The Relevance of the British Monarchy

[Sukerkin]

We've had quite a bit of discourse and somewhat bitter wrangling of late around the progress of the current American political scene.

As one of the resident Limey's here at MartialTalk, I thought it might be interesting as a change of pace to see what the membership thought on a topic central to British political life.

Off and on for a couple of decades or more now there have been recurrent themes in the media output as to just how relevant to political reality the Monarchy is any more.

I don't want to queer the pitch by putting my own views 'out front', so I'll just trail a couple of 'hooks' in the water and see what comes up:

Does the Monarchy serve a useful purpose still in the 21st century?

If the answer to the above is "No!", then why do we still maintain one in the present day?

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Well, as I understand it the British Monarchy is a Parliamentary rather than Absolute Monarchy, So while the Monarch is not, in a true sense, merely a "figurehead", there is still the Parliament through which legislation must be vetted.

Have we not ourselves, on this side of the pond, over the last few years, been feeling the effect of what happens when any single person/arm of government gathers too much power.

 

[Sukerkin]

It's actually more the other way round, Andy.

Altho' it has not been done for a century, the Monarch still has the legal power to send legislation back to the government unsigned in the most monumentally humiliating display of "Please rethink this" that a politician can suffer.

She (or he as it will be soon) can also summarily dissolve Parliament if she wishes and given where the oathes of the military lie that is no empty threat.

Again, this has not been done for a very long time. The monarchy now thinks, more properly, in the longer term and gently seeks to steer things in the direction desired. If a government does 'not suit', then wait a bit - it'll soon be gone.

For me, that is one of the massive strengths of the Parliamentary Democratic system and why I so deeply objected to the changes made to the House of Lords. The monarch and the Lords are a hefty counterbalance to the media-driven, sound-bite fueled, short-term goals of an elected Parliament. Think of them lke the flywheel on an engine - without it the whole system revs erratically and responds to every little change that comes to it via feedback from the transmission.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Thanks for educating me on the aspects i didn't know.

Yeah I can see how that might leave one uneasy.

 

[theletch1]

You commented about the oaths of the military. Given your question there must be those in the society that feel that the Monarchy has run it's course. Do you feel that enough folks in the military would set aside their oaths and refuse to enforce such a decision? As you've had the government that you've had for such a long time wouldn't such an act as dissolving Parliament be enough to potentially cause a revolution in the UK?

 

[Sukerkin]

That's a very interesting question, Jeff.

I can only speak for the soldiers I have personally known and they have a 100% record of stating that if it came to a confrontation between the Government and the Crown, then their loyalty lies with the Crown. That's who they swore to serve and protect.

I don't think it would come to that tho' - unless we got a BNP Government by some freak happenstance .

The general feeling amonst the population is, from my not-so-very-calibrated Gut Sensor, is that the Crown has a very important stabalising role to play. The media trying to play Hob with various indescretions in the recent past (for reference, we call a couple of decades 'recent') did cause some problems but 'normal service' has been resumed.

The big upset was the death of Diana and the swarm of conspiracies about that. She was enormously popular and goes to show that sometimes one person can really affect things, one way or the other.

If it came to something so hugely dramatic as dissolving Parliament, I feel that most people would respond with a great positivism - an "about time" backlash against a system nearly all of us consider to be 'bankrupt' both morally and in the practical terms of achieving anything useful.

 

[theletch1]

As an American I almost envy you your centuries of history. It would seem to make it a little easier to keep your "loyalty compass" if you will better centered. What would being patriotic mean to a Brit? Would it mean loyalty to the crown or to the country? Do you see a difference in the two or do most Brits view them as one in the same with Parliament being the other choice for loyalty?

 

[Sukerkin]

Another good question. Obviously I can only answer for me as an individual on that one.

That would actually depend on the the specific person on the throne and who was next in line but ordinarily, the Country and the Crown are One for me. We've not had to endure a truly atrocious monarch for centuries and that makes it very easy, as you say, to keep your Loyalty Compass unperturbed.

I might not always agree entirely with the Crown's position on an issue but they have yet to declare something I find so reprehensible that I cannot in good faith hold my loyalty to the monarch.

Loyalty to Parliament? No, that's not really a choice.

How can I explain this in everyday 'human' terms? The Monarch is held in regard somehat like your respected Grandparent. They don't seem to do a great lot on the surface but they're working at holding everything together underneath and whilst they might sometimes irritate you or do something daft, you still love them.

The Government (House of Commons particularly) has a much more "What have you done for me lately?" relationship with the people. They're more akin to business aquaintencies with whom the strength of fellow feeling waxes and wanes depending on whether they have most recently helped or harmed us.

 

[Twin Fist]

i would be willing to bet that the monarchy is alot more dear to the average English citizen than they realize.

 

[Makalakumu]

This is just my opinion, but I am personally of the mind that ALL monarchies probably need to be relegated to the dustbin of history. I understand that a lot of countries place a lot of cultural value upon their Crown and that its very wrapped up in the very identity of the nation, however, I think that these figures and families have far more power and influence then is implied from the "figurehead" status they are mostly thought of.

For one thing, these families have large holdings of land and huge fortunes that are, for the most part, uncounted, unregulated, and often subsidized by the state. This alone gives these families a huge advantage in politics when it comes to how much influence they can exert on the system.

Secondly, the connections, both personal and cultural run so deep that often a word from a King or Queen can shape the direction of a society far more efficiently then any bit of legislation. There is no democratic will behind these action, only the independent will of a mind steeped in priviledge.

Thirdly, although the legal powers of the monarchy are often underutilized or not used at all, these are a threat to the democratic institutions and the will of the people. One never knows when the ax will fall on a popular and needed initiative. If people are going to be considered equal and imbued with "natural human rights" then individuals who can weild this kind of power over the will of the masses just cannot exist. IMHO, it contradicts the very concept of "human rights."

Fourthly, lastly, and most importantly, currency. Oftentimes Monarchs have some influence on a countries ability to produce and control its own currency. Mostly, this duty is delegated to a central bank, but the monarch reserves the right to interfere and is thus consulted on important financial matters regarding currency. What people need to realize is that this gives these individuals complete control over everything that happens in the country. More then any democratic legislation could ever accomplish, control of the currency is the single most effective way to direct a society toward whatever end is decided upon.

This is a power that every society NEEDS to have under a democratic umbrella, but for "some reason" its either been delegated to private interests or Monarchs. My gut says that these private interests and Monarchs are very interelated...

 

[Sukerkin]

I'd be interested in reading your sources that brought those ideas to you, mauna because, from the perspective of the English monarchy at least, they do not match the socio-political reality over here. Indeed, the Parliamentary Democracy is a very successful form of government precisely because of the existence of the monarch.

Without legitimacy, you have nothing and without power you have nothing. A Republic is no different in it's core except that the 'ruling class' is better hidden under the mask of the ballot.

Sadly, I have to run as I'm off to wield the weapons of another ruling class, now sadly gone i.e. it's time for iai .

 

[tellner]

Monarchies can be relevant and important in the 21st century. A king was the right choice for post-Franco Spain. It works for Thailand, Bhutan, Vatican City and most of the Arab world.

But I really question if the British monarchy serves any useful purpose. The "residual powers" don't serve as any kind of check on the majority Party in Parliament. If Parliament wants to pass a bill and the queen sends it back unsigned there will be some embarassment. But it will go through. A year later everyone will have a good laugh about it.

If the monarch gets out of line he or she gets a firm talking-to from the PM's representative. Consider what happened some years back when Charles spoke up about social issues (housing I believe). He was scolded and contritely apologized. Parliament even has final veto powers over who the royals marry. Henry VIII would have hanged the lot of them for thinking such a thing.

The Lords in a very real sense are the extension of the monarchy into the Legislature. Their titles and right to sit there come from titles handed out by the monarchy. In theory, the Earl of Blandings could be told to hand in his title, lands and be tossed out into the rain with the Empress (bonus points for anyone who catches the reference) since the title derives from the Crown. In practice that would never happen of course.

The House of Lords is the most worthless excuse for an Upper Chamber in the history of Parliamentary democracy. It can't introduce legislation. It can't stop legislation. I can't remember if it can even hold up legislation anymore. It serves no more useful function than the vermiform appendix.

Even the Tories talk about the value of the king or queen as a symbol or tourist attraction. You can pick a symbol which doesn't cost hundreds of millions a year to maintain. People can watch the changing of the Guard even if Betty Battenburg isn't actually in the palace. Papparazzi could find other people to catch with their shirts off.

I can think of one scenario which could make today's monarchy relevant. If there are any members of the International Monarchist League reading, please loosen all restrictive clothing and try not to get too excited.

Prince Bill decides he wants to devote full time attention to wine, women and song and hands the job off to his kid brother, the only person that close to the throne in centuries who has done actually work with regular people. Warrior Prince Hal - isn't that a name to conjure with - takes a leaf from Napoleon and puts the crown on his own head and takes the name Arthur John Louis Elvis the First. He has his old regiment and the Lifeguards surround Parliament and drag every Member out one by one to swear personal fealty to their Sovereign or get tossed into newly refurbished rooms in the Tower.

Barring that the monarchy will continue its final descent into complete irrelevance and will probably disappear within our lifetime.

 

[Makalakumu]

A Republic is no different in it's core except that the 'ruling class' is better hidden under the mask of the ballot.

Aye, this is true, but its not a good thing, nor does it excuse any other classes excesses.

The British Monarchy may be a very successful style of government, yet I still maintain that entirely too much power rests in a culturally enshrined "figurehead" for the good of the nation. Even if the powers of the Queen are never exercised.

I'm curious, Sukerkin, how much power does the Queen of England still maintain?

Specifically - What are her holdings and total wealth? Is this a real number? How do you know?

How much cultural influence does the Queen weild through her reputation and status as Queen? How much do her words influence your society?

What are the actual legal powers of the Queen of England? I think you may have answered this above thread, but is there more?

Lastly, how much control does the Queen of England have on the British Pound? I know that in the past, the Bank of England was literally a creature of the Crown. This was one of the major reasons for the American Revolution. How much has this changed?

My first post was more general in nature formed by recycled bits of reading and pub conversation throughout the various countries that I've visited. I am, by no means, a serious scholar on this matter and I could be completely off base.

 

[Makalakumu]

Barring that the monarchy will continue its final descent into complete irrelevance and will probably disappear within our lifetime.

I don't know for sure, Tellner, but I think that you are underestimating the power and influence of the Queen of England. That rant was good enough to get your bell rung in many British pubs...and that alone goes to show how much influence these figures still have on the culture.

I see your points, but I'm not sure I agree with them completely.

 

[Sukerkin]

I have often been in on debates about American based institutions and I'm sure that I must have said things there that have made my trans-Atlantic friends startle with "Where does he get that idea?" reactions :lol:.

Why do you think the above things about the Lords, Todd? I know you didn't just make them up and you're too intelligent not to research first, so, again like Mauna, I wonder where this not-quite-right information is coming from? [EDIT]: Whilst I was typing John replied to an earlier post and asked some more questions. I'll get back to them in a bit - the gardens thirsty :lol:].

All I can say it is it isn't so.

I won't beat about the bush, this is what the House says on the matter of what they do:

The Lords work in Parliament’s second chamber – the House of Lords – and complement and operate alongside the business of the House of Commons. It is one of the busiest second chambers in the world. The expertise of its Members and flexibility to scrutinise an issue in depth means the Lords makes a significant contribution to Parliament’s work. The UK public does not elect Members of the Lords.


Making laws


Making laws takes up the bulk of the House of Lords time, and Members are involved throughout the process of proposing, revising and amending legislation. Some Bills introduced by the Government begin in the Lords to spread the workload between the two Houses.

Judicial work

The House of Lords is the highest court in the land: the supreme court of appeal. A group of salaried, full-time judges known as Law Lords carries out this judicial work.

Checking the work of government

Lords check the work of the Government by questioning and debating decisions made by ministers and government departments.

Specialist committees

There are permanent committees investigating work relating to Europe, science and technology, economics and the constitution. Occasionally one-off committees are set up to deal with issues outside these areas.


As to the Royal House itself, the reason why Charles got asked not to be so outspoken is that he has no authority to influence policy as yet - he's only Heir to the Throne. Whilst that may give him considerable prestige, part of the mores and codes of the system is that he doesn't rock the boat for his mothers ministers.

The rules in place on Royal marriage are grounded in very sensible reasons ... if you happened to be alive during the terrible civil strife that surrounded the Catholic and Protestant inspired wars. I think the most modern D) relevant law is part of the Settlement Act (or somesuch) from the early 18th Century and is predicated on previous legislation aimed at keeping the Catholics from sneaking back in to British nobility. They are in the process of being repealed.

As to whether denying Royal Assent would achieve anything, we can only speculate. It's not something that would be done lightly and I think that the government would be ill advised in the extreme to pass anything through which Mrs. Queen stands against. The Monarchy stands aside from the political process and precisely because they do that gives them a perspective that is very useful. The Lords act more directly in this fashion but the Monarch still could if she chose. A few ex-PM's writings have revealed that sometimes laws are drafted very carefully for the very reason that they have to pass under her eyes - do not underestimate the power of the embarassment of being the PM that presented a Bill to the Crown and had it refused.

On the supposed 'cost' of the Monarchy. It's an economic bargain and if I were of the Royal Family I'd be kicking up a right fuss. The only 'costs' to the government come from the Civil List. That's what it costs to have the Queen and the rest of the Royal House perform the functions of the Head of State.

Here're a few sample figures and explanations taken from an article about this very subject (handy that ):

The Queen and her Household has four sources of funding - the Civil List, Grant-in-Aid, the Privy Purse and private income.

The first two, which cover official expenditure, are not taxed, the Privy Purse is fully taxable subject to a deduction for official expenditure, and the Queen pays tax on her personal income and capital gains.

The Civil List is the sum provided by Parliament to meet the official expenses of the Queen as Head of State. About 70% of Civil List expenditure goes to pay the salaries of staff working directly for the Queen. Their duties include dealing with State papers, and organising the Queen's public engagements, meetings, receptions and official entertainment, including Royal Garden Parties. In other words, the whole range of activities expected of a Head of State, whether president or monarch.

The Civil List as it currently exists was created on the accession of King George III in 1760, when it was decided that the cost of government should be provided by Parliament. In return, and in a move described by John Brooke in his biography of the King as "from the point of view of the Crown ... the most disastrous step that could have been taken", he surrendered the hereditary royal revenue. This included income from the customs and post office and the net surplus of the Crown Estate. The £132.9 million profit of the Crown Estate for year ending March 31st 2000 was paid to the Exchequer for the benefit of taxpayers. This sum far exceeds the total cost of the monarchy. The Queen's Civil List has been fixed at £7.9 million per annum until 2011. Full details of Royal Household expenditure are published.

The Queen Mother and Prince Philip are the only other members of the Royal Family to receive annuities from the Civil List, of £643,000 and £359,000 respectively. The annuities of other members of the Royal Family who carry out engagements on Her Majesty's behalf are provided by the Queen from the Privy Purse. The revenue for this is obtained from the Duchy of Lancaster, an independent possession of the Sovereign since 1399. It is not included in the National Asset Register of Government holdings published by HM Treasury. The Prince of Wales derives his income, on which he pays tax, from the Duchy of Cornwall.

The Occupied Royal Palaces, principally Buckingham Palace, St.James's Palace, Clarence House, parts of Kensington Palace and Windsor Castle are funded by Grants-in-Aid. Obviously, they would be maintained by the State whether Britain were a monarchy or not.

The Unoccupied Palaces, such as the Tower of London and Hampton Court, are maintained from visitor admissions.

Royal transport, required to enable the Royal Family to carry out almost 3000 engagements a year, is also funded by Grant-in-Aid. Of course, official travel would also have to be paid for, if Britain were a republic.

Privately, the Queen owns Balmoral and Sandringham and some smaller properties. Estimates of the Queen's wealth have often been wildly exaggerated, as they mistakenly include items which are held by the Queen as Sovereign on behalf of the nation and are not her private property. These include the Royal Palaces, Art Collection, Crown Jewels and so on. Far from being Britain's wealthiest person, the Queen is 105th on The Sunday Times 2001 Rich List.

The annual cost of the monarchy is approximately £37 million. For details see www.royal.gov.uk

In republics not only do presidents have to be supported financially, as do former presidents and widows, but their official duties have to be paid for, and official and historic residences maintained.

And there is the added expense of periodic elections. Republics show great reluctance in publishing the cost of their heads of state, but the cost of the British monarchy compares extremely favourably.

Now that's a lot of electrons I've just thrown at the screen and tho' many of them are not directly about the relevance of the Monarchy to the political landscape of Britain I hope they at least shed a little light for a few people on matters they might have know nothing about before.

 

[tellner]

Update: My wife just came up with a zinger...

"Britain needs a good revolution. If it won't come from the bottom up it might as well come from the top down."

I may be underestimating the power and influence of the Crown. But as I said, the last time the Prince of Wales said something the PM didn't like the political establishment was shocked. What the Government wants the government gets. Period. It's not the place of the royals to make their opinions heard, let alone make changes in policy. They aren't even allowed to choose whom they marry. Parliament has final veto power over that.

My scenario for relevance was a little extreme, but I honestly think it's in the right direction. Every decade of the twentieth century has seen a reduction in what the monarchy does, its power, relevance, functions and perceived usefulness. Fifty years ago talk of eliminating it entirely would have been unthinkable outside of a few Communists. Today it gets floated regularly on the BBC and in major newspapers. If the monarchy wants to be anything but a sentimental relic it will have to find a role for itself outside the slow genteel decline of the last ninety years.

Are people still attached to the idea of a King or Queen? Certainly. But the people who matter are increasingly comfortable with the idea of getting rid of it.

 

[tellner]

In other words, Sukerkin, when you take away the verbiage it's still essentially powerless, toothless and useless like I said. They make laws, but only the ones that Commons wants. They don't have the power of an actual chamber since they can not stop laws which the lower chamber passes. They have no power over the purse. They have personal influence but no vote where it counts.

All of these special committees and the ability to suggest changes come down to the ability to cooperate with the Party in power or to register personal opinions. That's not an upper chamber in a bicameral legislature. It's a debate society with the ability to rubber stamp not unlike the Canadian Senate.

 

[Makalakumu]

A lot of commonwealth countries have outright dissolved their House of Lords. New Zealand got rid of theirs in the 80's and went fully toward a MMR form of democracy.

 

[Ahriman]

: off:
Sukerkin, I thought about a similar thread about Hungary, but I realized that it's so far off that no one could have real comments...
: off:
"Are people still attached to the idea of a King or Queen? Certainly. But the people who matter are increasingly comfortable with the idea of getting rid of it."
Yes, and if they succeed they might find that the earlier method was better. While people love to hear what they want to hear (democracy) but they, on the long run, prefer stable and predictable systems, and democracy is nothing like that. I don't know how did the USA survive in being a democracy for so long, but in the 1008 years of Hungarian history we had 3 democratic periods (1848-49, 1956, 1990-???) and most of our "golden ages" were directly linkable to a restoration of a monarchy or to the monarch's power revival (Matthias Corvinus, Zsigmond of Luxemburg, Róbert Károly, etc), and so far all of our social-economical catastrophes were directly linkable to either oligarches appearing or foreign invasion or making Hungary a democracy.
But - all this may be because Hungarians are mostly selfish, deceitful and corrupt.

 

[Sukerkin]

The British Monarchy may be a very successful style of government, yet I still maintain that entirely too much power rests in a culturally enshrined "figurehead" for the good of the nation. Even if the powers of the Queen are never exercised.

I can see why a person might hold a negative view on such but for me I find it reassuring that there someone aside from the party-political merry-go-round who has the authority to call a halt to things.

I'm curious, Sukerkin, how much power does the Queen of England still maintain?

It depends to an extent on who you ask.

A Parliamentarian would say rather as Todd has about the House of Lords i.e. the Queen is a figure head who does what she is allowed.

A Monarchist will tell you that the powers held in reserve are still as real as they ever were - given that all oathes are sworn to the Crown, anyone breaking those oathes is guilty of treason.

Specifically - What are her holdings and total wealth? Is this a real number? How do you know?

The simple and unhelpful answer is I don't know. Other than the vague term of "LOTS!" . There are some insights in my previous large post about how much money the Government leaches off the Crown each year (about four times what they give back). As with any huge financial organisation, only the accountants and lawyers will really know.

How much cultural influence does the Queen weild through her reputation and status as Queen? How much do her words influence your society?

Again, that depends on the individual and how brassed off with politicians they are. I've had a few educated friends of late wistfully pondering about a return to a 'proper' monarchy. I've done so myself in the past but have come to the conclusion that what we have now is best as it staves off the Jackboots on two fronts, preventing either Crown or Commons holding all the cards.

One thing to bear in mind is the Crown leaves us alone whilst the Commons screw up all our lives constantly whilst vigourously gouging us for taxes.

Also, the Royal PR machine has finally gotten around, in recent years, to making it more widely known just how hard the Monarchy works (I wouldn't want the Monarch's role that's for sure). So there has been a big resurgence of support. To be precise, that's for the Queen in particular rather than the Royal House as a whole - tho' Prince Phillip is pretty popular too {we love how he just takes no **** and says what he thinks and heaven take the hindmost :lol}.

The cultural influence is fairly deep actually, tho' I suspect that most people don't acknowledge a personal influence. That doesn't mean it's not there mind you. I was at Silverstone (race circuit) the other year with a friend of mine who's an artilleryman and when the national anthem was played at the end of a race, he stood up to attention. I didn't want him to feel embarassed standing there on his own, so I started to get up to stand with him ... only to realise that all about us a great many people were doing the same thing.

The Crown and the Country are One. As Ahriman said earlier - people like stability. Governments chopping and changing all over the place, pulling in different directions and never getting anything done, that just pisses everyone off. The fact that the Crown is there, always, reassures us.

What are the actual legal powers of the Queen of England? I think you may have answered this above thread, but is there more?

I hope that this may lay out quite a bit of detail. I've not read in depth so don't hesitate to ask again if it doesn't:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/textonly/Page4691.asp

Lastly, how much control does the Queen of England have on the British Pound? I know that in the past, the Bank of England was literally a creature of the Crown. This was one of the major reasons for the American Revolution. How much has this changed?

If I recall correctly, the Bank of England is not owned by the Crown, nor is it owned by the Government. Technically it's owned by all of us but overseen by the Government whilst the Queen appoints it's governor. It was Nationalised in the 1940's but has been through a few changes since then with regard to it's role and how it's 'managed'.

My Economics degree equips me to say what it does but not how it's run . I'll have to go back to data mining on that one but this link seems promising:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980011_en_1

My first post was more general in nature formed by recycled bits of reading and pub conversation throughout the various countries that I've visited. I am, by no means, a serious scholar on this matter and I could be completely off base.

Don't worry my friend, it was part and parcel of my whole point with making this to get peoples views and opinions :tup:.


Addressing Todds re-iterated points about the legislated power of the House of Lords (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldbrief/ldwork.htm), I'm not going to try and argue per se.

My view is that the system is more finely balanced than you might think. It's not a binary situation where there either 1) is power or 0) isn't power. Democratic system don't work that way; it's all compromises and concessions.

Just because the Lord's cannot hold up a Bill for more than a year does not mean they have no influence. Timing is everything in some matters so the Houses have to play along to get along. Also, a government that forces Bills through regardless of the Lords is not a government destined for longevity.


As a post script about how more directly relevant the Crown used to be, this is a New York Times article from the late 19th Century:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E07EEDE123FEE3ABC4051DFB767838B699FDE