Of Popes and monarchs going on and on

So Pope Benedict XVI has announced his resignation from the Papacy. He has said he is too old to continue in the role and wishes to step down on health grounds.

It is a surprising move, not least because it is several hundred years since the last time a Pope resigned. For centuries the only way they have left office is when their God has taken them.

The story first broke on Twitter and it is there where I discussed the issue with a number of people. I was surprised at the reaction of some saying they were "disappointed" with the news and one person (a former UK MP) described the news as "dreadful". When I challenged her on this she suggested that it is only Catholics who can understand this disappointment.

I find this attitude rather strange. There are very few jobs or roles nowadays where the position is considered to be for life. Some other religions have leadership roles like this and of course there are still monarchies including our own in which the roles are only usually departed upon death.

Religions and monarchies generally do often change over time. Perhaps not with the times but once certain practices become too antiquated, forward thinking people within those institutions tend to nudge them in a more progressive direction. For example the place of women in the Anglican church has been advanced in recent decades and we now have female priests (not yet of course female bishops but I am sure that will come in time). We are also seeing changes to the primogeniture rules that govern our monarchy in the UK. Yet the idea that the role of the our Queen (or King) is for life is not ever seriously challenged.

As a confirmed republican I obviously have my own views about the monarchy and how the position of head of state should be decided. But I recognise that my views are in a minority in this country and our royal family is here to stay for a good while yet. So given all of this I do wonder why if as a country we love our Queen as much as we profess to why we treat her so cruelly. She is nearly 87 years old, already older than the soon to be ex-Pope. She has been on the throne for 60 years. Even I would concede that she has been a faithful adherent to the principles of her position and has executed her duties with care. So why do we as a country and as a system insist that she need to keep going?

Given how long her mother lived for, Queen Elizabeth II could be with us for another two decades or more. Is it really right to expect a nonagenarian or even a centenarian to keep on with the sort of punishing schedule a head of state is expected to follow? I would argue that she should be released from her bond to the nation and be allowed to serve a hopefully long and happy retirement.

I know the instant rebuttal to this. The Queen does not want to resign. Her childhood was seared with the memory of the abdication crisis, she sees her position as given by God and that it is her duty to stay in the role for the rest of her life. All of that though is a construct put in place over many centuries in order to provide continuity and order during times when too many changes of head of state was destabilising. I don't think anyone can seriously argue that were Queen Elizabeth II to abdicate that it would destablise our country. The role is now essentially titular and her son (or grandson) could easily execute the duties required while she was still alive.

I'm sure there is no chance of our current Queen changing her mind on this but I hope her successors think long and hard on this subject.

Pope Benedict XVI has shown that even when positions are considered to have been given by God, there is a way for holders of them to stand down with dignity when they feel the time has come to do so.

All of us, republicans, monarchists, religious and non-religious should be grateful to him for injecting a little bit of humanity into the public discourse around how long religious leaders and monarchs should go on and on for.

Why is The Queen above criticism?

There was an interesting piece on LabourList the other day. Not for what it was trying to say, but for what it inadvertently said.

The story was essentially that Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt tried to make a light-hearted comment to Her Majesty at some function. It wasn't a massively funny comment (something about the Emperor of Japan not being brave enough to jump out of a helicopter) but it was an attempt to make a reference to her "jumping out of a helicopter" during the Olympics. Nothing wrong with that. The polite thing to do would be to laugh and say something like "yes I expect he wouldn't!" or similar. Instead HM apparently smiled, shrugged and walked on past Hunt.

Then her husband blundered along demanding to know who Hunt was.

LabourList describe Hunt's attempt at humour as a "tumbleweed" moment. I'm no fan of the Health Secretary (I think he should have been sacked after the News International fiasco) but this is very unfair on him. He simply tried to say something interesting and/or funny. Most recipients of said attempt in a formal situation would not have treated him like this. The Queen was impolite to walk off without comment and the Duke of Edinburgh was rude for demanding to know who he was. He should have made sure he was briefed beforehand. None of this is Hunt's fault and yet he is somehow made to seem like he is to blame for his rather shabby treatment.

This is part of a pattern of behaviour by the media in general when it comes to the Royals, especially The Queen. Her behaviour is never questioned, instead it is those peripherally involved with the story who are automatically assumed to be in the wrong.

There was the incident last month when the BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner inadvertently revealed that The Queen had tried to influence the government regarding how long it was taking for Abu Hamza to be extradited back in 2004. All hell broke loose and it wasn't long before the BBC issued a grovelling apology on Gardner's behalf for having breached this confidence.

But according to our constitution Her Majesty is not supposed to lobby government on policy in this way! It is her who was in the wrong in this story. The BBC had nothing to apologise for. One of its correspondents had reported an attempt by our head of state to interfere in politics which she is not supposed to do. There is a public interest in this story and how it relates to our constitutional arrangements being breached. This was not how the story was reported.

I do wonder if we will ever see the day when the Royal Family and their actions are reported in a fair and balanced way without an inbuilt assumption that they are always in the right.

Because at the moment that is certainly not happening.


This post was first published on Dale & Co.