If Monarchy Is a Must, Keep It Neutral
Hopefully King Charles III follows his mother’s example and stays out of politics.
With Queen Elizabeth II's passing, the United Kingdom enters not just a period of mourning, but of huge uncertainty. The queen provided a constant presence during 70 years of change—but she played another role. Given that she enjoyed such affection from the British people, she saved us from having to think about the inherent contradictions of a hereditary monarchy and our anachronistic constitution.
Brits loved the Queen, even though deep down plenty of us know hereditary rule is a terrible idea—as it consistently proves in other countries (even U.S.-style political dynasties are bad enough). For libertarians, the monarchy would always be a tricky sell. The fact the modern British royal family doesn't actually interfere isn't the point. It's the fact they could.
But thanks to Queen Elizabeth, it was possible to put those reservations aside. Instead of an affront to liberal democracy, we saw a noble figure who embodied much of what was good about our country, and we made peace with that. Better to focus on more important battles (like stopping people from being prosecuted for offensive tweets).
For years now, active republicanism (i.e., anti-monarchism) has been a profoundly "low status" opinion in Britain. People who insist on calling the monarchy undemocratic have become a bit like those folks who insist on telling you Jesus wasn't white. Deep down, everyone knows they're right, but it's so irritatingly performative and smug you almost want to disagree with them.
Some more traditional conservatives don't even worry about the contradictions of monarchy and instead actively embrace their lowly role as "subjects." One of Britain's most prominent conservative writers, Charles Moore, once said that journalists should suppress stories to protect the monarchy from embarrassment. Likewise, I once asked a Brexit-supporting friend if there was anything that would change his mind on the issue. Yes, he said—if the queen called for it to be overturned.
That last point goes to the heart of it. Part of the reason Brits have found it easy to accept a system in which democracy only functions with permission from the sovereign is that we've had a ruler who was impeccably neutral. But what if that changed?
In 2014, British playwright Mike Bartlett asked that very question. In Barlett's play (eventually broadcast on the BBC) King Charles III, the newly-crowned monarch refuses to give "royal assent" to a law dealing with press regulation. As no law passes in Britain without the approval of the monarch, the country is thrown instantly into crisis with violent protests leading to an eventual abdication.
Could it really happen? Who knows. In 2015, our Supreme Court approved the release of the "black spider" memos, a volume of letters sent by the then-prince of Wales (now King Charles III) to various government ministers over the years. The correspondence revealed that the heir apparent frequently leaned on government ministers, calling for everything from better equipment to be sent to British troops in Iraq and for the National Health Service to spend more on homeopathy.
Of course, Charles won't even have to write letters. One of the duties of any British prime minister is to attend a weekly audience with his or her monarch, during which no topic is off the table. Such discussions are kept strictly private (on pain of treason). But there is no corresponding promise that the monarch won't express an opinion or two here and there.
We already know that one of our king's favorite topics is climate change. His regular proclamations on the subject (including sympathy for Extinction Rebellion, the protest group whose disruptive antics have become a bugbear for the conservative media) are seen by some as bossy and elitist. As a result, his opinion poll ratings have struggled (yes, our hereditary monarchy is subject to opinion polling).
Did his missteps as prince of Wales make republicanism more palatable? Not really, although many Brits believe the monarchy should "skip a generation" and "appoint" William instead of Charles. In such conversations, it felt churlish of me to point out that the whole point of a monarchy is that you don't have a say.
But (semi-) republicans have weak points too. Can anyone definitively say Britain would be better without the monarchy? And wouldn't the process of becoming fully republican stoke so much division so as to be counterproductive? Perhaps it's understandable, then, that many republicans end up quietly deciding that it's better to stick with the status quo.
Of course, if the monarchy were to break away from its own tradition of neutrality we might have a very different proposition. But I suspect most people just hope we never get to that moment—even if we don't say it out loud.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
As a Koch / Reason left-libertarian, I wouldn’t mind having a monarchy in the US — as long as the royal family promoted open borders and elective third trimester abortion.
#KochReasonLibertarianism101
What about fourth trimester?
And shouldn’t abortions be decided by government? And by government, I mean Fauci, as he IS the science.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (aof-10) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
———->>> https://cashprofit99.netlify.app/
Under what circumstances could having a monarchy “be a must”?
Hell with internet voting, politicians and political parties are obsolete.
With a robust constitution government are nothing more than managers, implement the public will guided by the constitution.
It’s only a matter of time before Progressives lower the minimum Chief Executive age from 35 years to 35 days, and the real debate begins:
Should fetal Presidents be allowed more than two terms?
The forth trimester is when the father gets abortion rights.
Retroactively of course.
What about late term abortion – starting with you?
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. (res-10) Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
After reading this article:>>>> https://workofferweb24.netlify.app/
Once “your monarchy” is empowered, your wishes/dreams are NOT within your power, but of those you sacrificed your sovereignty to.
And so, others will influence TPTB to enforce policy you object to on all. But you can’t complain. That’s what you chose, authoritarianism.
If you want everything your way, you have to be king or queen. That’s the system you “wouldn’t mind having”?
Can anyone definitively say Britain would be better without the monarchy? And wouldn’t the process of becoming fully republican stoke so much division so as to be counterproductive?
Couldn’t the monarchy be abolished without changing anything else in the British Government? Keep the Prime Minister, Parliament, and the judiciary, but no more monarchs or nobility.
It’s the tourism factor.
More likely they’d restrict the monarch;s authority. The Lords used to be able to block legislation, but it gradually got pared back, and I think now that can only express disfavor without actually blocking passage. Maybe Charles will provoke the same change.
It’s. It like King Charles is going to set trade or military policy.
It is the tourism factor – and more broadly the notion that the history around you is still alive and present. Culture in the truest sense of the word.
Without a current monarchy, all those castles and cathedrals are dead – with no ceremonies or rituals to pass specific cultural lessons of that on to current generations. Maybe it only applies in Europe and only works in essentially conservative cultures. And Word War 1 proved how freaking dangerous monarchies are when they exist in more than one big nation-state.
True, but WW2 proved how bad much damage the uneducated can do to the world.
As did the 2020 POTUS election.
Historically, they tried to fully abolish it at one point. It led to the Commonwealth and Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate (which was a monarchy in all but name). Since the Glorious Revolution, the monarch serves with the consent of Parliament.
There are powers of hte monarchy that would need to be assigned elsewhere, probably to the PM. And I really don’t want the PM to have that much power any more than I want the president to have as much power as he has. One possible solution could be to divide up the powers between the houses. There will still be a House of Lords after all, they could the more monarchal powers, but the commoners should get some too. Probably divest some to the livery companies as well.
You can have an elected head of state with the same powers as the monarch and no more.
It would be a lot more complicated than that. Doable? Sure. But it would require a complete rewrite of their constitution, budget, etc. Remember that monarchy acts as a sort of check and balance against the rest of the government (and vice versa). Because they already had that, they are missing many of the more explicit checks and balances you see in other governmental systems (such as in the US).
It could be, but the people of the UK seem to like having the monarchy in place. So why should they abandon it?
And although I am no monarchist myself, I can certainly see the appeal of having a monarch who sits above politics, and becomes the embodiment of the very soul of the nation. That is a powerfully unifier.
Hey, anything happening with abortion these days?
I’m shocked to find that I’d rather hear about the UK’s royals bullshit than what leads the news in the US lately.
Wait till Congress enters a new term, we’ll see what hatches.
The first I became aware of Charles idiocy was when he wrote a bunch of editorials, or letters, I forget what, whining about modern architectural styles. My first thoughts were of Hitler thinking himself an architectural expert too, and wondering if this was some defining characteristic of dictators. How about Stalin or Mao?
It’s hard for me to comprehend the life of a UK royal. Their only job is PR, from dawn to dusk. Cutting ribbons, visiting hospitals, setting fashion trends. I had a little more respect for Harry and William for their actual real military service.
Charles? Pfah! 73 years old! What has he done for the past 50 years except marry under false pretenses with a mistress who is now queen? Is it the boredom which makes him an expert on architecture and homeopathy?
I am looking forward to the next few years as he puts his foot in it and tarnishes the monarchy’s reputation more than that dimwitted nazi-symp in the 1930s who abdicated. It will be much better entertainment than Elizabeth.
Oughta start pools on whether the British public reacts by wanting to get rid of the monarchs altogether, tell Charles to abdicate in favor of William, or further restricts the monarch’s power.
Is it the boredom which makes him an expert on architecture?
It might be all the ribbon-cuttings.
He raises awareness about Climate Change.
Yeah, he has some stupid ideas about that shit. Probably typical leftist bleeding heart bullshit.
“Their only job is PR, from dawn to dusk. Cutting ribbons, visiting hospitals, setting fashion trends. ”
Much the same could be said of a politician like the US president. It also could be argued that the president is far too partisan and interferes in the world of politics far too much. Many countries restrict their president, or head of state, to almost entirely ceremonial roles, like Israel, for example.
Are you seriously trying to claim the US President has about as much power as the British monarch?
Riiiight.
No, I’m not claiming that at all. I’m claiming that a good deal of a president’s job is PR, cutting ribbons, TV appearances, hosting foreign dignitaries, golf games, speeches, signings etc. I also wonder if politics in the US would benefit if the head of state were even more of a ceremonial position, as it is in many countries like the UK. A less partisan president who doesn’t meddle in politics might be an improvement.
As to who has the more power, Donald Trump was removed from office by the public after only 4 years in power, while only death removed the Queen after 70 years in office. She never meddled much in politics like a US president, but she had the power to derail governments in the UK, and places like Australia and Canada, as well.
Edward VIII vs Charles III? Heck, the same actor could probably play both!
And what is Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf’s polo handicap?
Not sure, but he makes a decent Bridge partner
>>Brits loved the Queen
Washington loved the Redskins.
I was really hoping Reason would say nothing about QEII’s death.
Well, they came pretty close.
ENB was dancing on QEII’s grave a few articles back, along with a lot of radical leftists.
Neutral monarchy.
Neutral monarchy.
Yeah, sure. We got that.
But only if English is dead.
Look, Mr. Jackman, being American I really have no dog in this immediate fight. But what you are wanting is royalty absent any ties to governance, and I get that. I also get that you do not want to admit that, lest it risk further diminishing an already gravely diminished institution.
Just don’t trash one institution (your language) in a vain attempt to prop up another. Accept it as part of the grand arc of your nation. One which we, who understand where we came from and why we are who we are, are eternally grateful to have been a part of.
It’s always been a recipient of State hwndouts. Hell, they’re England’s Biggest Welfare Family.
Now not at all. They used to actually have power.
I believe that many countries with parliamentary government also have figure for head of state. In many cases a President with limited powers. I see the monarchy the same way as these figurehead Presidents. The real question is how far the government support for the monarchy should go into the family. I would review the jobs done by the monarchy and consider some cuts. If you not in-line to the throne you should not be getting government support.
And then you have the Dutch who, right around the time most nations were ditching their monarchies, created one.
“Who knows. In 2015, our Supreme Court approved the release of the “black spider” memos, a volume of letters sent by the then-prince of Wales (now King Charles III) to various government ministers over the years. The correspondence revealed that the heir apparent frequently leaned on government ministers, calling for everything from better equipment to be sent to British troops in Iraq and for the National Health Service to spend more on homeopathy.”
I actually read all the black spider memos and came away with a far better impression of Charles than I had before.
Individual royal family members are patrons to thousands of British charities and societies dealing with everything from traditional dance preservation societies, to international aid, to local fishermen’s associations.
It was in his role as patron rather than Prince that Charles wrote those letters.
I think that the Graunaid was hoping that there was really something sensational and scandalous in them when they sued for release. Unfortunately for them it’s just bog standard charitable advocacy for sheep farming, summer schools and heritage sites.
In Barlett’s play (eventually broadcast on the BBC) King Charles III, the newly-crowned monarch refuses to give “royal assent” to a law dealing with press regulation.
An English royal would refuse to give “royal assent” to a law dealing with press regulation.? What is this, British Science Fiction?
Saw the show, it was actually not bad and somewhat interesting from a libertarian point of view.
The twist was that the king was obviously in the right and in favor of freedom of speech while the elected politicians were trying to do something authoritarian. The question asked is what is more important: democracy, or the freedoms democracy is supposed to protect.
“the freedoms democracy is supposed to protect.”
Whatever gave you this silly notion? Democracy is no guarantee of any freedom. More often it is a direct threat to freedom. This is precisely why we are a constitutional republic.
The spaniel is a global warming cultist who hasn’t met an ‘alternative medicine’ scam he didn’t love.
For libertarians, the monarchy would always be a tricky sell.
Propertarians otoh really prefer monarchy – absolute monarchy at that. No tragedy of the commons. And the inherent tendencies of the looters and moochers gets restrained by a strong well-armed monarch who views that as trespassing, vandalism, and theft – esp when it is done under the guise of ‘democracy’ or ‘self-governance’.
“Truss Up Vile Whigs”
has taken on a whole new meaning in the last week.
Don’t need to actually abolish the monarchy. Just let them keep some ancestral lands (not the whole fucking set of islands, literally), and let the remain Head of State.
Canada has (had) the Queen as its Head of State since the beginning. Ditto for Australia. And they seem to manage without any actual monarchal power. Manage to declare war on occasion without needing to ask Her Majesty first.
Royalty is over a century past its sell-by date.
Cut em loose.
Absolutely! No Silver-Spooned Hereditary Welfare Queens and no Andy Capp Proles Welfare Queen Families either! Give ’em all 10 years to get their financial shit straight, then it’s Root, Hog, Or Die!
If King Chuck III is so concerned about climate change, I hope he disposed of the royal yacht, private jets, and tears down Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace, replacing them with yurts.
The 12,000 horsepower royal yacht Britannia was disposed of in 1997 and never replaced.
Until he got hitched, Prince Harry cruised the Caribbean sailing a sloop.
People who insist on calling the monarchy undemocratic have become a bit like those folks who insist on telling you Jesus wasn’t white. Deep down, everyone knows they’re right, . . .
Ackshuyally, for human beings to have pigmentation, they must first exist, M’Ladies.
*Tips Anthropologist’s pith helmet.*
Autism has nothing to do with recognizing an ontological and physiological fact. And Jewishness requires existence too.
I see: in your mental world, fictional characters just don’t exist. How sad.
If royal assent were truly required for every bill passed by Parliament, then how could Parliament abolish the monarchy? What are the odds that a monarch would give assent to the abolition of his own position?
No monarch has denied royal assent to a bill since Queen Anne in 1708. If a modern monarch presumed to deny royal assent to a bill, Parliament would be in a tough position, and a constitutional crisis would ensue. Parliament would have a few options. One would be to just roll over and accept it. A majority of the House would never accept this. More likely, Parliament (the House of Commons, really) would declare that royal assent was no longer necessary. If sufficiently upset, it could very well depose the monarch and declare someone else the monarch. Ultimately, it might exercise the nuclear option, and abolish the monarchy.
Recall, the Royal Family goes well beyond the Monarch. There are a whole lot of princes and dukes who wouldn’t be too keen on losing titles and privileges. Are they going to risk all in a battle they can’t win to back the King’s right to veto a bill on press relations? The chances of royal assent being denied to a bill are nil. All the preceding also works to keep the King in his place and watch his mouth. The Parliament probably can’t take his head, as it did to Charles I, but it can take his job.
Where my bitcoin monarchists at?
This is your time to rock it, kids.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
This poor new writer has obviously never seen a Schoolhouse Rock Video:
Schoolhouse Rock–America Rock–No More Kings
https://youtu.be/5I-AvAhG6e0
Is it just a coincidence that Australia and Canada remain subjects of the King, and their rona responses were among the most insane?
I think we’re going to find out soon since the new Prime Minister has authorized more drilling in the North Sea and fracking to get more natural gas. I would hope he’d be smart enough to not get into that but, if he does and Brits are freezing because of it, I suspect republicanism will start looking a lot better.
Would folks be in favor of a more… *vocal* monarchy if it shared Reason Magazine’s values?
There is nothing at least that is very libertarian about Queen Elizabeth’s reign.
Seventy years and it’s pretty clear that her legacy is not even remotely about controlling events or history. About leading government in order to impose her will on everyone.
Edit
nothingone thingIf you must have a monarch then a benign one like Elizabeth is a good choice.
If Jesus “wasn’t white” then what was his ethnicity? Is that important? What is the point of arguing about the divine ethnicity? Does God even have an ethnicity?
All gods have the same ethnicity of the tribes that invented them. If zebras had gods they’d look like zebras.
Try as you might to make a god into an abstraction, attributing even rational thought to it is to anthropomorphize.
It makes you think maybe our brains evolved to assume agency by default. If you assume a rustle in the leaves is another person out to kill you, being right could save your life while being wrong wouldn’t do any harm. So we do the same with thunderstorms, and voila, deities.
Does Cthulhu’s consort come before or after Megan Markle in the coronation procession ?
The Aztecs would like a word, as would the animal worshippers, pagans,most Christians, and the ancient Egyptian folks with their black jackal god.
Am I missing something? Exactly what power does the British monarchy have? Doesn’t Britain have this institution called Parliament? Does the occupant of the throne have to sign Parliament’s laws as the US President does?
Stop living in the past. Tic-tokers have as much influence as the new King Charles III.
Am I missing something? Exactly what power does the British monarchy have? Doesn’t Britain have this institution called Parliament?
You know who else should have stayed the hell out of politics?
The Joker?
The Kaisers and Charlemagne? After all, you can’t have a Third Reich without a Second and a First. 🙂
good
There is no “neutral” on some issues – When it comes to AGW, there is no debate, there is no discussion, and there is no opinion – There are only those who want to commit mass murder on a global scale with AGW, and those who do not want to commit mass murder on a global scale with AGW.
To quote the “Western Civilization” that Conservatives claim to love soooo much:
“He who does not oppose evil, commands it to be done” – Leonardo Da Vinci
Your silence is consent” – Plato
www,erich.slate74.com
The writer seems to think that Charles possibly _could_ choose to be a politically engaged monarch. But he cannot. English law constrains him from doing so.
Outlawry has been an English tradition for centuries. Especially among the aristocrats.
My guess is Charles will not be able to maintain an air of neutrality and as such, will most likely be the beginning of the end for the monarchy. The longer he is King, the less likely William will ever sit on the throne.
“My guess is Charles will not be able to maintain an air of neutrality and as such, will most likely be the beginning of the end for the monarchy. ”
Maybe leadership, even from a king, is what the UK needs. The squabbling Tories, what 3 or 4 prime ministers in 5 years, aren’t providing much.
Was Elizabeth “neutral”? Did she not give medals to British troops that murdered unarmed protestors on Bloody Sunday?
No, they where given to the widows of those who perished when the Provos blew up HQNI.
There’s Stephen Fry’s example depicting the difference between rational and empirical: Rationally, monarchy is stupid and should be abolished. But empirically, the countries with the best social metrics are monarchies. I think this is a bit much, since the monarchies in question play no role in policymaking, and guys like Stephen Fry (and myself on occasion) really just love jewels and pomp.
But abolishing the British monarchy, frankly even in colonies, would, at this point in history, be just as symbolic a gesture as the monarchy itself. It wouldn’t increase anyone’s freedom, since the King doesn’t make policy. For all we know, it would decrease freedom in colonies since it would remove them from the purview of what is now a fairly functioning democracy with liberal values.
The British themselves, as you can imagine, have a subtly different outlook on life given that they are born with the vestiges of absolute class distinctions, and none of that I find particularly worth celebrating. But at some point the royals themselves must feel embarrassed and may decide to end it to spare themselves the cognitive dissonance.
And, what about the Canadians? Isn’t he their monarch-in-symbol as well?
Who cares about that king? I want to know more about the Sofa King. You’ve reported on him before. I hear he’s low!
When America seceded from the British Empire, the king lectured the American ambassador that “his colonies” would soon come crawling back begging to be ruled. He was certain he was essential for a civil, safe, prosperous society. I’m sure Adams didn’t ask if he was such a “gift” why did he need to force his reign at the point of a gun. Why didn’t Adams make that argument? Because Adams was partially in agreement that a people needed to be ruled. They just disagreed over the specifics of authoritarianism. And so it was that Adams was a federalist, a co-conspirator in the bloodless anti-American coup, the adoption of the authoritarian Constitution.
And so began the beginning of the end of The American Dream.
Too late: King Charles III has already embraced lots of political causes.
Also, his predecessors operated the monarchy more like a business, meaning they were interested in increasing the overall wealth of the country. After WWII, though, the monarchy was captured by the progressive welfare state, so King Charles III’s personal interests are now more akin to those of a socialist functionary.
Jesus never existed, but if he did, this is what he would have probably looked like.
The question is whether that guy would have passed for white in America, which is a fluid thing. What do you think? He certainly wasn’t nordic with blue eyes as he is most often depicted.
Don’t tell Tony about Chinese Jesus.
Well, what about Santa Claus?
Just last year, I saw a couple of black Santa’s on TV. Although, most Santa’s I see are lily white. Not much sun at the North Pole you know.
People who insist on calling the monarchy undemocratic have become a bit like those folks who insist on telling you Jesus wasn’t white. Deep down, everyone knows they’re right,…
Ummm….what race are Semitic peoples if not Caucasian?
Meanwhile, back in Reality: “‘Entirely right’ for Charles to have lobbied ministers, says David Cameron
Former PM says he never felt Charles interfered …
… “I never felt he tried to influence me improperly in any way,” the former prime minister said. “I think the heir to the throne has a perfect right to have interest in issues like the environment, preserving wildlife, his interest in the built environment. Many of the causes he took up back in the 60s and 70s might have looked rather fringe but he picked his subject superbly, became an expert in things like climate change and the environment long before politicians. …”
Why does Reason even have an opinion on this worth considering?
Why not let that sovereign nation decide what they want?
Reason.com, which is disguise for democrats.commie has the gall or whatever spineless wimp factor to tell the Brits wait the Royals should do? I must be on Owsley. Oay Mister G, have the female democrats in Congress fly over to to England and give Charles a finishing school sort of training on how behave, shut your mouth, respect your elders and strangers but go all out on how to impeach and act like spoiled brats. Perhaps they will get to promote the stolen nuclear secrets stash Mr. Trump took from these patriots and start a war. A few enemy warheads landing here and there will allow a “See….I told you so” from dems, they can blame Trump, cancel the Constitution and begin the genocide of whoever is shitting on their pomp and circumstance. But the supremes need to interpret the bill of Rights so nobody can stop this tyranny. Perhaps exhume Scalia’s smug mug and flunk the entire class of 1776.
C’mon Mistah Nick, you can do it! (You do realize that you have a mess on your hands already and should take a trip yourself to perhaps an “I’m Finished School” Fuck it all.