Even though the Queen has lost most of her powers, she is still head of the state and still exercises some aspect of power. This is publicized by the book, the British System of Government,
“These include summoning, proroguing (discontinuing until the next session without dissolution) and dissolving Parliament and giving Royal assent to bills passed by Parliament.” Publishing Services (1994:8-9)
Also the crown appoints all ministers, ambassadors, judges and officers of the armed forces, it creates peers and bestows honours. Some of these powers listed show that by law the Monarch still plays a very important role in the governing of the country. Even so the Queen does not usually over-step her authority and acts on the advice of her ministers, not personal initiative.
The Monarchy in the United Kingdom is admired throughout the world. Most people would rather have a Monarchy as head of the state than a deceitful politician, even though the queen has limited power and does not really affect people that much in their everyday lives. The Queen by most people is highly respected in United Kingdom. This is because she represents culture, tradition and heritage which no other single person could achieve. It is accepted in Britain. Most British people are proud of their Monarchy. It gives people a sense of history and stability which arguably no other institution can achieve. The queen also receives defense like no other. The army fights in the name and for the Queen. The monarch is an important symbol of national unity. This is emphasized in her title,
“Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Common Wealth, Defender of the Faith” Publishing Services (1994:6)
Arguments for the status quo are much more persuasive than for abolishment or reform. As well as taking part in important acts of government there are also many good things, publicly that the Queen contributes to the United Kingdom. A good example is revealed by David Powell in the book Nationhood and Identity,
“The dignified role of the Royal Family probably reached its highest point in the Second World War. The King and Queen insisted on staying at their palace in London for the express purpose of being bombed by the Germans, thus sharing the dangers of the normal Londoners.” Powell (2005:81)
This example shows that the Monarch is willing to risk her life just to comfort her people. The role of the Monarch in society especially during states of emergency can be extremely important. People trust the Monarch like no other, unlike politicians. Therefore words and acts of reassurance from the Monarch can go along way in the hearts and soles of the ordinary people. The ordinary people especially the lower classes show a great depth of loyalty towards the Queen. This is also argued in the book Power to the Throne - the Monarchy Debate,
“The Monarchy is extremely popular with the non-intellectual part of the population who have the deepest patriotism.” Barnett (1994:82)
Patriotism towards the Monarch for some people is very important. Sir Ian Botham in an interview with The Guardian expressed that when he swung his bat, it was for Queen and Country. He also suggests that anti-monarchists should be hanged at Traitors Gate. This shows the passion and strong beliefs that the Monarch has on some people.
Also in the book Power and the throne – the Monarchy debate, it gives more examples of the exceptional qualities a Monarch gives to the public.
“Symbolism, splendour, pageantry, reminds us of our past and encourages us for the future to be true to that past. It reminds us also of the (proud) continuity of our history, unconquered for over 900 years.” Barnett (1994:82)
The people of the United Kingdom admire the Monarchy to a large extent that when the United Kingdom did chop the head of Charles I and had a republic for a short space of time, from 1649 to 1660. They accepted the Monarch back without any fight or question. A presidential or republic form would not have the same affect on the people of the United Kingdom.
There are also a few strong arguments for abolishment of the Monarch. A lot of people would argue about the expense of the Monarchy. Their financial expense on average cost more than 88 million per year. Any ordinary person would find this cost, ridiculous especially since it is coming out of their wage package, in taxes. It could be argued that the benefits, in which the Monarch gives, do not outweigh their financial strain on the state. Another argument for the abolishment is that it can put to much pressure on the Royal family. This is explained by Jack Straw,
“Too much has been dumped on them, expected of them and beyond the capacity of any family to achieve, especially with total mass communication.” Barnett (1994:129)
Arguments for reform to the traditional monarchy are mainly because the whole process is undemocratic. The fact that head of state succession to the throne is heredity, not elected, defeats the whole purpose of democracy. Reformers believe that Britain can not be a democracy if the Monarch is head of the state. They believe that it would be better if Britain would adopt a presidential establishment as it would be more democratic. Chartism is a great example of an English political movement towards reform in the 19th century. In the journal ‘The hearts of the Millions’: Chartism and Popular Monarchism in the 1840’s highlight the Chartists attitudes to the Monarchy. A good example of a Chartist response to monarchy was to regard it as,
“the apex of ‘Old Corruption’, the system of aristocratic parasitism that condemned many Britons to poverty and hunger under the burden of heavy taxation.” Pickering (2003)
Even so, they also expressed that it wasn’t really the Monarchy that led to their republican views because of its limitations. This also shows that even in the 19th century it was clear that the Monarchy’s powers were limited and unthreatening.
As this essay has shown, the Monarchy has a very important role to play in the system of modern democracy in the United Kingdom. Due to its deep establishment in History, there would be a lot of controversy if there was great reform or complete abolishment. A lot of questions would need to be answered if there was to be a change. Again good examples of questions are given in the book Power to the Throne – A Monarchy debate,
“What would be put instead? How would you organise your new system? Would you have a federal or unity state? Presidential for life or set term? Directly elected? How would you get people to agree?” Barnett (1994:56)
The last question has the greatest importance, how would you get people to agree? Not everyone would have the same opinion for change. At this present moment the Monarchy is still essential to the majority of the people in the United Kingdom. Until this has changed, the Monarchy should stay intact. No abolishment, no reform.
Bibliography
Barnett A. (1994) Power and the Throne - The Monarchy Debate, London: Vintage
Centre for citizenship (2007) ‘The Monarchy in Britain – How much do they take from our pockets’, available at http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/monarchy/mon5.html
Jones G. (1969) The Political Structure, London: Longmans.
Lawson. M. (2007) ‘The Crown gate affair reveals a clash between older and younger views of Monarchy, in The Guardian (Saturday, October 13th)
Leach R., Coxall B., Robins L. (2006) British Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moran M. (2005) Politics and Governance in the UK, Baskingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian.
Pickering A.P. (2003) ‘The Hearts of the Millions: Chartism and Popular Monarchism in the 1840’s, in Blackwell Publishing Vol 46 No 1 pp.167.
Powell D. (2002) Nationhood and Identity – The British State Since 1800, London: I.B.Tauris.
Publishing Services. (1994) The British System of Government, London: The Stationary Office.
