‘Many have been affronted by the bridge renaming decision’

In light of the furore surrounding the Prince of Wales Bridge, leading Welsh academic Richard Wyn Jones makes the case for Plaid Cymru to officially embrace republicanism

IT’S PRETTY clear that the Secretary of State for Wales, Alun Cairns, wasn’t expecting that his Government’s decision to rename the second Severn Crossing after the Prince of Wales would be greeted with widespread disdain and derision.

He rather seems to have believed that only a tiny minority could possibly object to such an ostentatious celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Queen’s symbolic gifting of Wales to her then nine-year-old son.

He should know better by now. A petition established by a former Liberal Democrat councillor, which states in bald terms that the Prince has done nothing for Wales, has now garnered almost 40,000 signatures from people with widely differing political backgrounds. Indeed, if the messages I’ve received are in any way representative, some of the strongest opposition has come from members of the Welsh Labour Party.

While supporters of Plaid Cymru seem to expect little better from the Secretary of State, it would appear that many who don’t consider themselves nationalists have been genuinely affronted by the renaming decision.

It’s a decision which has backfired to the extent that Mr Cairns – and more importantly, Prince Charles – are now faced with an opinion poll showing that only 17% of people support the Government’s actions. Which we can safely assume is not the anniversary gift that Clarence House was hoping for.

The wider question is, of course, why did the UK Government do it? According to some, the renaming is part of a wider strategy to reemphasise the ties and benefits of the Union. Given that we don’t know who exactly proposed renaming the bridge and in what particular circumstances, there’s no way of coming to a definitive conclusion about that. It is clear, however, that such a strategy exists.

The UK Government is determined to emphasise the benefits to Wales and Scotland of the Union and associated Britishness. This isn’t exactly new – recall Tony Blair’s “patriotism czar” – but the Government’s resolve has been strengthened by the outcome of the Scottish independence referendum.

As one senior Whitehall mandarin told me in the immediate aftermath, there was a realisation that more needed to be done “to make sure that the work that the UK Government does in the devolved territories is better appreciated”.

Having seen Scotland come so close to leaving the UK, Whitehall is determined to ensure that we appreciate how fortunate and privileged we all are to be part of it. In such a context, it’s not hard to imagine some bright spark suggesting that more needed to be done to foreground the monarchy as a symbol of the Union and Britishness.

Hence the Prince of Wales Bridge? Quite possibly.

But as the response to Alun Cairns’ announcement demonstrates, the problem facing Whitehall in its efforts to promote the Union is that symbols of Britishness have become rather tarnished. Yes, even the monarchy. While the forthcoming wedding of Harry Wales and Meghan Markle will no doubt be watched by millions, it almost certainly makes more sense to view this as an example of contemporary celebrity culture rather than a sign of genuine reverence for the ancient institution itself. The Queen herself remains widely admired and respected. But the monarchy has lost much of its lustre.

Beyond that, what other unimpeachable symbols of Britishness remain? Devolution means that the National Health Service is, in effect, four different health services. The armed forces are a shadow of their former selves. While that other great British institution, the BBC, is assailed from the left, the right and now even the centre.

It’s hard to imagine how any of these can offer solid ground on which Britishness can be resurrected to its former glory.

Which in turn raises the question of what those opposed to the Union should do now? At one level, the debacle of the bridge suggests that they can simply sit back and watch its staunchest defenders demonstrate how out of touch they’ve become.

After all, if Alun Cairns is indeed the Union’s most ardent friend, then who needs enemies? That said, it might also suggest another possibility, namely that Plaid Cymru, in particular, adopt a different attitude towards the Crown. Leanne Wood’s republican convictions are welladvertised, but her party’s formal stance is one of neutrality. If I understand the official policy correctly, Plaid Cymru proposes that a future independent Wales holds a referendum to decide whether or not to continue its connection with the Crown.

But now that Lord Dafydd ElisThomas has effectively joined the Labour group in the National Assembly, it’s hard to imagine that a single elected member of Plaid Cymru would vote in favour of the monarchy under such circumstances. Plaid Cymru may not be a republican party but it is party of republicans.

In an age in which authenticity counts for so much, it’s difficult to see what political harm could befall the party if it were to be open about its convictions. Especially as it’s more than likely that most of the Welsh electorate (mistakenly) think that this is already the party’s stance. Indeed, it could be argued that this is the perfect time for the party to change the official position.

The present Queen’s reign will inevitably come to an end. We know that her eventual successor wants to establish a very different kingship, with Prince Charles making it clear that he believes that, even in a democratic society, the Crown should wield real influence.

So while the Queen – with a few exceptions, such as the 2014 Scottish independence referendum – steers clear of politics and political controversy, we know that her son has long sought to use his special status to lobby different governments on behalf of favoured causes. All shielded behind a cloak of jealously guarded secrecy.

This type of behaviour is almost certain to continue and even intensify once he attains the throne. Not to beat around the bush, the strong likelihood is that he will be an unwise king.

Moreover, it also seems highly likely that once King Charles III is crowned, his eldest son will be invested as the Prince of Wales. An act that the vast majority of Plaid Cymru supporters – and, indeed, many other Welsh patriots – will regard as an affront.

Could the party maintain its current neutral stance in such circumstances? Would it want to, even? I sincerely doubt it.

Perhaps the key advantage for Plaid Cymru in deciding now, in a calm, deliberate manner, to abandon neutrality and adopt a republican position is that it could, when the time comes, lead the opposition to all of this. Not on the fundamentally insubstantial basis that “it’s a waste of money”, but rather on the basis of strong, clear democratic and national principles.

At a time when Whitehall considers that it is fighting an ideological battle with those in Wales and Scotland who are reluctant to recognise and accept the glories of the British state, it is natural that their opponents consider their response.

Doing nothing while servile flunkyism exposes its own limits is clearly tempting. But is it not worth considering the possibility that the confused, clumsy behaviour of Whitehall offers an opening that can be actively exploited?

The Prince of Wales Bridge vs a Welsh Republic – these are two very different visions of our national future and I suspect that the second might prove far more attractive than we might imagine.

■ A version of this article was published in the Welsh-language current affairs magazine Barn.