The British Monarchy​—Can It Survive the 1980’s?

By Awake! correspondent in Britain

SINCE the fateful year 1914 some thirty monarchies have disappeared from the world scene. They were either unable or unwilling to adapt to the swift and drastic changes that were taking place in government throughout the earth. Among the survivors has been Britain’s House of Windsor. During this critical period it has presented no obstacle to democratic processes for it has accepted the dignified but limited role of national figurehead.

Yet questions arise concerning its future. Is its continuation important to the nation? Is its cost acceptable in these days of high unemployment and tight money? What benefits does it bring? Do the people want it to continue? Such questions are asked by admirers and opposers alike. Perhaps you have thought about them yourself.

Splendour from Bygone Days

The British monarchy has endured now for a thousand years and more. During this time Britain rose to become a world power greater than any before her. Then the autocratic powers of the early centuries withered away as parliament became stronger and took firm hold of government. Also, within a few decades in this twentieth century, she released her colonies, joined them in a commonwealth of independent nations and retired to her own shores. Of the former splendour very little remains. What there is lives on in the monarchy.

Evidence of this past splendour may be seen in the pageantry with which parliament is opened each year. The queen, with others of the royal family, rides to the palace of Westminster in a gilded horse-drawn coach accompanied by the household cavalry in resplendent uniform. With great ceremonial detail the members of the lower House of Commons are summoned to the upper House of Lords. There the queen, from the throne, reads a speech drafted by her government of the day outlining its programme for the coming session. The old traditions are carefully observed.

Occasionally there is opportunity for even greater splendour. You may have seen on television the wedding of the prince of Wales on July 29, 1981. It was a spectacle in the grand manner. Eleven carriages with an escort of sixty-four horsemen conveyed the royal bride and groom and their relatives, from Buckingham Palace down The Mall and the Strand to St. Paul’s Cathedral. About a million people, including thousands from overseas, lined the route. Some 700 million televiewers, a sixth of the world population, watched such pomp and circumstance as is rarely seen by this generation. The nation loved it.

And it provided the royal family with a new member, the princess of Wales, who was soon to become, next to the queen, the most popular of them all. The nation then awaited with great interest the birth in June of her first child, William, who is next in line to the throne after the present heir, Prince Charles.

Role of the Monarch

What does the role of the queen as constitutional monarch entail? Pears Cyclopaedia explains: “In law she is head of the executive, an integral part of the legislature, head of the judiciary, commander-in-chief of the armed forces and temporal head of the Church of England. In practice, the Queen’s role is purely formal; she reigns, but she does not rule. In all important respects she acts only on the advice of her ministers. However, she still plays an important role symbolically as Head of State and Head of the Commonwealth.”

What keeps the queen busy all day? Her activities, and those of other members of the royal family, are listed daily in the court circular of some newspapers, and so are open to public scrutiny. A reader of the London Times summarized these listings for 1981 and noted in a letter to the paper that the queen had fulfilled well over 400 engagements during 1981, ranging from official visits inside and outside the country to audiences, investitures, the receiving of ambassadors, weekly visits of the prime minister, and so forth. She reads briefs on the day’s engagements, official reports and minutes of cabinet meetings of senior ministers, and there are many documents to sign. Obviously, a busy schedule. The general feeling is that the queen fills her role most conscientiously. Undoubtedly, she is Britain’s foremost ambassador when visiting other countries. A public poll conducted by Marplan found that the 774 persons questioned awarded her an average of 9.1 out of 10 for her work.

As for other members of the royal family, Prince Philip, husband of the queen, and Prince Charles, heir to the throne, both have full diaries. The queen mother, widow of King George VI and now in her eighties, also attends many official functions.

Whether it is necessary for royalty to attend all these occasions is sometimes questioned. Could not a local dignitary, such as the mayor, adequately provide the desired “presence”? Organizers of such events think not. When royalty is present public attendance is much greater, indicating an interest in them that others cannot command. And it must be said that the queen’s presence at such engagements, or that of others of the royal family, does relieve government ministers of much time-consuming ceremonial.

So the British public generally view the monarchy as something like a family heirloom. Though they value it and like to show it off, it does not greatly affect their daily lives. But there are those who balk at the cost of maintaining this stately heirloom!

So, What Does It Cost?

Every year there is a much publicized row in parliament over maintaining the royal family. What sparks it off is the debate on the “civil list.” This is the money the government proposes to allow for the functioning of the monarchy for another year. It is in two parts: one is the queen’s list and the other provides for some other royal family members.

The queen’s list for 1982/83 has been increased by 8 percent to £3,541,000 ($6,374,000, US), some three quarters of which is for paying the salaries of those employed in the royal household, from private secretaries to palace cleaners. The civil list for 1982/83 also provides £767,000 ($1,380,000, US) for the support of seven other royals. In addition to these allowances, some £15 million ($27 million, US) is spent by government departments on the maintenance of the royal palaces, the royal yacht, the Queen’s Flight of six aircraft, the royal train, and so forth.

Yet it seems that the nation does not object too much to paying these large sums for the upkeep of the monarchy. The Marplan opinion poll, mentioned earlier, found that 76 percent of those questioned said that the advantages of having the monarchy outweighed the cost of supporting it.

But not everyone thinks that way. The Times reported one member of parliament as saying that the proposed civil list “shows them up for what they are: a greedy, grasping lot who have nothing to contribute to the solution to all the troubles besetting the country. The time is rapidly approaching when the people will rise up in revolution.” But if the people intended to do that they have shown little, if any, inclination in that direction so far.

Role in the Church of England

The queen is temporal head of the Church of England, which simply means being its symbolic figurehead. She has no ecclesiastical functions. The spiritual and executive leader is acknowledged to be the archbishop of Canterbury. To select a new archbishop or bishop, or move one to a more prestigious see, a sixteen-man body, the Crown Appointments Commission, submits two names to the prime minister who, in turn, recommends one to the queen for appointment. For example, recently the bishopric of London became vacant. The Commission recommended two names but the prime minister rejected both and put another to the queen. “The head of the church yielded on constitutional principle.” So it is obvious that, in this respect at least, the present queen does not regard herself as another King Henry VIII, a predecessor who busied himself with church matters.

What Do the British Think?

The popularity of the monarchy today is due in no small measure to the family life of the queen and Prince Philip and their four children, now grown up. Many see in this something warm and wholesome with which they like to identify; it is reassuring to have as their first family one that gives evidence of being so devoted and united.

However, the abundance of young royals and their cousins now reaching adulthood caused one writer to remark that before all of these are old enough to add to the tax load of the civil list, “it would be well to think about the role, scope and size of the Royal Family.” Therein may lie a thorny problem for the future.

Probably the main reason the British are reasonably content with their monarchy is their inbred, conservative respect for institutions that have worked for a long time. They are used to them and are wary of change. They feel that the monarchy provides stability and continuity in a world that is so fickle. They do not care to have their head of state subject to the vagaries of electoral campaigning to which they submit their politicians. They are not nervous about the monarch’s power because constitutionally she has little. Instead, they see her as a steadying influence on the politicians who come and go at the wish of the electorate. They attach to the Crown none of the responsibility for the economic state of the nation, with its three million unemployed. That is the business of the politicians. Nevertheless, in the face of today’s crushing unemployment, the high cost of supporting so many of the royal family does arouse much criticism.

As for the future, The Economist believes that “the monarch-led democracy will remain the most democratic government for Britain because a public opinion poll last year [1980] showed that 86% of Britons want one, and there will not this century be 86% approval for any single politician-led alternative.” So it seems clear that the British people are content to have as their rulers those whom they elect, but as their head of state, the monarchy.

[Blurb on page 5]

A poll found that the advantages of having the monarchy outweighed the cost of supporting it

A Better Monarchy

JUST before their royal wedding British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge wrote that “in these troubled and changing times, only fortunetellers, Marxists and Jehovah’s Witnesses will venture to prognosticate whether Prince Charles and Lady Diana will actually one day mount the throne as King and Queen of England.”

Mr. Muggeridge was, of course, mistaken. Jehovah’s Witnesses offer no prediction of that kind. What Jehovah’s Witnesses do say, however, is that should Charles mount the throne of England his reign may well be short.

Why is that? It is not due to any failing on the part of the prince. Nor is it due to any real likelihood of a republican revolution in Britain. No, the reason is far more profound.

Bible prophecy indicates that the British monarchy, along with all others, will soon be replaced by a much better monarchy​—one capable of carrying out numerous badly needed programs that Prince Charles himself will surely approve of. Indeed, statements by the prince indicate a remarkable harmony between his desires and the goals of the coming world monarchy under the kingship of Jesus Christ. Here are three examples:

I. Righteous Judgment

“So many people are judged by outward appearances,” commented Prince Charles during a recent tour of a mental hospital. “You’ve got to keep telling yourself that appearances are often not what’s underneath.” The desire of the prince to avoid superficial judgments is certainly laudable, but does any man really have the discernment to do so? As God rightly pointed out to his prophet Samuel: “Mere man sees what appears to the eyes; but as for Jehovah, he sees what the heart is.” (1 Samuel 16:7) Jehovah has given this ability to his Son. Hence, Jesus could say: “You judge according to the flesh; I do not judge any man at all. And yet if I do judge, my judgment is truthful, because I am not alone, but the Father who sent me is with me.”​—John 8:15, 16.

While Jesus was not sent to earth as a judge in the first century, there is no doubt that he will serve as Jehovah’s Judge under God’s coming kingdom. Regarding that time, the prophet Isaiah predicted that “he will not judge by any mere appearance to his eyes, nor reprove simply according to the thing heard by his ears. And with righteousness he must judge the lowly ones, and with uprightness he must give reproof in behalf of the meek ones of the earth.” (Isaiah 11:3, 4) What a heartwarming prospect!

II. Golden Rule

“The only motto I go by,” commented the prince while visiting a factory, “is ‘Do to others as you would have them do to you.’ I try to put myself in other people’s positions. That way I hope I can reasonably do the right thing.”

Surely Prince Charles has an excellent motto. Perhaps you realize that he was quoting from the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus said: “All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must likewise do to them; this, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean.”​—Matthew 7:12.

Who, then, could better apply that “motto” than Jesus himself? Was not his whole life spent doing good for people? No wonder the Bible refers to him as the “fine shepherd” who ultimately “surrenders his soul in behalf of the sheep.” (John 10:11) Indeed, Jesus proved time and again his interest in doing good for mankind.

III. End of Hatred Coming

“There’s so much bigotry about, it’s appalling. Fear . . . ignorance. . . . Whatever the reasons behind it, it’s such a tragedy. Because in the end we’ve all got to get along together, or what’s the future going to be?” The prince was here speaking of a serious problem in British society, but his remarks are equally true of most places in the world today. Prince Charles’ dislike of racial hatred and his personal example of goodwill to men of all races are very commendable, but what can Prince Charles, or any human ruler, do to change deep-seated prejudices? Little, as most people realize.

With God’s kingdom, however, it is different. The Bible assures us that it will bring to pass man’s age-old dream of universal brotherhood. Unlike human governments, God’s kingdom will operate on the principle that the apostle Peter appreciated when he said: “For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.”​—Acts 10:34, 35.

No wonder that in vision the apostle John saw “a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb . . . saying: ‘Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.’” (Revelation 7:9, 10) Yes, John was seeing the people who would live under God’s kingdom, and those people were without national or racial divisions. They were worshiping God harmoniously together, just as Jehovah’s Witnesses are doing even now in all parts of the world.

Your Decision

The fine qualities of earthly representatives of monarchy, such as Prince Charles, endear them to many. Yet their good qualities pale before those of Jesus Christ, “the image of the invisible God,” Jehovah. (Colossians 1:15) Really, is there anyone who would make for this earth a better ruler than Christ? No!

But how do we know that God’s kingdom will really rule this earth, and that it is not just a vague state of mind as so many believe? Most important, what evidence is there that such kingdom rule will begin very soon, certainly within the lifetime of most earthly monarchs? Our next article answers these important questions.

Divine Monarchy Is Coming!

HISTORIANS tell us that monarchy has been going out of style for centuries. Most countries today are ruled by representatives of the people, at least in theory. Even where monarchs still exist, such as in Great Britain, they have little real power.

Why, then, would God purpose to govern the entire earth through a monarchy? Doesn’t he realize that such an idea is unfashionable in these republican times? Yes, but Jehovah God does not care about what is fashionable among men. He is going to give the earth the type of rulership it needs, regardless of what people think they want.

God does not purpose to conduct a worldwide referendum to see if people will accept his kingdom, his monarchy. Instead, here is how the Bible describes the establishment of that kingdom. The setting is a dream that an ancient monarch had regarding the future of world government, represented by a huge statue of gold, silver, copper, iron and clay.

As ancient King Nebuchadnezzar regarded that composite image, “a stone was cut out not by hands, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and of molded clay and crushed them. At that time the iron, the molded clay, the copper, the silver and the gold were, all together, crushed and became like the chaff from the summer threshing floor, and the wind carried them away so that no trace at all was found of them. And as for the stone that struck the image, it became a large mountain and filled the whole earth.”​—Daniel 2:34, 35.

The symbolic meaning is clear. World governments are in for destruction! But at whose hands? Who is responsible for the great stone that destroys the statue? What is the large mountain that fills the whole earth after the world’s governments are destroyed?

We do not have to guess, because the Bible explains the king’s prophetic dream, saying: “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite; forasmuch as you beheld that out of the mountain a stone was cut not by hands, and that it crushed the iron, the copper, the molded clay, the silver and the gold. The grand God himself has made known to the king what is to occur after this. And the dream is reliable, and the interpretation of it is trustworthy.”​—Daniel 2:44, 45.

No human is going to put God’s kingdom into power! It will be set up by divine irresistible force, destroying whatever world governments exist at the time it comes to dominate the whole earth, like a large mountain. Since God’s Word assures us that the vision is reliable, there is no reason to doubt that God will do just what he said. There is no excuse for religious organizations failing to alert people to this important fact. They do this by teaching people that God’s kingdom is just an abstraction or a state of mind!

The question is not whether God intends to set up a worldwide kingdom, but when will he do so. From their study of the Bible, Jehovah’s Witnesses are convinced that the time is very near. Why?

Here are two good reasons—

First, the same prophetic book of Daniel containing this vision also contains chronological prophecies clearly pointing at our century. For example, Daniel chapter 4 contains a prophecy in which God’s kingdom is pictured, not as a stone or a mountain, but as a tree. Jehovah’s Witnesses have proved in detail that the “seven times” that were to pass until the fulfillment of that prophecy lead directly to this twentieth century.a (Daniel 4:25) There can be no question concerning the chronological accuracy of Daniel’s visions. One of those visions correctly predicted the time the Messiah was to arrive. (Daniel 9:24-27) No wonder Jesus Christ referred his followers to the book of Daniel when discussing future events!​—Matthew 24:15.

A second reason is found in the words of Jesus Christ himself. If you read Matthew chapter 24, Luke chapter 21, or Mark chapter 13 you will find his discussion of the world conditions that would mark the time of his return as King of God’s kingdom. No discerning reader can fail to be impressed by the similarity between the wars, famines, earthquakes and lawlessness foretold by Jesus and the wars, famines, earthquakes and lawlessness daily reported in the news.

So Bible chronology and Bible prophecy combine to prove that all of us, including Prince Charles, are living among people of the generation that will see God’s kingdom begin to rule this earth, sweeping away the present squabbling monarchies and republics of men like so much chaff from a threshing floor. When that day arrives, are you going to be ready?

Your relationship with God and his Son, the righteous ruler Christ Jesus, is not something you should take for granted. It will determine what happens to you when Jehovah’s worldwide monarchy is established. You can either be crushed as a resister of God’s kingdom or look forward to a delightful life in God’s “mountain” as it transforms the earth into the paradise it always should have been. The choice is yours.

How can you make such a choice? The Christian witnesses of Jehovah will be glad to help you to obtain the Bible information on which to make the right decision. Why not talk to them? You can live in happiness under the only perfect monarchy this world will ever know.

[Footnotes]

[Diagram/​Picture on page 10]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

GOD’S KINGDOM

Babylonia

Medo-Persia

Greece

Rome

Britain & America

Radical Popular Movements