Why Have An Hereditary Monarchy?
The recent publicity over the ending of Prince William's relationship with Kate Middleton may seem disappointing, though a comparatively minor matter. However, the implications go much deeper, for the problems include the future of the monarchy, which is still, in this age, an hereditary institution. In Parliament now all the main parties are committed to removing the last batch of hereditary peers and replacing them with mainly elected members. Why, then, should there be an exception to the elective principle in the form of an hereditary head of state? The conventional answers include a variety of assertions, notably,that the present arrangements form an historic and picturesque tradition, with little political significance, that they are a harmless and pleasing anomaly, that the current system is preferable to having a republic with an elected head of state, that the Royal family work well and are popular, and that devising a viable and acceptable alternative would be extremely hard.
Many who uphold the principle of the monarchy would wish to see a number of reforms, but inevitably differ between themselves over their nature and likely effects. Constitutional issues appear foremost, but there are also cogent social and personal factors, not least the impact of the media. To put it plainly, the relationship between Prince William and Kate Middleton was seriously affected by the publicity and comments in the press and elsewhere. With such an hereditary institution as the monarchy attention, will naturally focus on the office holder and his or her likely successors: thus pressures on young people involved, such as Prince William and Kate Middleton, become enormous and inescapable. Inevitably such factors distort and prevent the people concerned from living normal lives with a fair degree of privacy.
If the monarchy is to adapt, the measures required to ensure reasonable safeguards and protection for the younger and more vulnerable members of the Royal Family are going to have to be more effective than those currently in place. Admittedly there have been a number of safeguards, such as the appointment of experienced press and public relations staff to advise and help the Royal Family, embargoes on publicity during the years spent at school and university, and the establishment of the Press Complaints Commission, but, even taken together, they are clearly inadequate.They simply cannot ensure anything like a normal life for the younger members.It is true that those on whom publicity has been focussed will learn from the experience, and probably be able in due course to cope with it. Nonetheless the unwanted attention does blight and constrict lives.
In terms of human rights it could be argued that Article 8 of the European Convention of 1950, (the right to respect for family and private life) simply cannot be sustained for those close to the throne. Moreover, there are some inevitable further restrictions, such as the limitations on the choice of occupation, career or business activity, such as those imposed on Prince Edward and the Countess of Wessex, who had to abandon certain commercial work.
It is possible, of course, for individual members of the Royal Family to withdraw from it and retire into private life, and it would help if the procedures for doing this were made easier. However, that leaves unresolved the thorny question of Royal marriages. One commentator in the press on the Kate Middleton affair took the view that Prince William's choice of possible brides might well be limited to North German nobility and the royal families of North-Western Europe - an extraordinarily narrow range. Social and religious factors, royal protocol, and the terms of both the Act of Settlement and the Royal Marriages Act, all impose severe restrictions. These limits, sometimes vaguely expressed and ill-defined, are drastic in their impact. They certainly contradict the spirit of Article 8.
One partial solution might be to revisit a suggestion, made at the time of the Abdication Crisis in 1936, that Edward VIII might contract a morganatic marriage with Mrs. Simpson. At the time it was dismissed as a device not known to English law, but that could be remedied by passing legislation. However, that would leave the entire Royal Family entangled in protocol, social restrictions, and Acts of Parliament, passed in earlier times, which are no longer appropriate, and trapped in the glare of publicity in the media. Short of abolishing the monarchy altogether, can anything be done?
One route, which is controversial, might serve, converting the monarchy from an hereditary institution into an elective one. Clearly there would be many objections, buit before the Norman Conquest the Anglo-Saxon Witan (or Council) used to elect the king from a pool of possible candidates. Althogh some who were elected were sons or younger brothers of the previous king, succession to the throne was not automatic. That raises the question of eligibility to be elected, and a further question, the identity of the electors. If the pool of candidates were unrestricted, it is conceivable that a wide range of figures in public life might be considered, thus running the danger of the process of election degenerating into a popularity contest. The electorate might well be decided by using the analogy of the Witan as indicating either the members of both Houses of Parliament or the entire body of Privy Councillors. Neither suggestion is ideal.
By this stage logic suggests that the monarchy might be replaced by a republic, possibly with a constitutional - not an executive - president, elected either by Parliament or else directly by popular vote. What is plain, though, is that the hereditary principle in the monarchy, particularly in a state such as the United Kingdom, is simply no longer viable or tolerable, since the activities of the media, (even if influenced by guidance and limited controls, as currently arranged), are simply too intrusive and disturbing to be borne. Expedients such as morganatic marriage, abolition of the hereditary principle, the substitution of an elective system, and an improved and simplified means of renouncing membership of the Royal Family might help, but they may be just staging posts en route to a republic.
Personal preferences for a continuing constitutional monarchy are no doubt very powerful, but, unless the issues mentioned above can be addressed and satisfactorily resolved, there is a distinct likelihood of a change to an alternative system.
Michael B. Buck.
Many who uphold the principle of the monarchy would wish to see a number of reforms, but inevitably differ between themselves over their nature and likely effects. Constitutional issues appear foremost, but there are also cogent social and personal factors, not least the impact of the media. To put it plainly, the relationship between Prince William and Kate Middleton was seriously affected by the publicity and comments in the press and elsewhere. With such an hereditary institution as the monarchy attention, will naturally focus on the office holder and his or her likely successors: thus pressures on young people involved, such as Prince William and Kate Middleton, become enormous and inescapable. Inevitably such factors distort and prevent the people concerned from living normal lives with a fair degree of privacy.
If the monarchy is to adapt, the measures required to ensure reasonable safeguards and protection for the younger and more vulnerable members of the Royal Family are going to have to be more effective than those currently in place. Admittedly there have been a number of safeguards, such as the appointment of experienced press and public relations staff to advise and help the Royal Family, embargoes on publicity during the years spent at school and university, and the establishment of the Press Complaints Commission, but, even taken together, they are clearly inadequate.They simply cannot ensure anything like a normal life for the younger members.It is true that those on whom publicity has been focussed will learn from the experience, and probably be able in due course to cope with it. Nonetheless the unwanted attention does blight and constrict lives.
In terms of human rights it could be argued that Article 8 of the European Convention of 1950, (the right to respect for family and private life) simply cannot be sustained for those close to the throne. Moreover, there are some inevitable further restrictions, such as the limitations on the choice of occupation, career or business activity, such as those imposed on Prince Edward and the Countess of Wessex, who had to abandon certain commercial work.
It is possible, of course, for individual members of the Royal Family to withdraw from it and retire into private life, and it would help if the procedures for doing this were made easier. However, that leaves unresolved the thorny question of Royal marriages. One commentator in the press on the Kate Middleton affair took the view that Prince William's choice of possible brides might well be limited to North German nobility and the royal families of North-Western Europe - an extraordinarily narrow range. Social and religious factors, royal protocol, and the terms of both the Act of Settlement and the Royal Marriages Act, all impose severe restrictions. These limits, sometimes vaguely expressed and ill-defined, are drastic in their impact. They certainly contradict the spirit of Article 8.
One partial solution might be to revisit a suggestion, made at the time of the Abdication Crisis in 1936, that Edward VIII might contract a morganatic marriage with Mrs. Simpson. At the time it was dismissed as a device not known to English law, but that could be remedied by passing legislation. However, that would leave the entire Royal Family entangled in protocol, social restrictions, and Acts of Parliament, passed in earlier times, which are no longer appropriate, and trapped in the glare of publicity in the media. Short of abolishing the monarchy altogether, can anything be done?
One route, which is controversial, might serve, converting the monarchy from an hereditary institution into an elective one. Clearly there would be many objections, buit before the Norman Conquest the Anglo-Saxon Witan (or Council) used to elect the king from a pool of possible candidates. Althogh some who were elected were sons or younger brothers of the previous king, succession to the throne was not automatic. That raises the question of eligibility to be elected, and a further question, the identity of the electors. If the pool of candidates were unrestricted, it is conceivable that a wide range of figures in public life might be considered, thus running the danger of the process of election degenerating into a popularity contest. The electorate might well be decided by using the analogy of the Witan as indicating either the members of both Houses of Parliament or the entire body of Privy Councillors. Neither suggestion is ideal.
By this stage logic suggests that the monarchy might be replaced by a republic, possibly with a constitutional - not an executive - president, elected either by Parliament or else directly by popular vote. What is plain, though, is that the hereditary principle in the monarchy, particularly in a state such as the United Kingdom, is simply no longer viable or tolerable, since the activities of the media, (even if influenced by guidance and limited controls, as currently arranged), are simply too intrusive and disturbing to be borne. Expedients such as morganatic marriage, abolition of the hereditary principle, the substitution of an elective system, and an improved and simplified means of renouncing membership of the Royal Family might help, but they may be just staging posts en route to a republic.
Personal preferences for a continuing constitutional monarchy are no doubt very powerful, but, unless the issues mentioned above can be addressed and satisfactorily resolved, there is a distinct likelihood of a change to an alternative system.
Michael B. Buck.
posted by Michael Buck at 2:55 AM
1 Comments:
A very interesting read. Briefly, I cannot see the point of a reformed or even elective monarchy, other than as a staging post on the way to a constitutional republic.
The rows over franchise eligibility for the halfway house you talk about would be spectacular - and avoidable, if we were brave and sensible enough to move straight to a system in which all people of age to vote have a choice to elect a head of state.
Some hope!
Post a Comment
<< Home