The Unofficial British Royal Family Pages

We live in the 21st century, the age of democracy and equality of opportunity. We elect our leaders and hold them accountable to our representatives and to the law. Despite all this, a significant proportion of the World's democracies have as their head of state an unelected, hereditary monarch, chosen by nothing more representative or accountable than chance of birth, and normally removable by nothing other than death. The status of these individuals defies the principle of equality and meritocracy. Why do we continue to accept it? What does monarchy give us that makes this apparent anachronism worth preserving?

Part of the answer probably lies in the principle "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". In Europe, monarchies have survived in countries which have remained relatively stable over long periods, evolving gradually into modern democracies, evolving the monarchy along with them. In their cases, there has been no sudden or radical shift in political philosophy, leaving the monarchy floundering as a symbol of the old and discredited regime. Monarchies have fallen as a result of revolution, invasion, or catastrophic defeat in war, but never (in Europe) through a lawfully taken decision of a legislature or constitutional process where no wider major conflicts were involved.

Whatever faults the British monarchy may have, they don�t appear to be enough to warrant its removal, or enough to outweigh the benefits. There are various constitutional and political arguments which may underline the benefits of its existence. Not all the arguments which apply to the British monarchy will apply to others (or even to other realms of Her Britannic Majesty), but I will concentrate here on the British arguments.

The constitutional argument puts the monarch at the centre of the state. Although she exercises very little power at her own discretion, the Queen is the central cog in the machinery of state, the common link between executive, legislature, judiciary, civil service, military, church and other institutions, and keeps them all working. The Crown embodies the central authority under which these other bodies operate; it gives the final stamp of approval, the Royal Assent, to legislation. In a country without a written constitution, the Crown is the source of all state authority (although it is still subject to the law of the land � its authority is not absolute) . The authority, and those who exercise it, could be codified in writing, and the particular functions of the Head of State granted to a President, but we would lose the flexibility of a constitution which can evolve to meet changing circumstances without the difficulties of a formal, and sometimes difficult, amendment process.

The existence of a hereditary monarch keeps the politicians in their place. However eminent a Prime Minister may become, he is always subject to a higher personal authority. Ambition, politicking and intrigue can never take someone to the highest office in the land, and he can never aggrandise himself by claiming to be the head and ultimate representative of the nation. A British Prime Minister can be verbally mauled in the legislature, and summarily dismissed by it, with a level of disrespect which few nations would be happy to show to their Head of State, but might like to inflict on their lesser politicians. Although, in practice, it is always the politicians who give the orders and run the country, if they go far beyond their authority, others can, in theory, defy them by claiming allegiance to the higher authority of the Crown, which is duty-bound to uphold the democratic order without personal interest or favour. This argument has never been put to the test in the UK, and has had mixed success elsewhere.

Proponents of a republic might argue that their head of state has at least been chosen by the people, and so has a right to command their respect, but the flip-side of that is that every elected president was opposed by a sizable section of the population, which may feel little loyalty or respect for the man they didn't want to represent it. While it is true that nobody ever voted for Elizabeth II, it is equally the case that not one person has ever rejected her at the ballot box either. While we have a vague idea where she stands on some issues, we don't really know her views in the way in which we would with a politician or ex-politician, and it is difficult to feel resentment towards a person who has never imposed, or attempted to impose, an unpopular policy on anyone. Personal loyalty is easier to achieve, and personal loyalty perhaps has more resonance than loyalty to an inanimate flag or amorphous state.

That loyalty is also easier to feel towards people with whom one has been familiar all one's life. With only the gradual changes of births and deaths, the Royal Family has always been with us, without the constant changes which come with elections every few years. By the same token, members of the Royal Family know from an early age that their lives will be ones of public duty, and are brought up in that ethos, in a way which a private citizen is usually not. As a result, they rarely go wrong in their public role, even though they may be no more successful than the rest of us in achieving ideal private lives.

�Monarchy� means rule by one person, but modern monarchies can offer more than the services of one person, or one person plus a spouse, because they are supported by a royal family. The Queen alone is responsible for the constitutional functions of the monarch, but she can delegate other duties (such as investitures) when necessary to other members of the family, all as well-known and familiar as herself. Part of what gives constitutional monarchy an enhanced social role is its ability to espouse many worthy causes, and take the time to attend events and functions without having to take time out of the essential job of running the country to do so; and that role is greatly enhanced further by the fact that there are a number of princes and princesses to carry it out. By contrast, an individual non-executive President in a parliamentary republic is more limited in number of roles he can play and causes he can espouse.

As well as the familiarity with the members of today�s monarchy, the Crown also gives a sense of continuity with the past, in a way which a very modern institution doesn�t, and in a more personalized way than a non-hereditary, older institution can. It is instinctively conservative, and can preserve and represent traditions which date back centuries; its current representatives are the descendants of its former ones, and its family continuity over centuries enhances the sense of identity with a nation�s own history and culture.

The nation wouldn�t fall apart without the monarchy. Its culture isn�t entirely dependent on royalty, and ways can be found to preserve traditions and handle the constitutional issues which its absence would create (in fact, some would argue that such issues would be better dealt with through a written constitution, with clearly defined powers for the institutions of state). Because of its enduring nature, its importance can be romantically overemphasized. It�s not an institution which could be created today embodying all the features which give it its distinctive character, because its history is part of what makes it distinctive. But given that it exists and that it enhances the character of the nation, it would be a shame to lose it.

- Paul James