I’ve always considered myself a monarchist. The response to the recent death of Prince Phillip—an exceptional public servant in spite of his many and notorious gaffes—highlights the enduring popularity of the institution, and its centrality to British life. The history of the monarchy in the UK is so intrinsically bound up with that of the country itself that it can be hard to imagine how one might excise it. The Scrutonian sentiment that a good thing created with great difficulty should not be hastily destroyed springs to mind. And, in many ways, the monarchy is a very good thing.
The Crown embodies the nation in a way that no other person or institution could. The Queen is a peerless figurehead, a soothing permanence in the face of loss or difficulty and a standard bearer in victory. While they serve a similar purpose, heads of government—like the US president or the German chancellor—carry political, often partisan, baggage. As impossibly unrepresentative as she is as an individual, as the personification of the Crown, the Queen represents her constituents in a way that a politically elected officeholder does not. Whatever your political stripes, the Crown is always there to represent you.
For many, the ceremonial functions of the monarchy are a compelling reason for its perpetuation. I’m less convinced. Bastille Day, for example, lacks no pomp and ceremony for want of a monarch. Rather more important is the Crown’s role in UK government, and its embodiment of the power of the state. Our unwritten constitution, much like common law, has gradually evolved into its present state over centuries. There is much to criticise and to improve there. But the comparative stability and efficacy it has delivered are evidence that it works and works well—better than any alternative form of government. One doesn’t have to be of a conservative mindset to accept that one ought to be very careful about making fundamental changes to it.
But in spite of the monarchy’s status and strengths and the love and goodwill it engenders, there is a moral poison at its heart, which endangers its survival. Contemporary liberal principles of justice and fairness allow no room for the elevation of one family over others as a matter of birth right. This is an arbitrary way of selecting a head of state. It was tenuous even in the sixteenth century. It is wholly incompatible with modern values. So long as we remain a liberal people—and it seems likely that we shall—the Crown is existentially threatened: all it will take is a single unpopular monarch to bring the entire institution down, potentially taking a wrecking ball to our system of government at the same time.
This is where battle lines are normally drawn between monarchists and republicans. The former have no shortage of ingenious arguments in favour of the status quo, but those arguments are unable to gain any purchase against the single, overriding injustice of heredity. But there is a simple solution that doesn’t require throwing out the baby with the bathwater: a monarchy doesn’t have to be hereditary.
Prince William would make a popular monarch. So let’s elect him, or set up a commission answerable to the government to appoint him. The appointment could be for five years or ten, for a fixed term or renewable—we can sort out the specifics another day. Or we could appoint Sir David Attenborough or Stephen Fry. Any of them could perform the duties of a monarch with aplomb, serve as a figurehead, represent all the subjects of the country and Commonwealth, and epitomise our most dearly held values.
Or we could go one better, and appoint a monarch from somewhere in the Commonwealth. Imagine how thrilled Canadians would be if Wayne Gretzky or Celine Dion were appointed to the role, or Australians if we elected Hugh Jackman or Kylie Minogue. The possibilities for strengthening the Commonwealth and promoting its shared values globally are enormous.
You’ll note that none of these suggested monarchs are politicians. The ardent monarchist always recoils at the suggestion of an elected head of state because such figures seem so grey and soulless compared to royalty. This goes to the crux of what two thirds of Britons want to avoid when they tell pollsters that they would rather keep the monarchy than elect a head of state. Your average man on the street has no idea that Germany has a president, let alone who he is or what he does. But this is because ceremonial heads of state are professional politicians, not because they are elected. Given a very carefully curated shortlist of the right people, you could ensure a perpetual succession of monarchs who continue to inspire and impress in the way that Queen Elizabeth has.
Some monarchists argue that the magic is in the family itself—that it’s because the monarchy is hereditary, one family above all others, that the Crown is adored at home and abroad. This is not supported by history. The precedent for an elective monarchy in the UK goes all the way back to King John, who was elected by a council of nobles in 1199. Parliament elected a number of monarchs over the subsequent five centuries, famously culminating with the 1689 election of William of Orange. The monarchy survived all these transitions: what makes them materially different from a modern democratic transition?
The idea that tourists line up to see Buckingham Palace because the incumbent is the daughter of George VI is true only in its most literal sense. It would be a very straightforward matter for us to have all the things we love most about the monarchy, without its biggest drawback. Trading our hereditary monarchy for an elective one would allow us to retain all the monarchy’s historical and symbolic value, without any of the underlying injustice of the hereditary principle.
We in Canada have a Governor General, the Crown’s representative to Canada, as part of our Constitution. He/she is appointed by the current Prime Minister, and selected by a committee of parliamentarians. Over the last century or so this has worked well. Governors General have come from many walks of life…politicians…journalists… Jean Beliveau, the former Montreal Canadien hockey great was invited to be, but turned it down citing family priorities. However, the latest person to be appointed, the former astronaut, Julie Payette, turned out to be a bad choice. She created a toxic workplace at Rideau Hall, the GG’s official residence, and made demanding renovations to the place to insure more privacy for herself. Eventually she was forced to resign. It has raised questions about the need for such a personage in the first place, as well as the selection process should the position be kept. Personally I don’t think… Read more »
The problem with an elected monarchy is who would we elect? Perhaps even more seriously the campaign to be elected would turn the monarch into a politician destroying teh very thing that makes the monarchy popular and useful. The author selects Stephen Fry and David Attenborough as possible candidates but whereas both are in their own ways admirable I would vehemntly oppose their elevation to being a monarch. In the first instance if they were monarch and they took teh responsibility seriously they would be unable to advocte for any changes or make remarks which are in anyway controversial. This would eliminate the strengths that led them to be selected in the first place. teh same woudl be true of anyone who might be selected. We either go whole hog and elect a president with all the downsides associated wth that or we stick with an inheritted monarchy. The middle… Read more »
In the words of Isaiah Berlin on Joseph le Maistre: Consider the institution of monarchy. What is more irrational or absurd than that the son of a king, evena good king, should succeed him because he is his son? A wise king may have a stupid son, a good king may have an abominable son, and there is no reason for supposing that the children of good men or of strong men or of useful men will have the same qualities themselves. Consequently it is a far more rational arrangement to have such a system as you have in Poland, where you have the liberum veto, where you do not have hereditary succession, where the nobles must agree upon who is to be king. But what has actually happened? France was governed by sixty-six kings, some good, some bad, but mostly efficient, mostly capable, and is the fairest kingdom upon… Read more »
I have to disagree with the author here, elected monarchies never end well, just look at Poland and Cambodia. Monarchy is not a popularity contest, it is about providing stability and a link between the past, the present and future. And if I had my way they would rule as well as reign given they need to think long term.
Also John was named Richards successor by Richard. William and Mary took the throne through force. Henry iv through force, Henry VII the same.
No king as been elected by parliament since Anglo Saxon times.
Elected monarchy is a terrible idea, look to Poland to see how it turns out, also John wasn’t elected, he was named his brothers heir. William and Mary took the throne through force of arms and the fiction that james had abdicated. parliament hasn’t elected monarchs, they took the throne by force.
The monarchy works because it is traditional, it harkens back to the past and provides continuity. Hereditary monarchs work best and have been shown to work best. Obsessions with elections do bad things to countries,
“against the single, overriding injustice of heredity”
Disagree. Lots of things are hereditary — money, health, nationality, family. Being the monarch is as much a duty as a privilege. Albert hated the job but it was his duty. Harry doesn’t like it, but wants the money and prestige anyway. Nope, the role is not transient. If it were, then it’s symbolic permanence would evaporate.
«Prince William would make a popular monarch. So let’s elect him, or set up a commission answerable to the government to appoint him. The appointment could be for five years or ten, for a fixed term or renewable—we can sort out the specifics another day. Or we could appoint Sir David Attenborough or Stephen Fry»
Only Greta Thunberg. Crazy Greta seems like the best choice!
Well you’ll have George Lucas’ vote at least.
Elected Monarchy = oxymoron. The same commentary about the British Royals given here has been repeated since I’ve been born. There are no new insights or arguments for or against its existence, nor will there likely ever be. Most of the “for” arguments would vanish with replacement by a non-hereditary “monarchy,” so that’s a non-starter.
The Scandinavian countries have each managed to combine a hereditary monarchy (which for all I’ve heard is quite popular and well-liked) which is NOT really quite the same thing as actually socialist) type of politics and economy–capitalist but with a strong safety net, which again seems to be generally rather popular. The Swedes, Danes, and Norwegians seem to see no real contradiction or inconsistency between hereditary monarchy and social-democracy! And as for an elective monarcht–in many countries the President is a largely ceremonial head of state while the Prime Minister does the “dirty work” of political governing. Even the USSR used to have a largely figurehead President with an actually power-wielding Premier and General Secretary,. Nobody ever really took any of the Soviet Presidents very seriously unless he also happened to be Premier and/or General Secretary.