorrow if she wanted – only convention stops her from doing so.

Convention also prevents the Queen from expressing her political views, but as our elected leaders fail to engage the public, particularly those concerned about immigration, it appears she has decided to break her silence. The question is: do we want the Queen, or any royal for that matter, speaking out on political issues? And if so, as seems to be the case in this latest intervention, then how much attention should we pay?

We shouldn’t make assumptions about where she stands on any of today’s pivotal issues. It’s been said that the Queen found BNP references to Winston Churchill particularly offensive, but Churchill harboured some serious prejudices of his own, particularly with respect to Palestinians. Where was the royal reproach then?

There any many issues where the Queen’s views are unknown and probably best kept to herself. As head of the Armed Forces, with a unique family history, she is almost certainly a touch imperial. Would it be right, in a democratic society, to add this unelected and powerful voice to the foreign policy debate?

This is more than just hypothetical philosophising, it is extremely likely that Prince Charles will one day be King and he’s almost certainly going to be more vocal than his mother. Many people agree with his views on the environment and look forward to an onslaught of press releases from the palace, but many don’t. Even fewer agree with often laughable attempts to meddle with architectural policy. Is it credible to pick and choose the times we listen to the royals? Should we not have a consistent policy?

The point is that we have spent the last 700 years eroding the power of the monarchy to protect us from precisely this kind of undemocratic interfering, whether we agree with their views or not. To see a rise in the authority and influence of the British royal family in the 21st Century would surely be a retrograde step. Perhaps on this occasion she really did add that extra voice of condemnation needed to nip a nasty Nick in the bud but, as our politicians haemorrhage credibility, are we ready for the potentially unhelpful and more frequent contributions that may follow?