This article explained some points on which I have been curious, especially with regard to Queen Elizabeth II.
The British monarchy, an institution that epitomizes the heritage and long history of its country, has come under increasing criticism in the past decade as an archaic relic badly in need of an overhaul if it is to earn its place in the 21st century. What does the future hold? Will it survive? Royal correspondent Alan Hamilton of The Times of London offers his predictions for the future of the ever-adapting monarchy.
The Future of the British Monarchy
By Alan Hamilton
When Diana, Princess of Wales, tragically died in a car crash in Paris, France, in August 1997, the whole world’s heart missed a beat. The mountains of flowers that piled up at the gates of London’s palaces were an unprecedented sight; many of people thought it medieval, as though the crowd was paying homage to a holy relic.
To her huge and adoring public, Diana embodied the all-too-scarce values of human care and concern. She was never afraid to be a frontline soldier in the fight against unfashionable areas of human misery, whether comforting dying AIDS patients or campaigning against land mines in Africa. And, like all the best heroines, she had her own tragic streak—having an unhappy childhood and a history of eating disorders, being shunned by the old guard of the monarchy into which she married, and finally getting a divorce from the next king of England.
Millions of people saw her as a vibrant, living being to whom they could easily relate, and a hurricane of fresh air blowing through Britain’s oldest secular institution. Inevitably her death brought calls for the British crown to become less stuffy, less hidebound by protocol and tradition, and more people-friendly in a vague kind of way that few could precisely define. The people did not want to abolish their monarchy; they just wanted to feel closer to it.
Of course, the monarchy is about people, and its worth is judged to a large extent by the characters of its principal players at any given time. But Queen Elizabeth II does not exist to be the leading lady in a family soap opera for the public’s entertainment; she is the constitutional head of state of 16 countries around the world, including the United Kingdom. Her faultless conduct in that role has often been obscured in the last decade by the trials and follies of her immediate family.
Elizabeth has had much to contend with: from the buffoonery of her daughter-in-law Sarah, Duchess of York, to the acrimonious parting of Charles and Diana, with its televised confessions of adultery on both sides. But, in the long term, these foibles will be seen as no more than minor dents in the side of the throne. The real debate and the significant change revolve around whether the cumbersome apparatus of the monarchy, perceived by many to be too big, too expensive, and too out of touch with its people, is giving the country value for its money.
That the debate is taking place at all is partly a result of the Diana effect; her fresh approach and the public sympathy for her at the time of her separation from Charles in 1992, helped raise questions about the existing structure of the monarchy and its style. Was the queen making enough contact with her humbler subjects? Did her court really have to be run by retired cavalry officers with little knowledge of modern accounting and management? Was the monarchy soaking up too much of the taxpayers’ money? Did a dozen or more of the queen’s family really have to be supported by public funds?
The British crown has a long history. Its origin is usually traced to Egbert of Wessex, who united a nation of warring tribes when he was recognized as sovereign over the English kingdoms in 829. It has survived because it has constantly adapted or been forced to adapt. King Charles I lost his head to the executioner during the 17th century English Civil War because he would not change his style of rule.
The crown has long been stripped of most of its real power and is almost entirely symbolic. However, Queen Elizabeth, who was dealing with her sixth government and tenth prime minister by 1997, undoubtedly exercises a discreet degree of influence that comes from such a long reign and accumulation of experience. Almost her every official act is done on the advice of her elected government minister: She summons and dissolves Parliament, appoints prime ministers, declares war, gives royal assent to bills, appoints important church positions and public offices, pardons the convicted, and confers honors. Behind her every act is her prime minister and government, or her Privy Council, a group of close advisers drawn from all major political parties. A major factor in Queen Elizabeth’s enduring success and popularity is her perfect understanding of her constitutional role and her refusal to ever be drawn into politics.
Her true function is above politics. It is to be the figurehead and the embodiment of the nation, and the guarantee that the nation continues to exist. The role grows in importance as Britain surrenders major decision-making to the European Union (EU), headquartered in Brussels, Belgium, and at the same time offers a degree of self-government to its constituent parts of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
To retain its validity, the crown must still court popularity and be seen to be a proper representative of its people; otherwise it will come to be regarded as irrelevant. In a country struggling to retain its position as one of the world’s most advanced and developed nations, and to dispel an image that it is stuck in the past of old privilege and aristocracy, the monarchy matters less and less.
The queen has long sensed—and been quietly told by her ministers—that there is a desire for a more slimmed-down and cost-effective monarchy, without completely destroying its color, ceremony, and tradition. Changes during the 1990s have been significant and far-reaching. She has taken direct control of most of the crown’s budget away from government departments. Elizabeth has also appointed astute businesspeople from London’s world-class financial industry, in place of old-style courtiers, to run the monarchy with ruthless efficiency. She has agreed to pay income tax; opened up Buckingham Palace to tourists and used the proceeds to restore fire-damaged Windsor Castle; and had reluctantly parted with her elegant but increasingly expensive royal yacht. From 1991 to 1998 the total cost of running the monarchy (excluding security) dropped from 55 million pounds sterling to 47 million pounds sterling.
In the days immediately following Diana’s death, the public clamored for the queen to return to London from her Scottish retreat; it was as though the nation, at a moment of great grief, wanted its mother. She resisted for five days, arguing that her place was in the bosom of her family, comforting her bereaved grandsons. When she arrived in London the day before the funeral, she seemed almost overwhelmed by the sight of the floral tributes. In an impressive live television address, she acknowledged that the lessons of Diana would have to be learned.
Although the set-up is slimmer and more cost-conscious, the post-Diana changes of style in the monarchy have been, to put it mildly, small. A flag now flies from the Palace roof at all times, suggesting that it might again be lowered to half-mast at future moments of national mourning. And there have been token attempts to insert more down-to-earth visits into the queen’s program. The Palace also issued a reminder that bowing and curtsying before the monarch are quite unnecessary. Most people will, of course, continue to do it; what is the point of a monarch who is not shown respect?
Queen Elizabeth, now in her 70s and approaching a half-century in the job, has done much to adapt her office to a more cost-conscious age. But she is at heart a traditionalist, and it is hardly likely at her time of life that she will make sweeping changes to her own personal style of monarchy. She knows that continuity is the crown’s strongest suit. A significant change of approach must wait for the accession of Charles, a man very much of the people—and a man who has largely recovered his reputation now that he is seen as a devoted and caring single parent. He may conduct a quite different style of monarchy, although it is unlikely that his long-term friend, Camilla Parker Bowles, will play any formal part in it, even as a wife in the background. In time, however, the public will doubtless shake off its hypocrisy and accept her openly as the king’s mistress. It would not make him a worse king.
The true legacy of Diana will not be minor shufflings of the royal engagement diary to satisfy some vague desire to be more in touch with the people. She has given the crown its long-term future in the shy, intelligent, and handsome Prince William. With William to look forward to, the British are unlikely to be clamoring to abolish the monarchy any time soon.
About the author: Alan Hamilton is the Royal Correspondent for The Times of London. He wrote The Royal Handbook (1986), a guide to the Royal Family; The Royal 100 (1986), which traces the first 100 people in line of succession to the British throne; and The Real Charles (1988), a definitive biography of Prince Charles on his 40th birthday.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.