Reflections on a hereditary monarchy

The name of those who met the Queen is legion. However brief the meeting, they would remember it for the rest of their lives. Those who met her more often received, if possible, a more profound impression. Ministers, from her Prime Ministers down, were struck by her mastery of the brief and the acuteness of her critical powers. She was formidably well-informed and had a knack of spotting the weakness in an argument. Out of the public eye, her sense of fun and quiet modesty gave one the sense that her balanced personality was what enabled her to be so good at her job.

As a hereditary monarch, she presented the eternal question that bedevils the lives of political theorists everywhere: as the French philosopher asked, “It works in practice, but does it work in theory?”

Indeed, to the bien pensant 21st century mind, the idea of hereditary office is so offensive as to border on the incomprehensible: it reeks of privilege and stands as a constant reminder of an outdated social order. Yet in this country, popular opinion still seems stubbornly to resist the abolition of the ultimate hereditary office: the monarchy. Why? 

The extraordinary qualities the late Queen showed during her long reign undoubtedly account for a large part of the monarchy’s enduring popularity. However, for other reasons, the people may, not for the first time, be more perceptive than the theoreticians.

There are three main options for determining the type of head of state in a democracy: an executive presidency as in France or the United States, a largely ceremonial presidency as in Italy or Germany or a constitutional monarchy as in the UK or Japan.

Which system each country chooses is largely determined by a combination of its history, traditions and the circumstances prevailing at the time of its constitutional settlement. It is not therefore seemly for foreigners to pontificate on what is best for their friends and neighbours. However, at the beginning of a new reign, when republicans here may think that their opportunity has come, we should remind ourselves of what we want from our head of state and which of the three options best achieves our aim.

Perhaps the most important function for a head of state is to embody the nation. It is relatively easy at a nation’s birth for a great leader to do so. George Washington did as the USA’s first President. Today Zelensky is doing it in Ukraine. It is perhaps natural for some nations, when they are born of struggle, to choose an executive presidential system.

Equally, others change to an executive presidency in mid-stream, but often only when the nation is in crisis. France is the obvious example among democracies: a country with a glorious history under its various monarchies, but now with a more recent and established tradition of republicanism. When facing a crisis in 1958, she established an executive presidency under the great general who, for the second time in his life, for a moment embodied the nation. The Fifth Republic is in many ways as much an elective monarchy as the UK is a hereditary republic, but for all his virtues, the current President, despite all his efforts, does not entirely embody the nation.

The difficulty arises when the birth pangs are over or the crisis is resolved. To be elected, whether directly or indirectly, the executive president has to be a party politician and therefore has to descend into the bear pit of politics. In stable times, that may not matter, so long as the losing side accepts the rules of the game. Greatly to his credit, Al Gore famously accepted defeat at the hands of George Bush in order to preserve the Republic, when he could have challenged a dubiously calculated Floridian result. Nixon did the same when only Mayor Daley’s skulduggery in Chicago had let Kennedy in.

The system might be more satisfactory if it did not have to rely from time to time on the decency of politicians even in stable times. But stable times, sub specie aeternitatis, are rare. In times of rapid change such as ours, societies become unstable, political systems come under strain and politicians are tempted to behave badly. Indeed, as populations become increasingly tribal, elected leaders find it difficult to govern for the nation as a whole. At such times, and they are more normal than times of stability, a nation is more likely, but no more than that, to conduct its politics and resolve its differences under a head of state who is not an elected politician and who stands resolutely above the political fray.

A non-executive president usually manages to do that, only intervening in politics to use his or her residual powers in times of crisis. This has been necessary in both Italy and Germany in recent times.

 There is, however, a difficulty here too. There have been non-executive presidents who have embodied the nation and who have brought weight, distinction and a sense of style to the office. Mary Robinson in the Republic of Ireland is perhaps the most famous example. However, more often, they are themselves retired politicians, often of the second rank, whose history and standing make it difficult for them to embody the nation, particularly a nation with a long history with myths embedded in the national memory. 

Burke’s dictum that “The state is a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born” applies especially to ancient nations like ours. A retired politician in a crumpled suit may not be the figure best qualified to uphold the dignity of the state with its many layered past and its aspirations for the future.

A constitutional monarchy as it has evolved in this country gets over most of the difficulties of both sorts of presidency. The Queen had the touch, the understanding and the experience to bring her performance of the role to as near pitch perfect as it is possible to be. She was certainly above the political battle. No one knew her political opinions. She brought to the performance of her duties a dignity which perhaps came from a remarkable combination of long experience, genuine humility, a highly developed sense of humour, an eye for detail and a shrewd ability to judge character. Her judgement gave her the ability to pace the reform of the institution to match the times and her dedication to the job, while giving no sense of not enjoying it, gave us a sense of her being about the only reliable part of our lives in a changing world. That she was the head of the Commonwealth and was so deeply engaged with overseas leaders and events was a great source of soft power for this country, but it also reflected the international reach and interests of the nation she led.

In short, she really was the embodiment of the nation, which is precisely what a head of state should be. The emotional reaction to her death and the unified response to it, even from dyed-in-the-wool republicans, is evidence enough.

All institutions have their vulnerabilities and monarchies are no different. In the end, a monarchy can be brought down by a monarch who does not understand the role and, even if they do, is not willing to face the relentless nature of the job without complaint, showing sympathy for others without asking for it himself. It is a lot to ask of anyone, but an effective constitutional monarch, particularly in times of stress and change, is our best chance of conducting our fractious affairs without bringing the house down.

Fortunately, our new king is a remarkable man in his own right. His achievements as Prince of Wales have been consistently underrated and he has often been ahead of his time. For instance, if you doubt that, ask any beneficiary of the Prince’s Trust how he has changed their lives and you will get your answer. He understands that the limitations on a constitutional monarch are greater than on an heir to the throne and has repeatedly said that he does. We mourn his mother, knowing she was one of our greatest monarchs, but we can look forward to the new reign knowing that the institution is in safe hands.

God save the King!

The author is Rt Hon Marquess of Salisbury KG KCVO who was Leader of the House of Lords. He organised The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee. He is also chairman of Reaction. 

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life