The untimely death and subsequent funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales seems like an age ago. Yet, its reverberations continue to be felt in many quarters, none more so than in the elevated ranks of the Royal Family.

The public outcry following the refusal by the monarch to fly the Union Flag at half mast above Buckingham Palace appears to have forced a change in the policy that governs these matters. From now on a flag, be it the Union Flag or the Royal Standard, will adorn the mast over Buckingham Palace.

Admittedly, this is a small concession to public demand, but it perhaps indicates that the Queen recognises neither that the monarch sits on the Throne by Divine Right, nor that the Head of State has to be unelected.

Democracy in this country is a peculiar animal. The monarch retains the power to refuse a Bill enacted of Parliament. She has always signed such Acts but she could refuse so to do and such an act could spark off a constitutional crisis that would make the problems of the past look like a tea party.

It should be said that we are not British citizens, we are Her Majesty's subjects: nominally, we all owe allegiance to the Sovereign. Parliament reflects the will of the people (or it should) but the

parliament's enactments could be right

royally ignored.

As long as the monarch concedes that the role of Parliament is paramount I find no problem with being Her Majesty's subject. Certainly, there is pomp and ceremony surrounding the duties of the monarch but I can put up with this: there may even be a case for developing this aspect of the nation's statehood.

As long as the sitting tenant looks after the royal properties, royal collections and royal estates in a caring and efficient manner I can put up with a certain degree of extravagance. Also, I can put up with a certain aloofness among the Royal Family as long as their public and private behaviour is beyond reproach.

I feel that where the British people and the Royals fall apart are those occasions when such pomp and ceremony are seen to be artificial and without any real symbolism; when royal wealth is obviously used for selfish and gratuitous reasons; when natural and acceptable pleasure is overtaken by hedonism; and when members of the Royal Family cynically flaunt their flawed characters in an arrogant display of moral ineptitude.

The survival of a British constitutional monarchy depends on the strong bond between the Crown and the people.

Should that bond weaken to the extent that trust is replaced by suspicion, loyalty give way to disaffection and love be replaced by antipathy then the future of such an institution would not look very rosy.

In the final analysis the monarchy is

dependent on the good will of the nation and not the other way round.

Should push come to shove the country

will survive without an unelected

Head of State, it will be bland,

without tradition and I should

hate it.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.