We have known how to preserve the old and glorious traditions of hereditary monarchy while slowly building up a parliamentary system which has hitherto met the needs of a growing people, and changing times.

  Of course, there is far too much to cover here if we consider the number of monarchies that have  been and gone. Even to mention every monarchy would be a writing of all human history, albeit in  a potted form. Our intention here is to look at the general history of monarchy and illustrate it with  some pertinent examples. While we may focus on the monarchy of the United Kingdom, we do so  based on our greater experience of the British Monarchy. Please take this as an invitation for you  to see how the monarchy of your country corresponds with the history we write here.  

Where did it all begin? 

 It doesn’t take much imagination to see that monarchy is something that has been with the  human race since it has existed. We can look at the animal kingdom and see examples of an  individual in a position of leadership within communities of social animals. We can easily think  of queen bees, queen termites even queen mole rats! The word monarch comes from the Greek  words monos – one, single – and archein – to rule, be first, be foremost – so the principle of  monarchy is quite clear: a monarchy is a form of government in which a single person – the  monarch – is the principal decision maker for governing the kingdom.  

We can quite easily see that the for the first human beings, the society was literally a family  headed by the father figure who was very likely the father of everyone in the group. Once families  came together to form a society, it was the strongest, most successful of these fathers who led  the society. Genetically, the qualities that made this individual powerful were passed on to their  children and so it was likely that the leadership of these early societies was hereditary, though  not without challenges to the ruler. Some societies rejected the hereditary principle and chose  their ruler upon the death of their predecessor. All these prehistoric rulers were essentially tribal  chiefs and form the prototypes of the monarchies that we know today. There are vestiges of these  tribal chiefs among African tribes, Native Americans and Scottish clans. Loyalty to the chief tends  to lead to economic success and prosperity, and prosperous tribes could easily grow into  nations.  

The first Monarchies  

The Middle East, Northeast Africa and West Asia are particularly prominent in human history.  These saw the growth of the Egyptian Pharaoh, the civilisation in the Indus Valley and the Kings of  Mesopotamia. Geographically, these are civilisations which have thrived by taking control of  rivers: the Nile, the Indus, the Tigris and Euphrates. Those who controlled these rivers rose to great  power and prominence and societies were able to develop writing and recording the deeds of  their rulers. We first begin to find records of Egyptian Pharaohs from about five thousand years  ago and the Sumerian kings from about five hundred years later. It is with these early civilisation  that the link between monarchy and religion is established with the monarchs if not embodying  gods at least being given a divine right to rule by the gods. In the Far East, the Chinese and Indian  monarchies arose along similar principles.  

The Egyptian monarchy lasted for about 3,400 years with the first Pharaoh being Menes and the  last being the Roman Emperor Maximus Daza who died in 313AD. Maximus Daza’s claim to being  the Pharaoh was largely due to the Roman Emperor being regarded as the ruler of Egypt since the  last effective Pharaoh, Ptolemy Caesar known as Caesarion, the child of Cleopatra and Julius  Caesar (probably) died in 30BC.  

Meanwhile, from about three thousand years ago, the Kingdom of Israel was established with King  Saul and then King David though this kingdom divided into Judaea and Israel with David’s  grandson Rehoboam. This was a hereditary monarchy which would last until the Babylonian  captivity in 587BC. While not as long-lasting as the Egyptian Pharaohs and Roman Emperors, the  Kingdom of Judaea would become the influence for the Christian monarchies especially since  Jesus Christ was the legitimate successor to David under the Roman occupation of Judaea. What  is notable about the Judaean monarchy is that it has clear limitations to the king’s power:  

When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess  it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations  that are about me; Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God  shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not  set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.  

But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the  end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall  henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his  heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. And it shall  be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this  law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him,  and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his  God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: That his heart be not  lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the  right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and  his children, in the midst of Israel. (Deuteronomy xvii.14-20)  

Essentially, these rules state:  

1) The King will not multiply horses, i.e. seek military power for itself. The King was not to be  a war lord.  

2) The King would cause the people to return to Egypt, i.e. be a slave driver, treating his  subjects as slaves.  

3) The King must not multiply wives, i.e. become sexually immoral and becoming the father  to too many children so as to cause rivalry and destabilise the kingdom. Nor should he  allow his wife to turn him aside to other religions and thus separate himself from his duty  to embody the spirit of the kingdom he rules.  

4) He must not multiply silver and gold, i.e. he must not be greedy but seek the economic  prosperity of his nation rather than his own personal fortune. He must not hoard riches  while his people starve.  

5) He must keep the religion and morality of the kingdom he rules so as to keep it stable, to  honour its heritage and beliefs, and to be the first to keep the law of the land.  

The King of Israel was clearly morally accountable to God and this would have been known by the  priests and people. What is interesting is that the Old Testament records the failures of the kings  to hold these precepts. King Solomon had six hundred wives, and his kingdom was destabilised  religiously and morally as a result. Solomon’s son would cause the kingdom to divide. Many of the  falls of monarchies can be attributed to the failure of a monarch to follow these rules. We can  certainly remember particular historical cases, such as France and Russia, where the Royal  Family held all the riches of their country while their subjects starved, or where the people were  no better than slaves. The ensuing revolutions still have repercussions in European politics today.  

Constitutional Monarchy  

Monarchies have risen, many have fallen, some still remain. While there are still a few absolute  monarchies such as Saudi Arabia, Oman and, technically, the Vatican, most monarchies have  evolved into constitutional monarchies. In the United Kingdom, this evolution started with the  Magna Carta, developed at the Restoration and was largely complete with the accession of the  German Elector of Hannover as George I in 1714. The idea is that the monarchy becomes  incorporated into the democratic processes by which the monarch is mutually accountable to  the people via Parliament, the Government via the Prime Minister and the law via the Judiciary. 

The Magna Carta

As we said, the Magna Carta marks a turning point in the history of the British monarchy. King  John, who reigned from 1199 to 1216, was not a popular king. His military exploits cost him the  greater part of the lands in France which were part of his inheritance as a Plantagenet, and a  descendant of the Dukes of Normandy and Anjou. His attempts to regain them forced him to levy  harsh taxes upon the barons – heads of noble families in England. John’s concern for his own  interests at the expense of the good of the nation sealed his poor reputation and inflamed the  dissent of barons who began to prepare for battle against the king. In 1215, the Archbishop of  Canterbury Stephen Langton put together the Magna Carta – the Great Charter – in an attempt to  broker peace between the king and the barons. It was not the first charter of its kind to seek to  limit the powers of the ruling monarch, but Magna Carta is certainly the most notable and  document which has often been referred to in times of great change in the UK.   This document was signed at Runnymeade on 10th June 1215 by John and the rebel leaders. In  signing it, they agreed to the feudal rights of the barons but fixed a fairer level of taxation,  especially a form of the inheritance tax. It fixed due legal processes and allowed the king to  appoint royal officials to judiciary positions if they were legally proficient. The crown was  prevented from involvement in Church business and the lucrative use of forests was also to be  managed in a fairer way that did not deprive barons of land. While neither John nor the barons  kept their side of the charter which led to it being annulled by Pope Innocent III, it was reissued in  1216 when John died and was succeeded by his infant son, Henry III, and again in 1297. It has  also been appealed to in the development of parliament following the Reformation and the Civil  War. While not the most interesting document for a casual observer, the Magna Carta shows that  it is possible for a monarchy to be constitutional to the benefit of the country as a whole. 

Into the future

It is the process of becoming constitutional that allows the monarchy to continue in the modern  age. This allows a country to be true to its  identity in its heritage, history, traditions and religion  through the Royal Family as well as ensuring that the people have a say in how the country is run.  This means that the monarch adheres to the principles that we see recorded in Deuteronomy and  that the desire for the nation’s prosperity is encoded in the life of the country even if it isn’t  explicitly codified as is the case with the famous British Constitution. If these historic principles  are kept then there is no reason why the idea of Constitutional Monarchy cannot direct each nation  into a prosperous future.