The history of western civilisation has been mired by
inequality. And not least of these inequalities is the treatment of women as
second-class citizens. From the lowest in society up to royalty, women have
struggled to be treated in the same way as men. In the twelfth century, the
only surviving child of King Henry I of England, a daughter, ascending to the
throne upon his death brought about a civil war and was, for all intents and
purposes, passed over for her cousin who is now listed in royal chronology as
King Stephen of England. In those troubled times, the role of a monarch was to
be a fighter and protector and to lead armies into battle. And even today,
these are considered to be almost entirely masculine qualities. But now, as we
prepare to change the centuries-old law to a more gender-fair rule that the
first born of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, whether male or female, will
be the heir apparent, are we better off with a queen than a king?
Our current Queen, Elizabeth II, has just celebrated her
diamond jubilee. 60 years on the throne makes it that only around 15% of the
population of the United Kingdom have lived long enough to even remember the
country being headed by a king. As it happens, a common question asked by foreigners
(and likely by many Brits under 50) is: why is the husband of the queen not
calleth century and also not including the
short-lived and disputed reigns of Matilda and Lady Jane Grey), the country has
been ruled by a woman for only 191 years. But even after all those years of
male rule, it seems that we cannot imagine the United Kingdom without a Queen
as head of state.
But why? After all, being ruled by a man seems to be a trialed and tested method that has lasted for almost a millennium. First we
must consider the role of a monarch in the 21st century. A role that
Queen Elizabeth has polished and perfected (although not without the odd
hiccup) over her 60 year reign. In times gone by, kings came to power through
plain brute strength. In order to seize power and thereafter keep it, a man
strong in mind and body was required to keep control of the masses and to keep
rival noblemen off the throne that he had fought to achieve. William the
Conqueror landed in England in 1066 and took the throne by force from the
Anglo-Saxon king Harold Godwinson and changed the history of the British Isles
forever. King Stephen took the throne from his female cousin Matilda by
starting a civil war. And battle after battle during the 15th
century passed the crown like a tennis ball from one warring faction to
another. But these days are well and truly gone. The last king to die in battle
was Richard III at the end of the Wars of the Roses in 1485 and the last
British king to even set foot on a battle-field was George II as early as 1743.
Can you imagine Elizabeth II on horseback giving a rallying speech to troops?
Even the queen’s grandson, Prince Harry, a man unlikely to be king, had to be
recalled from service in Afghanistan for his own safety.
No, the popularity of this modern monarchy does not lie in
the physical strength of its leader. It lies in what the queen’s grandfather
George V called ‘the happiness business.’ And perhaps we could say that this is
a more female role. Elizabeth II, at the ripe old (but very much alive and
kicking) age of 86 spends her time opening schools, unveiling plaques,
patronising charities and visiting hospitals. Painting the perfect picture of a
modern European monarchy, Queen Mary, the highly conservative wife of George V,
was known to have said to her daughter-in-law, The Duchess of York (the future
Queen Mother), ‘You are a member of the British Royal Family. We are never
tired and we all love hospitals.’ (This quote, however figurative it may seem,
could really be considered to be completely true. How often is it that we see
the queen struggling up a flight of stairs, looking grumpy at yet another
plaque or even needing to sit down during four hours in the rain on a boat in
the Thames?)
It would be unfair to say that these occupations of the
royal family are not also well-done by men too. The Prince of Wales’ popularity
has been increasing due to his approach to conservation and pictures of him
laughing with ‘the people’ on various official visits. And this is very
reassuring. Prince Charles is the heir apparent and if he survives his mother,
he will be king. But what is curious is that he doesn't manage to garner the
same level of popularity as his mother. Of course this can be easily attributed
to the popular memory of his disastrous first marriage. But moreover, the queen
has come to represent to us a grandmother of the nation. Almost everyone alive
today remembers a relatively shy young girl taking the throne, turning into a
mother, a grandmother and then now even a great-grandmother. She has never
appeared threatening, forceful or snobbish in her role and we all love her for
it. It is hard for even the staunchest of the rare British republican to say a
bad word about her as a person, even if it’s not so difficult to insult the
institution.
In the 21st century, we don’t need to ensure that
the crown passes to a strong man who armies will follow till death in battle.
Nor do we need someone who can keep the rabble at bay through fear. We prefer a
leader who is noble, a role model and above all who we can all feel happy
about. Future kings, Princes Charles and William, will have some big shoes to
fill but they will make sure the ‘happiness business’ prevails. And even if it
turns out that The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s first child is a boy, thus
making the proposed new law redundant for the time being, we know that in future,
the chances of living during the reign of a queen will not be at all as
unlikely as in the past.
Instead of declaring, like Elizabeth I, that ‘I have the
heart and stomach of a king,’ we can rejoice that female monarchs are able to proudly shout from the rooftops, ‘I have the body of a woman, but I have the
heart and stomach of a queen! And of a queen of England too!’
No comments:
Post a Comment