As a teacher of History and Politics it can often be the case that I find myself correcting misconceptions about the role of the monarchy in students (of all ages). These come in two forms: those that think the Queen is utterly irrelevant politically, and those who believed her to have been immensely powerful. In both of these cases, they are incorrect.
Writing, as I am, in the week following the passing of Elizabeth II, I am not offering any viewpoint about the monarchy itself, but it is interesting to have seen some points raised by commentators offering constitutional monarchy as a somewhat ideal form of system. That is to say, that by having a neutral, non-political monarch the system is superior to one where a head of state can attract loyalty and/or division. Ian Leslie quoted Clement Attlee in saying that "the monarchy attracts to itself the kind of sentimental loyalty that might otherwise to the leader of a faction." I am not 100% certain that this is always the case, or rather that one needs a constitutional monarchy, or a monarchy at all, for a head of state to rise above day to day politics.
The traditional view of the role of the monarch in modern British politics is that they 'reign but do not rule'. That is to say, they are notionally in charge but not involved in the day-to-day running of the country. The Queen is constitutionally bound to follow the advice of the government in almost all areas, with her principle role being the appointment of Prime Ministers/governments, and the granting of royal assent to legislation. Whilst the Queen has performed other roles, such as the chairing of meetings of the Privy Council, her other role was that of being a figurehead for the nation.
It should also be said that papers released in recent years have suggested that the Queen may have applied more pressure than some would have imagined on legislation. Newsweek reported in 2021 about 4 laws where the Queen allegedly threatened to withhold consent from signing new legislation, including one about revealing the extent of her personal wealth. This isn't quite the same as vetoing laws, something that hasn't happened since Queen Anne in 1708 with the Scottish Militia Bill. However, this would appear that the Queen did apply pressure occasionally, though obviously on a tiny fraction of those she saw overall. The new King Charles III when still Prince of Wales was comparatively more involved in the affairs of government, regularly contacting the government on a range of issues, from the Iraq War to organic farming. This could raise question about how likely he is to remain silent about government policies with which he disagrees.
Edit: after writing this post, I found an interview with David Cameron where he said that he had help weekly meetings with the then Prince Charles in order to prepare him for the throne, and that Charles never overstepped in terms of influencing governmental affairs.
Stephen Bush in the Financial Times, however, makes the point that the Queen was an outstanding political operator. She had weekly meetings with 14 Prime Ministers, with a 15th recently sworn in, and with only very rare and very limited comments about any ongoing issues. Ultimately the question of whether to have a monarchy is a political one, but she managed to normalise the idea of this and in fact increase support for the monarchy over the course of her time as Queen. Elizabeth II performed a stabilising role for the country which, since 1952, has been through many tumultuous times. It has been an age since the UK has experienced any other monarch, and it will be interesting to see the way that the new king views his role.
Sources:
https://www.ft.com/content/1fb11fc2-7884-40af-a6e9-e68382f07c3f
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/explainers/what-role-monarchy
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1568538324180107264?t=85irUEsG_vrMw9dWIe__rQ&s=09
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/11/entirely-right-for-charles-to-have-lobbied-ministers-says-david-cameron
No comments:
Post a Comment