The words “Le Roy le veult” signify the passing of a bill into law in the British parliament. When the MP for Wandsworth, not unreasonably, queried whether it was any longer appropriate for Norman French to be the language used, he was firmly told by the prime minister that: “The fact that the royal assent is given in Norman French is surely a most interesting relic of antiquity, showing how far back our parliamentary institutions go.”
The PM in question was AJ Balfour and the year was 1900. All these years on, Britain persists in clinging to such relics, and we remain more comfortable looking backwards than to the future. The time for modernising our institutions is long overdue.
Instead, a country that is short of money, with people struggling and a substantial hole in the defence budget will, on May 13, bring part of London to a halt to make way for a procession with a royal coach and magnificent horses.
In this way, the King will head to parliament for an elaborate ritual in which he will read out a speech itemising the government’s legislative programme for the new session of parliament. The members of the Lords will be swathed in ermine-trimmed, red velvet robes and there will be plenty of men in splendid uniforms.
This does not come cheap. Yet it comes round every year or so, and this abrupt end to one parliamentary session and gap before the launch of the next brings problems for the legislation making its way through parliament.
It is ridiculous. Britain likes to pride itself on doing ceremony well but, while a bit of pomp and flummery draws in the tourists, it adds nothing to the efficiency of a country that seems to work its way through a great deal of cash without achieving nearly enough.
We need to be brutal. Parliament must move into the 21st century. Most of our limited defence spending needs to be directed to just that, not putting people into punishing uniforms – bearskin hats are not sensible attire for summer.
Being a monarchy provides an explanation for some of the obsession with tradition, but it does not need to generate such extravagant rigmarole. The dangers of having a president have been made clear by the man currently rampaging across the world stage. In contrast to Donald Trump, a king or queen seem a relatively attractive alternative. Even so, there are plenty of examples of modern monarchies that do not operate on the British scale.
The British monarchy is, and can remain, an effective instrument of soft power. But it needs to slim down.
Suggested Reading
Dear progressives, stop being wimpish on Trump
It should be part of Britain’s long-overdue confrontation with the fact that the country lost an empire a long time ago, is never going to retrieve it, and its institutions are no longer fit for purpose.
The Civil Service was structured for a different era – even the titles hark back to another age. As the administration is forced to acknowledge the need for government departments not to work in silos but to make much greater use of outside expertise and to use the benefits of AI, it should drive the total restructuring of the service.
Britain is blessed with glorious old architecture, and these buildings are part of the attraction for visitors. These structures can serve many purposes: museums, wedding venues, film sets; but they do not make efficient homes for modern businesses, and that includes the business of government.
The Houses of Parliament have huge historic value. Yet even at the end of the ruinously expensive refurbishment scheme that has been the subject of such prolonged debate, they would not emerge as the slickly effective home of government that is required. Britain could acknowledge this, make the existing building into a museum – which would pay tribute to the influence it once had and of which Balfour was proud – and move to a new building on a new site.
A new building would be an excellent signifier of a modernising Britain.
Other anomalies, such as the domination of the alumni of just two universities and a handful of education establishments, are gradually being lessened. The high fees now being charged by public schools, further inflated by the government’s addition of VAT, are limiting the intake to an increasingly overseas market, which in turn should gradually lessen their impact at home.
Their traditional success in influencing the running of the country has been symptomatic of its antiquated attitudes. Henry Kimber was absolutely right: Norman French was not appropriate for the UK in 1900 and, like so many of our institutions, it is not appropriate today.
