What is the British Monarchy? Will it Survive the 21st Century?
The first explainer: The British Monarchy.
Introduction:
Many are, for the first time, considering the strange status of the royal family in the United Kingdom. This has been prompted by the explosive interview of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle by Oprah Winfrey. You can watch the interview on ITV Hub, and I recommend you do so because it is a shocking insight into the life of British royalty. Here, I will give you a brief explanation of why we have a monarchy, and how the monarchy now is not the same as it was 500 or 1000 years ago. That’s not only interesting for those who like their history, but it also helps us to understand the role of the monarchy in British political life today.
Why do we have a monarchy?
Interestingly, the English monarchy was an indirect result of the Roman empire’s collapse. The central government, army, and administration of England simply disappeared between 400-500 AD. That left a power vacuum, into which Anglo-Saxon immigrants moved, forming their own Kingdoms. Apparently, they did not call their rulers ‘kings’ when they first arrived, rather ‘chieftains’, but it was they who eventually adopted the title of ‘King’. Tribute had to be paid to the King in the form of labour and/or food, whilst the King distributed land and power amongst the aristocracy. There was no one English ‘King’ at this time; there were rather different kings established in different Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. (See pic 1. Spoiler alert: Wessex wins). This power struggle ends with the rule of Alfred1, the first King of England, who begins the royal succession which continues, with various interruptions, until the present day.
(Image 1)2
Those who aren’t lovers of history, don’t worry, that’s the thick history over. It’s simply important to know the origin of the monarchy. Anglo-Saxons came, declared themselves kings, and fought until one King ruled them all. The rest of royal history runs through the Saxons, Danes, Normans, the Plantagenets, Tudors, Stuarts, Hanoverians (or Georgians) and then Saxe-Coburg Gotha(ns?) – better known as the Windsors – the current ruling family. The monarchy originated in Anglo-Saxon times, developing out of the power vacuum left by the Roman empire.
We haven’t always had a monarchy.
That long list before, the one from which you’re still recovering, suggests that the monarchy has existed uninterrupted since Alfred. That’s broadly speaking true; sometimes the crown hopped between families via common relations, but there’s still a line from Alfred to Elizabeth II; it just zig-zags at points. That is, except between 1649 - 1660. During that time England was a republic.3 It’s unthinkable today, but England had no monarch. When we consider that fact, we realise how ‘England’ and ‘monarchy’ are as tightly linked as ‘Tom’ and ‘Jerry’. That republic was a shaky one; it veered from parliamentary rule to military dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell. The country was also ruled in a religiously conservative manner; they banned Christmas because they thought religion ought to involve self-denial rather than throwing parties. Unsurprisingly, then, the republic was overturned, and Charles II, the son of the beheaded king, was invited back to continue the royal line.
The role of the monarchy in our political system.
Whilst I won’t explain how we became a republic (i.e. the English civil war) it is vital to understand the main controversy behind the conflict. What was at stake in that strife was the extent of the monarch’s power. Not all monarchies are the same. Some monarchies, like the Polish crown, were very different.4 However, our current concern is between what’s called absolutist monarchies and constitutional monarchies. It’s easiest to define an absolutist monarchy. This is where all power lies in a single person, the monarch. The monarch is not held accountable and has no higher authority (except, perhaps, God). France and Spain were the famous examples of absolutist monarchies. James I and Charles I (two of the Stuart kings) believed in absolute monarchy. The British parliament did not. Hopefully, you can see why that was quite an issue.
The British parliamentarians were not republicans, however, at least not the majority. They instead favoured constitutional monarchy. Distinct from absolutism, a constitutional monarchy in some way limits the power of the monarch. As of the 1689 Bill of Rights,5 parliament was recognised as its own actor in the British political landscape. It did not meet at the will of the monarch, but instead met regularly, at intervals which it defined. Over the centuries, Britain developed its current system which combines political parties and individual members of parliament (MPs); the winning political party offers its leader as prime minister who forms a government by selecting MPs from their own party to fill the cabinet roles.
I spell this out because it’s important to understand how our constitutional monarchy works, in modern Britain:
All political power rests with the prime minister and the cabinet, and the monarch must act on their advice.
Constitutional monarchy has meant different things at different times in British history. However, this is what it means today. The country is run by the prime minister and their cabinet. The Queen must sign laws for them to come into effect, but by custom she must sign any law which passes all prior stages. She essentially acts as the final stage in the legal production line. Her ceremonial role makes laws legitimate. The monarch auto-validates the bills which pass through parliament.
The Queen’s Gambit
That was the picture, however, until early February when the Guardian released an investigation into royal lobbying. According to our non-codified constitution, the Queen is nothing more than decoration to the parliamentary process. As the person who adds the stamp, the Queen should have no more say in the law than the rest of us. She’s had more. What did the Guardian find?
“The Queen successfully lobbied the government to change a draft law in order to conceal her “embarrassing” private wealth from the public”
“….documents unearthed in the National Archive … suggest that the consent process, which gives the Queen and her lawyers advance sight of bills coming into parliament, has enabled her to secretly lobby for legislative changes”
This is an abuse of royal power. Remember the above statement of power in the UK? The prime minister and their cabinet have all political power. The Queen then, should not have the ability to view laws before they are published and agitate for changes in her personal interest. Now, this article is not an argument for republicanism, my explainer posts remain neutral where possible. I am not claiming that the monarchy should be abolished because of this, because that’s your decision to make. What I am pointing out is that the Queen has overstepped her ceremonial role, that she doesn’t simply have a ceremonial role. That means that overall the Queen is just a symbol, but yet she still has power, and can influence the political apparatus in ways “that lobbyists would only dream of”.6 Both republicans and monarchists ought to oppose this royal misuse of power, otherwise the British monarchy turns from a symbol, the continuation of tradition, into an undemocratic actor within British politics.
A British Republic?
With the history addressed, and with the role of the monarchy understood, we can now re-approach this most recent scandal. Most of us agree that the treatment of Meghan Markle was unacceptable. To have a job and living situation so tightly controlled - and without any recourse for suicidal thoughts- is an appalling situation and likely illegal where workplace practices are concerned. Then there’s the racism claim, not only that there were worries over the skin colour of the child, but even worse – in my opinion – the suggestion that the child would be the first ever to lack royal security protection, perhaps because of his skin colour. The sentiment amongst many millennials seems to be that the monarchy should be abolished because it is, evidently, racist. I want to leap over that debate and conclude this article by asking – is it likely that the monarchy will be abolished?
There’s two ways of answering this question: 1) would it be hard, legally to establish a republic? & 2) is there the will to do so? Legally, the process is relatively straight forward. All it would take would be a majority of MPs voting a bill through parliament which dismantled the monarchy. Like Brexit, it would be a mammoth task to unpick all the laws, to spell out all the implications, but the process would be jarringly easy to initiate. However, we’re not going to see the monarchy abolished anytime soon. The abolition of the monarchy requires the royal family to be incredibly unpopular. Are the royal family currently unpopular?
(Image 2)
The monarchy, in actual fact, is very popular with the electorship. So we are very far away from the situation where the electorate convinces a majority of MPs to dissolve the crown through a vote. It might not be clear from the above infographic just how safe the monarchy is, but consider the chart on the right, specifically the polling in 1998. 1997-8 was the last royal PR crisis before Prince Harry/Meghan (and recently, Prince Andrew). The public disgust over the treatment of Princess Diana following her divorce from the Prince of Wales only translated to a 28% opposition to the monarchy. In a televised debate around the monarchy, the 3.5 million voters had a slightly higher 34% opposition to the monarchy. Either way, a far higher proportion of the country would need to have republican preferences to bring about that monumental change.
That may still happen, but not for some decades yet. Inevitably, as Millennials, Gen Z and their successor generation become dominant, their preferences will shape the political landscape. Before the scandal with Harry and Meghan, Gen Z were undecided on the monarchy (see below).
(Image 3)
If the scandal has cemented a negative opinion in the younger generations, and if that opinion endures, then it may well be that in decades to come we will have a republican majority in the United Kingdom. Note, those are many ifs, but there is a plausible outcome in which a British republic is the desire of the electorate.
Summary of the article:
· The English monarchy developed out of a power vacuum left by the collapsing Roman empire.
· England was a republic during 1649-1660.
· England’s monarchy slowly developed into a constitutional monarchy, in which the King/Queen’s power was limited by an independent parliament.
· Now all political power lies in the prime minister and their cabinet, the Queen must follow whatever they do.
· The Queen has, however, exerted influence on laws, changing certain laws for her own gain.
· The process of becoming a republic is legally clear cut.
· The desire for a republic amongst the electorate is currently low.
· As the population ages, newer generations might turn the majority attitude republican.
Image credits:
(1) The 5 kingdoms by ‘c00lfr0g’ at https://www.deviantart.com/c00lfr0g/art/Heptarchy-385212278
(2) Popularity of the British monarchy: https://www.statista.com/chart/4700/britains-monarchy_-more-popular-than-ever/
References:
Why do we have a monarchy?
https://www.britannica.com/place/United-Kingdom/Anglo-Saxon-England#ref44748
We haven’t always had a monarchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rump_Parliament
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_England#The_Protectorate,_1653
The role of the monarchy in our political system:
https://www.britannica.com/place/United-Kingdom/Trade#ref44702
https://www.britannica.com/topic/constitutional-monarchy
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/lords/lrds-royal-assent/
The Queen’s Gambit.
A British Republic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom#20th-century_republicanism
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay
All links accessed early March 2021.
A previous version of this article claimed that ‘Egbert’ was the first King of England, I thank Freya Druce for the correction.
By the way this picture contains an explanation of three British counties today. Wessex was where the West Saxons were from: ‘Wes-Sax’. And look, there’s the East-Saxons – in Essex, and the South Saxons in Sou-Sex (Sussex).
I’m keeping the history in this article light, because fundamentally this article is about politics, and the political status of the royal family. For the curious, I’ve left this footnote for anyone who wants to know more about how and why England became a republic. This video explains all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyk3bI_Y68Y . Furthermore, I have opted to leave out Magna Carta from the history, in acknowledging that I hope the historians feel a little vindicated. To explain Magna Carta is to explain one of the incremental changes from absolutist monarchy to constitutional monarchy. I instead opted to explain the dichotomy through the lens of the civil war. I think that’s sufficient. For those curious about the Big Charter: a video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xo4tUMdAMw
Beyond my purposes here, but my gosh it’s cool! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_elections_in_Poland
(Yes, we have our own, which actually influenced the American one – not that Americans would appreciate you pointing that out)
Thomas, Adams specialist in constitutional law for the University of Oxford, cf. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth
Nicely written Jack. It's surprising to see such low support for a Republic tbh.