On Her Majesty's sleazy service
Attempts by the British royal family to prevent a former butler from
revealing palace secrets have spectacularly backfired and, 11 days on,
plunged the House of Windsor into its most prolonged crisis since Princess
Diana died five years ago. more
Gerard Henderson: Butler exposes more than secrets
Archaic privileges that ridicule the law could be the royals' undoing,
writes Gerard Henderson.
As the saying goes, no one chooses their own family - as in blood
relations. This maxim, no doubt, has offered succour to the Queen who just
happens to preside over what must be one of the more dysfunctional families
in the United Kingdom.
It has been said, quite properly, that the Queen has not made a significant
error in so far as her constitutional role is concerned. Consequently, she
has resembled a rock of stability in a sea of dysfunction - involving (in
particular) her husband, sibling, children, uncle (remember Edward VIII of
abdication fame?) and the in-laws.
On the evidence, the theory that Britain has a monarch who does not put a
foot wrong - in so far as her public role is concerned - can no longer be
sustained. Not since the palace's appalling bungling in the case of Regina
v Burrell.
The facts are well known - or as well known as they are likely to be.
Shortly before Christmas 1997, Paul Burrell (the late Diana's butler) met
the Queen at Buckingham Palace. During this conversation, the butler told
his monarch that he would take some of his former employer's personal
papers into his custody for safe-keeping. The Queen did not demur.
Later, in January 2000, police raided Burrell's house and took some 300
items belonging to the late princess. In August last year Burrell was
charged with theft and the high-profile trial began on October 14 this year.
It was not until October 25 that the Duke of Edinburgh mentioned to the
Prince of Wales that the Queen was aware in advance of Burrell's intention
to remove some of Diana's property into his possession. This information
was passed to the relevant authorities and the prosecution's case
collapsed. In other words, it took almost two years for the Queen to come
forward with crucial evidence which led to the dropping of charges against
Burrell.
Even when she did, the process was undertaken by hearsay. The Queen told
Prince Philip, who informed Prince Charles, who passed on the news. The
monarch did not provide any direct evidence and was not interviewed by any
investigators.
So, what is the Queen's explanation? So far, she has not proffered any
formal advice. It is said that the Queen temporarily forgot that the
conversation about Diana's papers with Burrell (which was reportedly part
of a three-hour discussion) ever took place.
This is possible, but difficult to imagine in view of the Queen's
acknowledged good memory and her reputation for being up to date on matters
of the day. After that there is many a theory - from the view that the
palace wanted the trial to stop before Burrell gave evidence under oath,
all the way to the usual conspiracies.
Herein lies the problem. The Queen is one of the best known people on
Earth. Regina v Burrell was one of the highest-profile cases in
contemporary British history. But the Queen's subjects will never know the
facts of the case because the monarch has an immunity from being summoned
as a witness - a privilege not available to anyone outside the royal family.
And that's just for starters. There is also a tradition which forbids
discussion on, or debate about, the royal family in the British parliament.
Moreover, the Queen never gives interviews. In other words, as British
society becomes more and more transparent, the monarchy insists on the
preservation of indemnities and privileges which were attained in a
completely different era when royal meant akin to God.
In her fine biography of Edward VIII, Frances Donaldson demonstrated how
the worst behaviour of this dreadful and insensitive fop was hidden from
the British public until the time when, following political pressure, the
King abdicated so that he could marry Wallis Simpson, the woman he loved.
But that was almost seven decades ago.
The palace still demands confidentiality. It's just that such an outcome is
all but impossible to deliver while the royals insist on being pampered by
butlers, servants and the like. Eventually, some will talk. The highlights
of the disclosures of Burrell turn on his revelation that he stood for
three hours during his tete-a-tete with the Queen while his monarch sat,
along with the disclosure that Charles had his valet hold the bottle while
he provided a urine sample. A royal flush, to be sure. Stand by for more
disclosures.
The monarchy is very much a British institution and makes most sense in
Britain. But even many British are concerned about the continuation of a
legal system which effectively places some members of one family above the
law and answerable to no one, as Regina v Burrell shows.
Already there are signs of a change in attitude among those members of the
Commonwealth which remain constitutional monarchies.
In an address to the London School of Economics last February, Helen Clark
declared that the idea that New Zealand's "head of state" was situated
"some 20,000 kilometres away is absurd". The New Zealand Prime Minister
regarded change in this area as "inevitable".
Early last month John Manley, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, greeted
the Queen's arrival in Canada with a call for his country to have a
Canadian head of state. Peter Costello is likely to become Australia's next
prime minister. He supports an Australian head of state - as does about
half of John Howard's Government.
Sure, there are still many monarchists in Australia, Canada, New Zealand
and, of course, Britain. One of the most delightful is David Flint, the
chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Authority.
In a speech to Australians For Constitutional Monarchy in February, Flint
thrilled his loyalist audience with wonderful stories of how the Queen is
"still reigning over Australia" and concluded by proudly citing the words
of the British national anthem.
http://smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/11/1036308630209.html
