As the third party in Britain surges in the polls, the leader needs to steer clear of any debate on the monarchy.

Mario Canseco

"Can this boy save the Monarchy?" This was the question Time magazine asked on Jul. 22, 1996—several months before a tragic car accident in Paris—with a smiling Prince William on the cover. Seven years later, subjects around the world are still wondering if the institution is worth saving at all.

Last March, a YouGov poll conducted in Britain showed how scandals have affected the public's perception of the royals. Less than half of all respondents wanted Prince Charles to become King after Queen Elizabeth II, and only 39 per cent said he would make a good sovereign. Many Britons also indicated a desire for the monarchy to "slim down" over the next few years.

The questions were asked at a particularly harsh moment, right after Sir Michael Peat published a report into financial and sexual misconduct in the Prince's household. The private secretary for the man who is first in line to ascend the throne listed a series of serious allegations, from a gay rape accusation, to claims of interference in the collapse of butler Paul Burrell's trial. Charles was not personally blamed for any wrongdoing, but close aide Michael Fawcett resigned his position.

Last month, another YouGov survey showed an equally divided public. 41 per cent of respondents were inclined to reform the monarchy, while 41 per cent wanted to keep it as is. The poll was conducted after the Fabian Society presented a series of proposals, which included changes to the royal family's financial structure, allowing Catholics to ascend the throne, removing the right of the monarch to dictate the marriage choices of relatives, and abolishing male primogeniture.

As the two YouGov surveys manifest, British residents are becoming more observant and critical of their royal family, but are far from endorsing the idea of a republic. Today, the youth wing of the Liberal Democrats submitted a call for a referendum on the "future form and powers of the head of state."

The document proposes an elected sovereign with a fixed term, insists that no person can inherit a position of authority, and argues that elected officials—who carry a democratic mandate—are more legitimate than those who bequeath influence.

These ideas—certainly never voiced so directly—have not been exclusive to Britain. Australia survived a referendum on whether to become a republic in 1999. Canadian deputy prime minister John Manley hinted at doing away with the monarchy, a few days before the Queen's scheduled visit in late 2002.

The Lib-Dem youth wing could have unleashed republicanism at a dangerous time. The party is enjoying moderate success in the polls, as support for Tony Blair's Labour continues to wane after questions about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the death of Dr. David Kelly. Lib-Dem leader Charles Kennedy consistently garners a higher personal approval rating than Blair or Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith. Still, with their voting intention in the mid-20s, a Lib-Dem jump to second or first place remains out of reach.

This is not the first time the Liberal Democrats have tangled with lineage. In 1994, a similar proposal to demand an elected head of state in Britain was defeated in a party conference. Kennedy will no doubt be hoping for the same result this time around. A debate on the monarchy would only hurt his party's chances to become, paradoxically, "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition."

Archive Search

Search the Angus Reid Global Monitor Politics In Depth archive.