- Welcome to our Website -
- Welcome to our Website -
HM King Charles III
In this day and age, we value our democracy and the right to choose our leaders. It would appear that a constitutional monarchy goes against the whole democratic principle. Having an unelected Head of State seems to create an authority that is unaccountable to the very state that they serve. Why is a constitutional monarchy good for the United Kingdom?
We can’t begin from scratch
We always have a history, whether we like it or not, and that history shapes us, directs us and informs our identity whether as individuals, families or nations. Often, we can choose to ignore who we once were in an attempt to re-invent ourselves, but we cannot escape what has gone before us and any unresolved issues in our history tend to bubble up again and take us by surprise. We are often tempted to concentrate on the problems of here and now and forget about the past. Indeed, we know full well that to ignore the lessons of the past puts us in line for repeating their mistakes.
A hereditary monarchy keeps us in touch with the past in a unique way. A Royal Family is the product of the historical changes of the nation and reflects, not only in its genetics but, in its development, the repercussions of events. A Royal Family is held to account by history in a way like no other. Each member of the Royal Family has to bear personally the successes and failures of its family members and is shaped by them.
Many people see Kings and Queens only as individuals and criticise them without realising the circumstances in which they were born. Many see King Henry VIII as a man whose desperation for a son caused him to abandon wives or execute them based on questionable charges. Few, however, would see that Henry’s mindset was shaped by the previous century being a period of uncertainty, revolution, political instability leaving the country vulnerable and economically fragile. It was only under Henry’s father, Henry VII that this civil turbulence - known as the Wars of the Roses – was ended and a delicate peace restored. Even then, this stability was threatened by the death of Henry VIII’s older brother, Arthur, who died before Henry VII. That desire for stability coloured Henry’s reign. All these intricacies of history are forgotten by many folk except the Royal Family who are invested in these events personally. While others around them forget, the Royal Family still bears that history – our history!
This puts the Royal Family in a unique position. If our history is invested visibly in them then, in turn, we have a family to invest in. They are not immune from family problems – indeed we see those problems played out in the News. They are human beings like we are, subject to all the weaknesses and failures, arguments and family feuds, the hatches, matches and dispatches even as we are. What sets them apart is their duty to let us invest our lives in theirs. Their family life reflects our own family lives, regardless of who we are. Whatever the state of our own families, we will always find that reflected somewhere in the Royal Family. Their successes become our successes, and their struggles reflect our own struggle in life. Their economic positions may no reflect ours, but their lives are lived in exactly the same way only bearing the weight of being under constant scrutiny and whose life choices can have massive consequences and influences on the world stage. Further, they are a family and in these days of individualism where more people live alone and unable to connect with their relatives for many reasons, even very good ones, the Royal Family remind us that we can be a family to others and devote ourselves to the good of a community.
Visible presence
The Royal Family are representative of our history, and this means that they have greater permanence than politicians who are elected in and out of office every few years. When a dignitary opens a hospital or a bridge, launches a ship or confers an honour, the rank of that dignitary reflects on the worth of the endeavour. If a politician, even a Prime Minister, opens a bridge then they are certainly conveying a sense of importance. That Prime Minister, however, is soon out of office and thus that bridge only receives a very temporary blessing. When Queen Elizabeth opened the Dartford River Crossing – an important bridge over the Thames – she brought with her the weight of history. It was almost as if the country in its history was giving its approval to the bridge. Likewise, a presidential honour conferred upon a person comes with the sense that this honour only means something with this president. A royal honour comes with the sense that this honour bestows a companionship with those who have gone before. A Royal Family brings us closer with those who have gone before.
It is important, then, that the Royal Family are always a little anachronistic, wearing outdated formal regalia, most notably the crown, and performing seemingly unnecessary rituals such as trooping the colour. These are far from meaningless and unnecessary for they are points of contact with our history and, by continuing them, points of contact with our future and those who come after us.
Many object to the Royal Family because they believe that all people are created equal and that no-one is better than anyone else. The idea of bowing to the King and calling him, “Your Majesty,” is, in the mind of these people, another way of saying that the King is better than anybody else. If we are looking at the King as a human being, then there is a great deal of truth in this. The King is a human being, with red blood, subject to emotions, temptations, liable to do the wrong thing – even objectively evil things if we look back in the history of Kings and Queens.
There is a difference, though, it isn’t that the King suddenly ceases to be human when he is crowned. It is what is added to him at his coronation that means that he carries with him, in his person, the Nation: its history, its future, its successes, its failures, its relationships with other countries, its relationships with its citizens. It is said, “uneasy lies the head that bears the crown,” and Her Late Majesty herself complained how heavy the crown was to bear. The weight of that headgear is representative of the weight of monarchy.
It is because the Nation is embodied in the monarch that it is good for us to show deference. We live in an age where we call people by their first names whereas, thirty years ago, this would have been seen impolite. It automatically assumes that we are on “chummy” terms with everyone. It was the done thing to respect our elders with “Mrs Smith” and “Mr Jones”, to address the GP as “Doctor”, the parish priest as “Father” or “Reverend”, the bishop as, “My Lord” or “Your Grace”. The word “respect” comes from a Latin word meaning “to look around” and has come to mean “to have a care for” and “to honour”. The idea of respect is think about how we stand with our present company. We hear that “respect has to be earned” but often we don’t perceive whether someone has earned our respect. The old homeless man on the street who is ignored and even maligned may be a war hero who gave up his livelihood in service to his country. To say “respect has to be earned” often requires us to know more about a person’s situation than we actually do. It is far better to assume that someone deserves respect until they show us that they do not.
We may like the King, we may dislike him intensely, but the fact is that on his shoulders lies the weight of the Nation. Whether he bears that weight well or not does not give us reason to dismiss that the weight exists. If we are proud of our country, or if we want to be able to be proud of our country, then showing it respect should come high on our list. This means treating the King with respect: a bow or a curtsey to the King is a way of expressing that respect personally. This is not bowing or curtseying to a human being but bowing or curtseying to what the King represents in his person. This is why we do the same in a lesser degree to other members of the Royal Family, because of how they relate to the King and share the burden of our history with him.
One of the biggest objections to the monarchy is based on their wealth. It is true that the Royal Family is usually one of the richest families in any nation. Again, much of this is an investment of the country into the Royal Family as they embody the country. This will mean they work representing the country to other countries, representing the country to its citizens, as well as maintaining the image that the country wants to display. A king wearing a paper bag is not going to convey the idea that a country is respectable or has a high opinion of itself. Entertaining other monarchs by treating them to a chip butty and a Magnum is not likely to present an image of our country and its values which can be taken seriously.
In the United Kingdom, it is true that the Royal Family are one of the wealthiest families in the country. It was not always so, Queen Elizabeth I was often very poor, relying on the hospitality of her nobles, and King George IV frittered away his fortune with dissolute living, amassing debts that, today, would run into millions. Certainly, the country would and should expect any investment in the Royal Family to be taken seriously and used for the good of the country.
The most recent monarchs have sought to encode into the monarchy a serious attitude to receiving public funds. It was Queen Elizabeth II’s idea to contribute to the country’s finances by choosing to pay income tax on her private income. The amount of money that the King receives from taxpayers amounts to less £1 per taxpayer per year. The Royal Family may indeed benefit from income from their estates and enterprises but this is no different from other business people. There is a commitment within the Royal Family now to put their finances to good use, to fund schemes and charitable endeavours on behalf of the country. A charity that bears the royal name, insignia and patronage has been given the country’s endorsement of their activity according to the unchanging identity of the country’s moral standards.
There is also a considerable amount of property, land and artifacts, such as the Crown Jewels , the royal Collections, and many buildings of which the Crown is the guardian and which are held in trust for the nation.
The United Kingdom has evolved to have a constitutional monarchy. This essentially means that the governing authority does not lie in the monarch alone as in an absolute monarchy, but is rather shared between the two houses of parliament, the prime minister and cabinet and the judiciary. The monarch gives assent to the laws and bills passed by the government as one representative of the assent of the nation but usually does not interfere in the passing of these laws and bills. While the monarch should not interfere in parliamentary processes, the regular meetings between the monarch and the prime minister ensure that there is a two-way conversation between the government and the nation.
Having a constitutional monarchy produces a safeguard against the excesses of democracy. While a democracy is by far one of the best ways to run a country, there are still weaknesses of the system. In the 20th Century, democracies have been manipulated to elect powerful leaders who have gone on to destroy lives and cause considerable damage to world peace. Notably, the two regimes that caused the greatest loss of life in the 20th century had both recently abolished their monarchy in the name of allowing the people to take control of how they were governed: this was very far from the case.
A constitutional monarchy should make the accountability of each of the branches of government to the others more transparent. If there is a greater respect by all for the office of the monarch as embodying the past, present and future of the nation, then this reinforces the ideal of true service to the country. Her Late Majesty, Queen Elizabeth knew herself to be servant of the country. In 1947, knowing that she was the heir apparent, the then Princess Elizabeth said:
I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
In saying this, she declared that which every monarch should declare – a promise to the life of service of the country through thick and thin, for better and for worse. Certainly, while many monarchs have not exhibited the same commitment to service, a constitutional monarch ensures that all in government are accountable to the country they should be serving to the best of their ability.
The idea of a constitutional monarchy is something that can build up a nation, keeping it in touch with its past and directing it towards its future. It contributes to the accountability of a democratically elected parliament and acts as a check and balance for the direction of a country’s government. It gives a sense of colour and anachronism to lift us out of lives which need to celebrate, a little pomp and circumstance to remind us that we belong to the nation and the nation belongs to us. In the UK, we are fortunate to have a Royal Family which do not demand much in terms of cost but seeks to contribute to the good of the nation’s economy. While there have been Royals who have not shown themselves to be worthy of their position, they remind us that they are as human as we are and that it is their office that we must respect, and it Is their office that calls them to account. In respecting the monarch, we are showing respect to the nation and to ourselves as being part of that nation.
In the UK, we are very fortunate to have retained our monarchy. While we continue to live in dialogue with the King, we continue to grow and see ourselves as part of something bigger. If everyone continues to listen to each other then it can do us nothing but good.
God save the King!