The monarchy

The appearance
The position of the monarch in Britain illustrates the
contradictory nature of the constitution. From the evidence of
written law only, the Queen has almost absolute power, and it
all seems very undemocratic. The American constitution talks
about 'government for the people by the people. There is
nothing in Britain like that. In fact, there is no legal concept of
the people' at all.
Every autumn, at the state opening of Parliament, Queen
Elizabeth II makes a speech. In it, she says what 'my
government' intends to do in the coming year. And it is her
government, not the people's. As far as the law is concerned,
she can choose anybody she likes to run the government for
her. There are no restrictions on who she picks as her Prime
Minister. The same is true for her choices of people to fill some
hundred or so other ministerial positions. And if she gets fed up
with her ministers, she can just dismiss them. Officially
speaking, they are all 'servants of the Crown' (nor of 'the
country' or 'the people'). She also appears to have great power
over Parliament. It is she who summons a parliament, and she
who dissolves it (i.e. tells it that it no longer exists). In addition,
nothing that Parliament has decided can become a law until she
has given it the royal assent.
 Similarly, it is the Queen who embodies the law in the courts.
In the USA when someone is accused of a crime, the court
records will show that 'the people have accused this person. In
other countries, it might be 'the state that makes the
accusation. But in Britain, it is 'the Crown-a reference to the
legal authority of the monarch. And when an accused person is
found guilty, he or she is sent to one of 'Her Majesty's' prisons.
The reality
In practice, of course, the reality is very different. In fact, the
Queen cannot just choose anyone to be Prime Minister. She has
to choose someone who will command majority support in the
House of Commons. This is because the law says that 'her'
government can only collect taxes with the agreement of the
Commons, so if she did not choose such a person, the
government would stop functioning, In practice, the person she
chooses is the leader of the strongest party in the Commons.
Similarly, it is really the Prime Minister who decides who the
other government ministers are going to be (although officially
the Prime Minister simply advises' the monarch who to
choose).
It is the same story with Parliament. Again, the Prime Minister
will talk about 'requesting' a dissolution of Parliament when he
or she wants to hold an election, but it would normally be
impossible for the monarch to refuse this 'request'. Similarly,
while in theory the Queen could refuse the royal assent to a bill
passed by Parliament, no monarch has actually done so since
the year 1708. Indeed, the royal assent is so automatic that the
Queen doesn't even bother to give it in person. Somebody else
signs the documents for her
. In reality, the Queen has almost no power at all. When she
opens Parliament each year, the speech she makes has been
written for her. She makes no secret of this fact. She very
obviously reads out the script that has been prepared for her,
word for word. If she strongly disagrees with one of the policies
of the government, she might ask the government ministers to
change the wording in the speech a little beforehand, but that is
all. She cannot actually stop the government going ahead with
any of its policies.
The royal family
Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother This was the official title of
the mother of Queen Elizabeth II. She died at the age of 101 in
2002. Her tours of bombed areas of London during the Second
World War with her husband, King George VI, made her popular
with the British people and she remained popular until her
death.
Queen Elizabeth II was born in 1926 and became Queen in
1952. At the time of writing, she is the second longest-reigning
monarch in British history. She is widely respected for the way
in which she performs her duties and is generally popular.
Prince Philip Mountbatten married Queen Elizabeth II in 1947,
His outspoken opinions on certain matters have sometimes
been embarrassing to the royal family.
Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales, was born in 1948. As the
eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, he is heir to
the throne. He is concerned about the environment and living
conditions in Britain's cities. He sometimes makes speeches
which are critical of aspects of modern life.
Princess Diana married Prince Charles in 1981. The couple
separated in 1992 and later divorced. Diana died in a car
accident in 1997. During her lifetime, she was a glamorous
figure and the public loved her. They felt able to identify with
her in a way that they could not with other "royals". (She was,
in fact, the first Englishwoman ever to marry an heir to the
throne.)
Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall married Prince Charles in 2005.
Her long relationship with Charles is widely believed to have
been a major cause of his separation from Diana. For this
reason, she is not very popular with the public. On the other
hand, people are generally sympathetic to those involved in
long-lasting love affairs, so it is likely that she will become more
popular (or at least less unpopular) as time passes.
Princess Anne is the Queen's daughter (also known as the
Princess Royal), and was born in 1950. She separated from her
husband after they had one son and one daughter. She married
again in 1992. She is widely respected for her charity work.
Prince Andrew, the Duke of York was born in 1960 and is the
Queen's second son. He is separated from his wife, Sarah
Ferguson (known to the popular press as 'Fergie'). They have
two daughters.
Prince Edward the Queen's youngest son, was born in 1964. He
married Sophie Rhys Jones in 1999. He and his wife are the Earl
and Countess of Wessex.
Prince William (born 1982) is the eldest son of Charles and
Diana and therefore the next in line to the throne after his
father. He and his brother Prince Henry (born 1984), like Charles
and Andrew. before them, have both embarked on military
careers.
The role of the monarch
What, then, is the monarch's role? Many opinions are offered
by political and legal experts. Three roles are often mentioned.
First, the monarch is the personal embodiment of the
government of the country: This means that people can be as
nasty as they like about the real government, and can argue
that it should be thrown out, without being accused of being
unpatriotic. Because of f the clear separation separation
between the symbol of government (the Queen) and the actual
government, changing the government does not threaten the
stability of the country Other countries without a monarch have
to use something else as the symbol of the country. In the USA,
for example, one of these is its flag, and to damage a copy of
the flag is actually a criminal offence .
Second, it is argued that the monarch is a possible final check
on a government that is becoming dictatorial. Just supposing
the government managed to pass a bill through Parliament
which was obviously terribly bad as well as being unpopular, the
monarch could refuse the royal assent. Similarly, it is possible
that if a Prime Minister who had been defeated at a general
election were to ask immediately for another dissolution of
Parliament (so that another election could take place), the
monarch could refuse the request and dismiss the Prime
Minister.
Third, the monarch has a very practical role to play. By being a
figurehead and representative of the country, Queen Elizabeth
II can perform the ceremonial duties which heads of state often
have to spend their time on. This way, the real government has
more time to get on with the actual job of running the country.
The value of the monarchy
However, all these advantages are hypothetical. It cannot be
proved that only a monarch can provide them. Other modern
democracies manage perfectly well without one. The real
importance of the British monarchy is probably less to do with
the system of government and more to do with social
psychology and economics (The economic argument). The
monarchy gives British people a symbol of continuity, and a
harmless outlet for expressions of national pride. It provides a
focus of reverence for those people who have a tendency to
hero-worship. Even in very hard times, Britain has never looked
like turning to a dictator to get it out of its troubles, and the
grandeur of its monarchy may have been one reason for this.
Occasions such as the state opening of Parliament, the Queen's
official birthday and royal weddings, as well as everyday
ceremonial events such as the changing of the guard, help to
make up for the lack of pageantry in people's lives. (There is no
countrywide tradition of local parades in Britain) In addition,
the glamorous lives of the royal provide a source of
entertainment that often takes on the characteristics of a soap
opera. The separation of Prince Charles and Princess Diana in
1992, for example, was accompanied by vast amounts of
discussion far beyond the possible political implications, even in
the more serious newspapers. Since the Princes 'Wills' and
'Harry' grew up, most of the press has been more interested in
their love lives than in the implications of their military roles in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
The future of the monarchy
The British monarchy as an institution has not been a burning
issue in British politics for several hundred years. There is
almost no public debate about the existence of the monarchy
itself. Very few people in Britain would use 'monarchist' or
'republican anti-monarchist as a defining feature of their
political beliefs, not even the minority who would like a
republic. Most people are either vaguely in favour, or they just
don't care one way or the other.
 There is, however, much debate about what kind of monarchy
Britain should have. During the last two decades of the
twentieth century, there was a general cooling of enthusiasm.
The Queen herself remained popular. But various marital
problems in her family lowered the prestige of royalty in many
people's eyes. The problem was that, since Queen Victoria's
reign, the public had been encouraged to look up to the royal
family as a model of Christian family life. When it became
obvious that the current royal family, as a whole, was no such
thing, the result was to give royalty a bad name.
The change in attitude can be seen by comparing Elizabeth's
twenty-fifth anniversary as Queen with her fiftieth anniversary
(her "Golden Jubilee). In 1977, there were neighbourhood
street parties throughout the country, most of them
spontaneously and voluntarily organized. But in 2002, nothing
like this took place. The BBC broadcast a live service of
thanksgiving but the occasion got no mention on the front
pages of most national newspapers. In 2008, a government
minister suggested that school children should be encouraged
to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen (in the same way
that American children swear allegiance to the flag). The public
showed little enthusiasm for this idea.
But there is nothing personal about this cooling of enthusiasm.
The Queen herself is widely admired. And, as she lives through
her eighties, this respect and affection for her will grow. She has
seen eleven Prime Ministers, invited more than a million people
to her garden parties and paid official visits to well over a
hundred countries.
The one aspect of the monarchy about which most people feel
consistently negative is how much it costs. In 1992, a fire
damaged Windsor Castle, one of the Queen's favourite homes.
There was public sympathy for the Queen, but when the
government announced that public money was going to pay for
the repairs, the sympathy quickly turned to anger. The Queen
had recently been reported as the richest woman in the world,
so people didn't see why she shouldn't pay for them herself! In
the same decade, public opinion forced her to decide that she
would start paying taxes on her private income and some
members of the royal family were dropped from the Civil List.
(This is the money which the Queen and some of her relatives
get from Parliament each year so that they can carry out
various public duties.)
People continue to believe that the royal family gets too much
money. Nevertheless, the monarchy remains broadly popular.
They appear unconvinced by republican arguments that it is an
outdated institution which prevents British people from living in
a true democracy or that it hinders genuine equality among
them. This is despite the fact that they realize the monarchy is
an anachronism. Opinion polls show that, although the vast
majority are in favour of the monarchy, they believe that Britain
will not have one 100 years from now.
The Queen herself is aware of the public perception. After the
fire at Windsor Castle, parts of Buckingham Palace (her official
London residence) were opened to public visitors for the first
time. The intention was to use the money raised to pay for the
repairs. But in fact, the palace, and some other royal
residences, have remained open to the paying public ever since.
Since that time, the queen has also cooperated in the making of
several TV documentaries about her everyday life. These
changes are perhaps an indication of the future royal style a
little less grand, a little less distant.