Monarchy matters

Strictly in terms of its implications for the succession, the arrival of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s son this week was not the most important of royal births. The boy has been born seventh in line to the throne, but that position can be expected to fall rapidly once the Cambridge children begin to marry. He is not born to be king, and may never even be granted the title of prince. Nevertheless, the birth has attracted wide attention and celebration, inspiring front-page headlines on foreign newspapers and eliciting interest in Britain from types of people who don’t normally care about royal events.

Partly this is down to the new baby’s parentage. For the first time — at least to our knowledge — we have a British royal baby born to an American mother and with an Afro-Caribbean heritage. But it is hard not also to view the interest shown towards the youngest royal in the context of the current political tumult. This serene event contrasts so greatly with the squabbling of our political leaders, and in doing so reminds us of what is so strong about the system of constitutional monarchy. While the grubby, and necessary, business of politics is carried out by our elected representatives, the stability of our nation is represented by a head of state who stays aloof from it all. Britain’s small band of committed republicans must answer the question: what would it add to our national life to have, say, Tony Blair or David Cameron installed in Buckingham Palace as titular president, unable to resist the temptation to poke their noses into the business of Brexit?