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