In defence of the monarchy
PERSONAL COLUMN NORMAN ST JOHN-STEVAS, MP
With the fate of the House of Lords in the balance and the consensus (from which I can be counted out) that the hereditary principle has no place in a modern legislature the position of monarchy in Britain is inevitably coming under scrutiny. Does the monarchy serve any purpose in the Britain of today? In an age of sceptical utilitarianism the question unhappily cannot be avoided.
The chief value of the monarchy today is that it symbolically represents the nation, both in its contemporary life and historic past, a dual role which at once causes conflict. The mon- archy has to change with the times and symbol- ise contemporary national aspirations—to be- come a museum piece would be fatal—but at the same time it has to remind the country that there is more to the nation than the present generation and link it with both the past and the future. By assuming this function of national symbol the monarchy strengthens the nation. In Britain however fierce and partisan the party strife no citizen is ever required to be against the country. The situation is quite different in countries such as the United States where the head of state is also chief executive, and where these are artificially separated the head of state is either a dim and shadowy figure or else a focus of political divisiveness. The institution of monarchy saves us from these fates.
The monarchy symbolises not only the politi- cal life of the nation but its moral and religious life as well. This, of course, has not always been so : until the accession of Queen Victoria, the House of Hanover did not exactly provide a model of domestic rectitude, but she and her successors have consistently done so since. In a society which has grown steadily more permis- sive, and in many respects rightly so, the example of a united family life set by the Queen and her consort is a real contribution to the nation's morality.
Important as it is, the symbolic role does not exhaust the functions of the present mon- archy. The English monarch is a constitutional sovereign, but that is a very different thing from being a cipher. A constitutional monarch, declared Bagehot, has three rights, 'the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn.' As the reign lengthens these rights grow in effectiveness since the monarch acquires a fund of experience which none of his ministers can match. Already the Queen has a much wider personal knowledge of the working of the constitution in times of stress than any possible Prime Minister.
Quite apart from her role as a wise and impartial adviser the Queen retains a number of personal prerogatives which can be exercised in her own right and without the advice of her ministers. She can and must in certain situations exercise an effective personal choice in the selection of the Prime Minister. If a general election fails to produce a decisive result in favour of one party and a third party holds the balance of power the personal choice of the Queen may well be decisive. If a Prime Minister dies in office the royal prerogative again comes into play, and despite the fact that all three Parties have developed their own system of electing a leader by ballot of the parliamentary Party, the interim choice of the Queen would
necessarily be of considerable influence.
In theory the Queen can dissolve Parliament but in practice she would be highly unlikely to do so, but the right to refuse a dissolution is much less academic. If the House of Com- mons had no singly dominant party the Queen might well request a party leader to form a government rather than grant a dissolution to an incumbent Prime Minister. She would have to judge the situation on its merits. It is some- times suggested that the sovereign has a right of veto over legislation but there has been no example of its use since the time of Queen Anne and it is reasonable to conclude that it has fallen into desuetude today. Domestic func- tions apart, the monarchy has important con- stitutional functions in the Commonwealth, not the least being the personal role of the monarch as Head of the Commonwealth and only visible link between the different components.
Criticism of the monarchy today is muted and there is no equivalent of the republican movement which grew up in the 'sixties of the last century, but the attack on the hereditary principle in the Lords raises the issue whether the principle has any place in an institution playing a prominent role in a modern state. Heredity has its drawbacks and hazards and they are obvious enough, but it has less than any other as far as succession to the headship of state is concerned. An elective monarchy would inevitably increase the scramble for social distinction and at the same time stir up political and party strife. Once the throne became an object of competition its reconciling character would be destroyed. In any case an elected monarch could hardly hope to attract the reverence which constellates around an hereditary sovereign.
It is true that heredity cannot guarantee the succession of a suitable sovereign but the fact remains that it has done so in modern times. The only controversial monarch of the century was Edward VIII and he was willing to vacate the throne rather than jeopardise the continu- ance of the institution. Furthermore education is as important in the production of a suitable sovereign as heredity and although opinions may differ about the wisdom of particular decisions concerning the education of the present heir to the throne the plan of education as a whole has been sensible and prudent. Attendance at a public school instead of educa- tion by a private tutor was a wise step as was the decision to allow the Prince of Wales to attend a university and to lead as 'normal' a life as possible. One hazard which faces the heir to the throne after the completion of his formal education is an extended period of idleness as the result of a preceding long reign. Today, however, when royal etiquette has become much more relaxed, there is much greater scope for the heir to find a satisfying and useful occupation if he so desires. No doubt much of Prince Charles's time will be spent in travel but this is not incompatible with the pursuit of a profession or other activity if he so desires.
One charge which is levelled against the monarchy is that of expense and extravagance but this is not justified by an examination of the facts. Surveying the available figures it would be ridiculous to pretend that the British monarchy is cheap but equally there is no sign of the extravagance and ostentation that have characterised the courts of some monarchs in the past. The monarchy has a certain splen- dour and style but that is in accordance with the wishes of the vast majority of the people who like pageantry and pomp. The English are a theatrical people and appreciate a good show. There is something to be said for a splendid monarchy and something to be said for a republic, but a mean monarchy would have few friends. Royalty on the Scandinavian model would not be popular in England, and it would be much less attractive to the millions of foreigners who come to England in part attracted by the mystique and magnificence of the monarchy.
Expense apart, contemporary criticism of the monarchy concentrates on those who surround the Queen, who are said to come from a nar- row social class unrepresentative of modern Britain. Criticism of the Queen's choice of friends can be disregarded since this is wholly her own affair and quite simply nobody else's business. The attacks on the 'court' are of a different order but are quite baseless. A 'court' as such hardly exists and the Queen is served by a small staff who help her to discharge her ceremonial and constitutional duties. They are notable chiefly for their efficiency and unob- trusiveness. The social functions of the court have steadily altered. The presentation parties for debutantes have been abolished and cocktail parties and luncheon parties for people of widely different backgrounds have been intro- duced. Garden parties have become national rather than social events. The whole protocol that formerly surrounded royalty has been greatly simplified and under the guidance of Prince Philip the ambiente and outlook of the monarchy has been modernised.
Today the monarchy is as firmly established as at any period of our history. The Queen's dedicated discharge of her duties, her unselfish- ness and her simple, direct approach to life are widely appreciated throughout the country. She is deservedly popular but is not threatened by the uncritical adulation which surrounded the monarchy in the 'fifties. Prophecy is always a risky business but the British monarchy seems destined to serve the nation for many genera- tions to come.
Previous page
