After Elizabeth: Can the Monarchy Save Itself?

After Elizabeth: Can the Monarchy Save Itself? by Ed Owens is an overall interesting book. Owens is a British expert and critic of the monarchy. 

He shows how the English monarchy used its role as a paternalistic family-based institution. They also used the media to do this, which also involved advancing the modern seedy tabloid press in various ways. Owens finally questions paternalism, including for charity, when such things (including health care) should be a governmental/public function.  

(Also, the history that shows the promotion of "family values" is a rather hypocritical one given the history of the English monarchy.)

The history (from the late 18th Century but particularly in the 19th as the power of the monarch truly declined) included some use of power beyond "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn" in practice. This included things that were done behind the scenes. For instance, a recent disclosure pointed to a power to veto things that applied to the monarch, including environmental rules.  

Ed Owens proposes a change. The monarchy will be smaller (junior royals not included) and have less of a public role. The monarch's function will be to promote democracy, including ethical rules and promoting civic education. A Crown Commission would oversee such things with the monarch providing symbolic cover and oversight of some sort.

This change would be carefully handled. The alternative is Brexit, which was an uninformed action based on a single vote of 52% of the population. His proposal would be proposed in a two-step informed process. I have in the past felt Brexit was problematic in part because of how it was passed. Constitutional amendment processes (sometimes requiring two votes separated in time) provide a sensible alternative.  

The book also cites "Nolan principles" (it doesn't say who "Nolan" is) set forth by the UK government in 1995: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, openness, accountability, honesty, and leadership.

Finally, Queen Elizabeth played the "ostrich," not adequately following the lessons of past monarchs who realized they had to change as the public. The Crown had Charles constantly crying from the wilderness on that front. Let's see how much he actually changes things now that he has the power. 

[I recently watched Season Five. It was a rather depressing season that was too focused on downer drama. It also underlines the value of having some young characters -- 20s/30s -- among the plot lines. Diana was not that old but seemed so given her life's problems. 

Finally, the past seasons had more other stuff. The season showed a bit of that, including Yeltsin, but not enough. I fear when I see four episodes in the last season dealing with Diana's death.]

The book is helped by its short chapters. It was interesting to read about another culture though by now (especially after reading about The Crown) much of the material is familiar. Overall, I'm somewhat supportive of a monarchy as a national symbol. The British royalty has something to be desired, especially since a Queen Meghan is only a distant possibility.