The monarchy
The English
monarchy is the oldest secular institution in Britain and there is automatic
hereditary succession to the throne, but only for Protestants. The eldest son
of a monarch has priority over older daughters, although this may change in the
future. The monarchy’s continuity has been interrupted only by Cromwellian rule
(1649– 60), although there have been different lines of descent, such as the Tudors
and Stuarts.
Royal
executive power has disappeared, but the monarch still has formal
constitutional roles and serves as head of state, head of the executive,
judiciary and legislature, ‘supreme governor’ of the Church of England and
commander-in-chief of the armed forces. In holding these positions, the monarch
personifies the British state and is a symbol of national unity. Government
ministers and officials are the monarch’s servants, and Members of Parliament, judges,
military officers, peers and bishops of the Church of England swear allegiance
to the Crown. The monarchy is thus a permanent fixture in the British system,
unlike temporary politicians. It still has a practical and constitutional role
to play in the operation of government. There are provisions for the appointment
of counsellors of state (or a regent in exceptional cases) to perform royal
duties, should the monarch be absent from Britain or unable to carry out public
tasks.
The monarch
is expected to be politically neutral and is supposed to reign but not rule. In
addition, he or she cannot make laws, impose taxes, spend public money or act
unilaterally. The monarch acts only on the advice of political ministers, which
cannot be ignored, and contemporary Britain is therefore governed by Her
Majesty’s Government in the name of the Queen.
The monarch
does, however, still perform important duties, such as the opening (usually in
autumn each year) and dissolving of Parliament; giving the Royal Assent (or
signature) to bills that have been passed by both Houses of Parliament;
appointing government ministers and other public figures; granting honours; leading
proceedings of the Privy Council; and fulfilling international duties as head
of state. In practice, these functions are performed by the monarch on the
advice of the Prime Minister or other ministers.
A central
power still possessed by the monarch is the choice and appointment of the Prime
Minister. By convention, this person is normally the leader of the political
party that has a majority in the House of Commons. However, if there is no
clear majority or if the political situation is unclear, the monarch could in
theory make a free choice. In practice, advice is given by royal advisers and leading
politicians in order to present an acceptable candidate. Constitutionally, the
monarch has the right to be informed of all aspects of national life by
receiving government documents and meeting regularly with the Prime Minister.
The monarch also has the right to encourage, warn and advise ministers. It is
difficult to evaluate the impact of monarchical advice on formal and informal levels,
although critics suggest that it could be substantial. This raises questions
about whether such influence should be held by an unelected, non-democratic
figure who could potentially either support or undermine political leaders.
Much of the
cost of the royal family’s official duties is met from the Civil List (public
funds that are approved by Parliament). Following concern over expense, the
Civil List has now been reduced to a few members of the immediate royal family.
Other costs incurred by the monarch as a private individual or as sovereign
come either from the Privy Purse (finance received from the revenues of some
royal estates) or from the Crown’s own resources, which are very considerable
and on which the monarch now pays income tax.
Critics of
the monarchy argue that it lacks adaptability and is out-of-date,
non-democratic, too expensive, too much associated with aristocratic privilege
and establishment thinking and too closely identified with an English rather
than a British role. It is argued that the monarchy’s aloofness from ordinary
life sustains class divisions and hierarchy in society. It is also suggested
that, if the monarch’s functions today are merely ceremonial and lack power, it
would be more rational and democratic to abolish the office and replace it with
a cheaper, non-executive presidency.
Critics who
favour the monarchy argue that it is popular and has developed and adapted to
modern requirements. It serves as a personification of the state; shows
stability and continuity; has more prestige than politicians; is not subject to
political manipulations; plays a worthwhile role in national institutions; possesses
neutrality; and performs important ambassadorial functions overseas. The
monarchy was also said in the past to reflect family values and has a certain
glamour about it, which is attractive to many people.
The British
public have often shown affection for the royal family beyond its
representative role. But its behaviour and the considerable criticism. An ICM
poll in August 1997 showed that support for the monarchy had fallen to 48 per
cent, the first time that figures had been less than 50 per cent. A majority
felt that the monarchy would be replaced in the next 50 years unless it adapted
further to changes in society. Republican feeling has also grown. But it seems
likely that the institution of monarchy will continue.
Traditionalists
fear that a modernized monarchy would lose that aura of detachment that is
described as its main strength. It would then be associated with change rather
than the preservation of existing values. At present, it balances uncomfortably
between tradition and modernizing trends.
Oakland, John. British Civilization - An
introduction. ROUTLEDGE London, 1998Link to Lecture slides on British Institutions and Monarchy:
http://fr.slideshare.net/elhemchniti/british-institutions?qid=ff47b768-0ce9-4250-a06b-92551bcea4ce&v=default&b=&from_search=2
