No institution better embodies the continuum of British history than the monarchy. It has existed for more than a thousand years and, we must hope, it will continue to flourish defiantly for my generation and for those yet unborn.
To critics who contend that the monarchy is an outdated and obsolete institution that can only survive if it adapts to become “relevant” to the modern era, it is the very fact that the institution is largely static and impervious to passing fads that has allowed it to remain alive and strong.
For the young in particular, the monarchy provides a gateway to the past. Events such as the Coronation are where history comes alive. Stripped of its idiosyncrasies, monarchy would lose its novelty and its charm. It would become sterile and meaningless. It must cling on to all that makes it unique in a world that has come to be defined by mere efficiency and utilitarianism.
Humans need constants in their lives. In a society transforming at an exponential rate, the monarchy is one of the only constants we have left as a nation. Until recently, one might also have said the same about the National Trust, the BBC and many other once great institutions that have, under current and recent management, sadly been drifting away from their original spirit and duties.
Indeed, the fact that these institutions have become inconstant makes the constancy of the monarchy all the more important. It is our duty to rally round it and make sure we do not lose it, either because it loses sight of its purpose or because it is brought down by anarchic elements. After all, there are so many nations around the world that have suffered from this fate, and one of the many factors that sets Britain apart is that it has managed to cling on to this cornerstone historical institution unaffected by the passage of time.
At dinner with a few young “habesha” (Ethiopian and Eritrean) cousins and close friends, we lamented the fact that we may never experience a coronation in Ethiopia, where the last emperor, Haile Selassie, was deposed by a Marxist junta in 1974.
My cousins and I do, admittedly, have a vested interest. The Ethiopian side of my family comes from the Tigrayan nobility (the royal house of Agamè, from which Emperor Yohannes IV hailed), many of whom were dispossessed of their lands and titles when Mengistu Haile Mariam came to power. And they were the lucky ones; 62 of the emperor’s closest advisers, officials and even his grandson, rear admiral Iskinder Desta, were butchered in a mass execution on a single day that year. The emperor himself was snuffed out – quite literally, as it is said he was suffocated by a pillow – by the regime not long after.
This is far more than a mere personal grievance, however. Monarchy both represents and encourages national stability and unity. In the few decades since the fall of its monarchy, Ethiopia has seen Marxist dictatorship, been split in two, warred on and off with its newly-created neighbour Eritrea (cousins fighting against cousins) and experienced internal civil wars. Would all this have happened under the watchful eye of a benevolent monarch? It seems to me that the absence of such a figure exposes a nation to greater risk, both from within and without.
Britain is indescribably lucky to have a monarch. And long may it continue. God save the King!
Zewditu Gebreyohanes is director of Restore Trust