Could this be magic?

On the 21st January 1793, Louis XVI of France fell victim to the wrath of the revolutionary mob and the infamous guillotine. On the anniversary of his death I question the purpose of the British monarchy and whether their duties could be undertaken by a body more representative of the British people. The official website of the British monarchy states, 'As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties, The Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service.'

These wonderings of mine come at a time when Prince William is down under 'Saving the monarchy in style' according to the Guardian who are holding a poll on whether William is 'magic enough' to keep republicanism at bay. So far 55.2% of voters believe in the magic.

William is obviously a nice man, informal, friendly and according to one Australian tabloid, a bit of a 'hoodlum'. However, he is a product of a stagnant and undemocratic tradition, a symbol of the former great British Empire still felt in 16 Commonwealth realms. When looked at in this light, and when reflecting on the duties of the monarchy which are somewhat trivial, nice is not quite enough. I laugh out loud at the fact that somehow in a time of global recession old Liz has enabled us to feel 'stable' Today our national identity is confused and divided between those who embrace Britain as a multi cultural society and those who clasp on to the belief in 'Britain for the British'. We can no longer define our culture through one institution, we are a multi faceted and modern society and our pride comes not from our sovereign but from our writers, artists, architecture, music, democracy and football teams. These divisions are shown through the deterioration of the British identity itself, one that the monarchy cannot save.

However, the process of making Britain a republican nation would not be simple. Turning up at Buckingham Palace with a pitchfork and a list of grievances might not have the same effect as it did three hundred years ago although, you could always try Clarence House. The placing of the royal duties in the hands of an elected leader may also not turn out so well, the current discontent with every political party going proves that. Queen Elizabeth II is the fortieth monarch since William the Conqueror obtained the crown of England so who better to represent Britain than a family practiced in doing so for a thousand years? But history and the lack of a desirable alternative does not validate a hereditary regime in a democratic society, despite the monarchy's purely ostensible power.

Famously, on July 14th 1789, Louis XVI recorded the word 'rien' in his diary, in reference to the day's hunt. His failure to acknowledge the popular revolt surrounding him arguably (although that's another discussion) led to his death. Perhaps though, William IS acknowledging the need for change? He did after all wear trainers in New Zealand.