This week there have been Diamond Jubilee celebrations in the UK, the Commonwealth and beyond, marking sixty years since Queen Elizabeth II came to the throne of the UK and her other realms. Whilst three hundred years ago, many monarchs could take their positions for granted; today all institutions are under the relentless scrutiny of 24-hour media- and the monarchy is no exception. I will therefore explain the value of constitutional monarchy; dispel the many myths of monarchy's costs- including the view that royals are simply paid by the public to wave from car windows and carriages, and therefore have no importance.
In the UK the monarchy is important in six key ways: culture, charity, celebrations, advice, democratic safeguard and meeting international leaders.
1) Culture: looking at the history of the British Isles, there are relatively few and short periods in which there has been no monarch. This close bond between monarchy and the UK over the centuries has meant that they have inevitably shaped each other. Whilst the Census carried out across the UK last year can trace its roots to the Domesday Book of King William I (the Conqueror); under the Kings John and Henry III we saw the early development of parliamentary power and restrictions on monarchical absolutism, as well as the initial structure of what would form the world-famous landmark of the Houses of Parliament in Westminster; King Edward III's Order of the Garter marked the importance royal rewards and pageantry would continue to play in the relationship between monarchy and subjects; the Church of England's establishment under King Henry VIII; the establishment of the Union Jack and coat of arms under King James I of England /VI of Scotland; the first Prime Minister, Sir Robert Walpole, served under King George I of Great Britain and Ireland; the onset of modern British democracy with the First Reform Act under King William IV; the spread of British global influence, as well as economic and urban development, symbolised by Queen Victoria; as well as the wartime morale boosts provided by Kings George V and VI during the First and Second World Wars respectively.
As well as history, there is the role of monarchy in other aspects of British life, from the many historical plays of William Shakespeare, to the prominence of the monarchy in British film-making in modern times. For centuries, royals have appeared on our coins, given royal appointments to everyday products in the UK, and developed and preserved great castles, palaces, parks and gardens across the country. Without the monarchy, surely the decline in British influence since the Second World War would have been intensified; had the country become another anonymous republic, led by another anonymous, suited politician, who would have attracted even less attention on the world stage. Moreover, the monarchy is one of the few remaining links that really seems to bind the Commonwealth together, continuing to highlight the ongoing cultural similarities between Britain and the likes of Australia, Canada, India, Belize and many others. Were it not for the monarchy, the historic and cultural ties between Britain and these other states would probably have been completely neglected.
2) Charity: the monarchy is able to speak for those who have no (electoral) voice. This not only refers to causes relating to the environment and wildlife, but also the homeless and young people. Politicians only really need to consider the main interests of those who can vote to stay in power, but the monarchy's lack of obligation to follow popular opinion, empowers them to shape it to some extent. The royal family are patrons of many charities in the UK and abroad, with Prince Charles (heir to the throne) already a long-term and influential activist on behalf of environmental issues, and founder of the Prince's Trust, which helps vulnerable young people engage with the modern world more effectively and enhance their prospects. Meanwhile, Prince William (second-in-line to the throne) slept rough for a night to highlight homelessness in the UK. Thus the monarchy engages with the voluntary, philanthropic sector to fill the vacuums which the state sector rarely ventures into. Were the monarch to be replaced by an elected head of state, they would once again concern themselves with swing voters in marginal constituencies, as all politicians do, rather than the broader society and national issues.
3) Celebrations: over the short term and long term, the monarchy is involved with many national events. These include the annual events such as the New Year's Honours, Easter Service, the Trooping of the Colour in the summer, War Remembrance services in November, then the Queen's/King's speech at Christmas. Not only does the monarch lead the country in celebrations and commemorations, but does so without the negative party and political associations politicians have. For example, a President Thatcher or Cameron may have been greeted with hostility by those they were honouring, as the person to be honoured may have directly or indirectly suffered as a result of jobs cuts. Similarly, a President Blair may have encouraged scorn leading a Remembrance service, because he led the UK into the dubious Iraq War. Lacking political involvement, the monarch lacks such controversial ties, inviting only some scorn from a minority due to the institution of monarchy (often relating to money, etc, which will be addressed later) but not by due the actions of the monarch personally. Thus events are untainted by the national figurehead's involvement. Although the UK tends to lack regular mass celebrations, this is more than compensated for by the relatively infrequent royal events, such as weddings, coronations and jubilees, which are carried out with great efficiency and spectacle to amaze people worldwide. On a smaller scale, such events bring communities together, whilst regular royal visits across the UK mean that areas that may lack electoral strategic importance, and therefore tend to be avoided by elected leaders, are far more likely to enjoy a royal visit.
4) Advice: compared with elected politicians, royals have a unique perspective on government and issues. Whilst politicians tend to require certain personality traits and a certain outlook to get to where they are, this is not the case for monarchs. These similarities are likely to narrow politicians' outlook in some respects; where as royals, due to the hereditary nature of monarchy, can approach their role with a variety of personalities and opinions, which can offer politicians a different perspective. Moreover, the inheritance of generations of political experience, along with the lifelong presence of royals within the establishment, mean their opinions are often insightful, based on substantial experience. Monarchs' lack of political ambition means they can also offer politicians opinions free from party bias and self-motivated ambition. Combined with this is the awareness that the more stable the country is, the more secure the monarchy's position is; so it is in the monarch's interest to share views based on the national interest.
5) Democratic Safeguard: ironically (given the institution's undemocratic nature) hereditary monarchy exists above political trends, providing continuity and stability, particularly crucial during times when extremists are growing in influence. Were the monarch given a completely, morally-objectionable law to grant assent to, the monarch would be expected to reject it, thus removing legitimacy from an extremist's actions. It is in the monarch's interest to resist extremism, based on the experiences of those who haven't: consider the dissolution of the Italian and Greek monarchies after their Kings consented to dictatorial rule. The monarchy represents long-term interests, not short-term trends.
6) Meeting International Leaders: for similar reasons as references to the honours system above under "celebrations"; the apolitical, non-controversial nature of the monarchy means that an international leader's reputation is not jeopardised by association with a constitutional monarch. The monarch can be conveyed as all things to all leaders: a leader of liberal democracy, yet also conservative tradition. Again, the wealth of experience monarchs have to offer also arms them with cultural understanding and long-term connections with countries and leaders that politicians, with four or five year-long electoral terms, cannot match. The monarch's unique position as head of state, not only of Britain but several other Commonwealth Realms, and not to mention head of the even more numerous group of countries within the Commonwealth as a whole, means they have cultural significance to a wider range of people worldwide. The monarch's respectful stance towards other cultures across the world also sets a good example, and endears the monarch and consequently their realms towards the countries they visit.
Given the above, the monarchy has played, and will continue to play, an important role in my country and others.
Urban Myth: The monarchy is a drain on public money, which would be more valued if spent in other areas during this economically difficult times.
Reality: The monarchy's income from palaces and property, as well as the indirect tourist appeal of an ongoing monarchy, outweighs what the monarchy takes to cover its costs- so the monarchy is effectively a profitable nationalised institution, not a drain on public resources. Were it to be abolished, the government would not receive the direct income in can currently take from royal property, and there would be a decline in interest in monarchy-associated institutions, not to mention the other tangible benefits listed above.
Urban Myth: The monarchy is an anachronistic and undemocratic institution, which embarrasses the modern democratic values of Britain and other Commonwealth Realms.
Reality: Just because something is newer doesn't make it better. Consider the many failed and unstable systems that have arisen then fallen during the twentieth century, let alone before and after; whilst the strengths of monarchy are still clear to see, even in the twenty-first century. Monarchies like the Commonwealth Realms and the constitutional monarchies of Western Europe tend to have a far greater record of defending democracy and liberalism than elsewhere in Europe- let alone the rest of the world. As was mentioned in my fifth point above, the monarchy helps defend democracy. Meanwhile, voting for all key roles sounds good in theory, but isn't necessarily so popular/effective in practice. The consistent popularity of the monarchy in opinion polls is far stronger than our elected prime ministers and other politicians, while turnout for the European Parliament can be so minimal that it's accurate representation of the public seems dubious. Plus, it should be needless to say that not all influential figures, besides the monarchy, are elected- with judges providing a good example. Judges have great influence based on their experience, not popularity- like the monarchy.
Urban Myth: There's no point in having a monarchy because they don't have any real power, do anything, or make a difference.
Reality: Reread this message if you haven't worked out this answer!
