What Charles shouldn’t do

One of the most regrettable trends of the past few decades is the creep of politics into every aspect of our public life. Institutions tasked with preserving our heritage, such as Tate Britain, Kew Gardens and the National Trust, are busy holding themselves to account for their historic links to slavery and colonialism, while the police, the civil service and the Church of England have embraced the mantra of equity, diversity and inclusion. The people in charge of these organisations – liberal, urban, highly educated – don’t think of these values as politically contentious, while those of us who don’t fall into those categories – probably the majority of the population – cannot help but feel alienated and disenfranchised. I fear that the death of the Queen will accelerate this trend.

The reason I say this is because, under Elizabeth II, the crown symbolised the politically neutral parts of the state. I don’t just mean that employees of the state, such as armed forces personnel, owed their loyalty to the Queen rather than the prime minister, although that was important. I also mean that the values the Queen embodied – patriotism, duty, public service, fortitude, self-sacrifice – provided those who work for our public institutions with a sense of meaning and purpose. Her values were their values and after a lifetime of public service they could look forward to an honour. I’m sure that’s still true for some, but one of the reasons fashionable causes such as anti-racism have taken such root in organisations like the British Council is because those traditional, old-fashioned values no longer motivate their workforces in the way they once did. For many, feelings of moral duty are now not directed towards crown and country but to the cause of social justice.