Modern Monarchy In the United Kingdom

I have not been obsessed as much as some about the whereabouts of a certain royal.

I did watch a lot of episodes of The Crown recently. I read up a bit on the British royalty, including this book. Below is a summary of some of the material covered.

For more historical essays, with final edits by the person who runs that website, check out here.

As the new nation of the United States turned away from the British monarchy, the institution significantly changed back home. The British monarchy was always a limited one. Its power declined considerably by the 19th Century. The king and queen became more of a symbol of the nation than an independent base of power. King Edward VII had to resign because he could not uphold the dignity required. King Charles III has to adapt the monarchy to the 21st Century for it to retain the support of the people today.  

The British Monarchy in 1776

King George III was a tyrant. He was guilty of a stream of abuses that made it our duty to demand independence. So argues our Declaration of Independence. We then totally washed our hands of the monarchy. Our Constitution bans titles of nobility. We are a constitutional republic. 

Great Britain was a constitutional monarchy. From the days of the Magna Carta in 1215, the king or queen had limited power. A parliament had to agree to taxes. The monarch agreed to uphold fundamental rights and limits on their power. A prime minister, ruling in their name, grew in power. By the beginning of the 19th Century, the monarchy’s power was in deep decline. 

Queen Victoria 

Queen Victoria had the longest British reign (1837-1901) until Queen Elizabeth II. 

As the British monarch had a reduced formal power, Victoria retained various means to influence policy. A prime method, which followed the strategy of monarchs from ancient times, was marriage. Victoria had many children. She assured that they made strategic marriages with European nobility. The monarchs of Britain, Germany, and Russia were closely related.  

Her reign is known as the Victorian Age. The monarchy retained cultural influence. Her husband, whom she adored, helped immensely. Albert and Victoria promoted themselves as symbols of Christian family values. The monarch is the head of the Church of England. They helped promote many Christmas traditions, including the Christmas tree and presents. 

Dignity vs. Efficiency 

Walter Bagehot wrote an influential book in the middle of Queen Victoria’s reign entitled The English Constitution. The book helped to create a modern understanding of the monarch’s role. 

Bagehot argued that politicians, led by the British prime minister, ran the country. They made the laws. They had the “efficient” power of the machinery of the state.  

The monarch was the symbol of the state. They had the “dignity” backed up by ceremonial pomp and circumstance. The king or queen retained some power to influence with this symbolic role.

The government ruled in the name of the monarch. The monarch authorized each new government that came into power. They retained the right “to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn” the government. The monarch had no direct power to govern.

Not Just Dignified

The kings that followed Queen Victoria retained some influence on British governmental policy even as constitutional norms were developing against any such role.  

One development during the 19th Century was the increase in the number of people having the right to vote. The British monarchs were wary of democracy, including the rising power of socialism. The House of Lords opposed a proposed tax on the landed gentry to pay for social welfare programs. The non-democratic branch of Parliament was blocking the will of the people.

The prime minister asked the king to expand the House of Lords, which he had the power to do. The new lords would support the popular tax program. The king refused to do so unless the prime minister won re-election. He continued to wish to play a role in public policy.

The House of Lords eventually saw how the winds were blowing and agreed to a reduction of its power. Nonetheless, the British monarch continued to influence politics. Behind the scenes, they continued to play a role regarding who was prime minister.  

The King That Was Too Modern 

King George V was Queen Victoria’s grandson. He had a low opinion of his oldest son and heir. Edward was quite popular. He was a playboy who was comfortable interacting with people. 

He was not comfortable with the dignified duties of a sovereign. When Edward became king in the 1930s, this part of the job bored him. Edward also fell in love with a married woman who was already divorced. A twice-divorced American-born queen would not do.   

King Edward gave up his crown for his beloved. His more reserved younger brother was more to the liking of the people and establishment. He even took the name of his father, becoming King George VI. His oldest daughter became Queen Elizabeth II about fifteen years later. 

The Modern Monarchy 

Queen Elizabeth had a seventy-year reign (1952-2022), the longest in British history.

Elizabeth emphasized the dignified role of the monarchy. She carefully retained traditional pomp and circumstance. Elizabeth did introduce some modern touches, including a televised coronation. She carefully handled the press, providing access in return for supportive coverage.

Press coverage was a two-edged sword, especially with the rise of tabloid journalism. The royal family also provided much fodder to the press, repeatedly not having model family values. 

Elizabeth watched three of her children have divorces. She took an “ostrich” approach of trying to outlast any difficulties. An ostrich allegedly puts its head in the sand to avoid danger. She received criticism for not adapting to the times. 

The television show The Crown provided a dramatic account of these events. It was a mix of history and fiction, which put an international focus on the British monarchy.  

King Charles III 

The new king faces many questions regarding the future. 

Charles waited over fifty years to be king. He regularly pushed back against some of the ways of his mother. Charles also made his opinions known about public policy. 

The first King Charles learned the hard way about not adapting to the times. His son was more supportive of compromise. Many young people in Great Britain question the relevance of the monarchy.  The current King Charles should tread carefully.