laitimes

Can Charles III give the British constitutional monarchy a new lease of life in the 21st century?

author:The Paper

On 19 September 2022, the United Kingdom held a grand state funeral ceremony for the late Queen Elizabeth II. More than 500 heads of state, monarchs, dignitaries and members of the royal family attended the Queen's funeral, the largest gathering of global leaders in recent decades and a demonstration of the Queen's unparalleled global reach.

Britain's longest-reigning monarch, Elizabeth II has witnessed the dissolution of the British Empire and the decline of the monarchy across the globe over the past seven decades. With her outstanding personality, she won the wide love of the British people, maintained the unity of the United Kingdom, and continued the British monarchy, the oldest constitutional monarchy in the world. Now that the throne has passed to Charles, can he, as the new monarchy, breathe new life into the old constitutional monarchy so that it can continue to flourish in the 21st century?

Can Charles III give the British constitutional monarchy a new lease of life in the 21st century?

On September 19, 2022, local time, London, England, the state funeral of Queen Elizabeth II was held at Westminster Abbey.

The past and present lives of the British constitutional monarchy

The origins of the British constitutional monarchy can be traced back to the early 13th century. King John of England at the time lost Normandy in the war against France, causing resentment among the nobility, who kidnapped John in 1215 and forced him to sign the Magna Carta, which reaffirmed in written form the rights and obligations between the king and the feudal lords, stipulating that outside of the feudal obligations, the king could not collect military service exemptions or other donations without the consent of the whole country, nor could he arrest or deprive others of their property without a legal trial. This establishes two important principles: First, the monarch is also held accountable and accepts the rule of law; Second, the rights of the individual are higher than the will of the monarch. Although the Magna Carta was subsequently torn apart by both signatories, it became an important historical basis for limiting the monarchy in the future.

In the centuries since, there has been a power struggle between the royal family and the parliament, which represents the interests of the nobility, and even triggered a civil war between the parliament and the royal family. It was not until the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 that the parliament once again deposed the king, welcomed a new monarch, and passed the Bill of Rights, which stipulated that the king must convene the parliament regularly, hold elections for the members, not interfere with the freedom of speech and the making of the law in the parliament, and cannot be taxed without the consent of the parliament. In 1701, the Succession to the Throne Act was passed, which established the parliament's right to choose the successor to the throne. These two documents established the principle of "sovereignty in Parliament", limited the royal power to Parliament, and laid the foundation for a constitutional monarchy in Britain. At this point, Britain finally found its own political system, ended the long-term civil strife, and began a high-speed economic development. For more than 300 years, the system ensured that Britain remained stable, that all political issues were resolved peacefully and gradually, and that there were no coups d'état or civil unrest.

After the Glorious Revolution, the king still enjoyed a lot of power through "royal privileges", such as the power to appoint cabinet ministers, declare war, make peace, amnesty and knighthood, which gradually weakened over the next 200 years, from the initial monarch actively directing the ministers to exercise power, to later accepting the minister's advice to make decisions, and finally giving up the right to oppose, completely by the minister. By the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the British monarch finally developed into a "virtual monarch" in the true sense, as Liang Qichao observed at the time: "The king of England, but he thinks that ornaments, without any real power, are sacred and equal to idols." ”

This kind of "rule without rule" is precisely the essence of the British constitutional monarchy, and it is also the fundamental reason why it can survive and still have strong vitality. After the separation of the "power" and "authority" of the state, power belongs to the parliament and authority belongs to the monarch. Parliaments are regularly replaced by elections, allowing the monarch to stay out of the daily political strife and play a more detached role as a national symbol and ceremonial one. The more detached the monarch is from realpolitik and remains neutral, the more secure his position becomes. In contrast, the monarch who holds real power seems to have more power, but as long as there is a policy mistake, it will become the target of public criticism, and the end is mostly tragic, so that today, except for some countries in the Middle East, most monarchies use Britain as a template to practice a constitutional monarchy of a virtual monarchy.

The future of the British monarchy

Of course, the monarchy was ultimately a product of the feudal era and hereditary privileges, contrary to the modern concept of equality. Since entering the 21st century, it is also an indisputable fact that the monarchy's approval rating in the United Kingdom has continued to decline. According to a 2021 YouGov poll, 41% of young British people aged 18 to 24 support a democratically elected head of state. But it would be an exaggeration to think that Britain's anti-monarchy movement is in full swing. First, political participation and turnout among young people are low, and Brexit is a prime example. More than 70% of young people do not support Brexit, but they do not come out to vote, so that they are later criticized for ruining their futures. The support rate of the British middle-aged and elderly people for the monarchy has always remained at a level of more than 70% or 80%, and they are the decisive force in British politics.

Second, the perception of something does not necessarily translate into political action. For example, this year's Ipsos poll showed that only 24 percent of respondents supported Charles succeeding to the throne, and a whopping 42 percent believed Charles should give way to his son William. But this is just the topic of casual talk after dinner, and no one will really launch a coup to force Charles to abdicate.

There was and is no republican movement in the UK civil society or in the British Parliament. The Greens, which hold a seat in parliament, once included republicanism in its program, have now been removed. Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour Party, was a staunch republican, even refusing to sing the national anthem at state events because of the lyrics of "God bless the Queen". But after becoming leader of the Labour Party, he also did not include the abolition of the monarchy in the Labour Party's election platform. Asked how he views the royal family, he only euphemistically said that the royal family still needs "improvements". For the foreseeable future, no major political party will have the abolition of the monarchy as its programme, and the political risks of doing so would be too great to outweigh the losses.

Can Charles III give the British constitutional monarchy a new lease of life in the 21st century?

On September 16, 2022 local time, Wales, England, King Charles III of the United Kingdom held a mourning ceremony for Queen Elizabeth II at St. Randolph Cathedral in Cardiff, followed by a public greeting.

The British monarchy (or more specifically, the English monarchy) remains stable overall, even more so than it was a few years ago. After the 2016 Brexit referendum, the people of England have no interest in another major constitutional operation. The abolition of the monarchy is not only a broken bone, but also a reversal of the political system that has worked in the past 300 years in Britain, and it is even more necessary to be cautious. In the English nationalist demands behind Brexit, the monarch is an important symbol of British sovereignty, autonomy and "glorious isolation", a personification of Britain and the "British spirit" (Britishness), and the people affected by this nationalist ideology will only support the monarchy more enthusiastically than ever. They will say that it is uncertain whether the elected head of state will be able to better maintain the national identity of the British people and the cultural influence and "soft power" of the British on the global stage. Instead of this, it is better to remain unchanged, as the English adage says, "If there is no bad, do not fix it." ”

The UK is currently facing a serious cost-of-living crisis, and the government's top priority is to curb the rise in electricity and gas bills, reduce inflation, and prevent millions of households from being unable to heat for the winter, and the large-scale collapse of enterprises and the economic recession. These questions are enough to make people anxious. In the coming period, not to mention the abolition of the monarchy, it may even be put on hold for the time being the issue of reform in the House of Lords.

Abolishing the monarchy can indeed reduce government spending, but not as much as one might think. During the pandemic, the UK government subsidized affected individuals and businesses by as much as £60 billion to £70 billion, and the new Prime Minister Truss' energy price limit plan is expected to cost £100 billion. By comparison, the British government's annual allocation of £82.6 million to the royal family is a drop in the bucket. The cost of restructuring may not stop there, not to mention that the royal family, as Britain's "mascot", can also bring in large tourism benefits every year. The economic account of abolishing the monarchy does not seem cost-effective. However, the poor economic situation is likely to make the royal family's expenses more concerned and criticized. There have been media reports that Charles III's coronation ceremony will be scaled down to be shorter and less expensive than ever before, in order to convey the spirit of the royal family sharing the hardships of the people.

Charles and the Royal Reformation

Another concern about the British monarchy is Charles's personal abilities and prestige. His public support has lagged far behind that of the Queen, even far behind that of his eldest son, William, and daughter-in-law, Kate. However, according to YouGov polls, in the week after the queen's death, the proportion of British people who believe that Charles can be a good king has risen from 32% to 60%, reflecting an interesting phenomenon: when Charles was the crown prince, he was always the "bear child" who stood in the queen's huge figure and was criticized by the public, which was almost harsh on him, partly due to his failed marriage to Diana. But when he actually became king, the people, out of the maintenance of the image of the head of state, were much more tolerant and had high hopes for him. This is naturally good news for Charles, but it is not known how long this political honeymoon period will last.

The public expects a monarch who, like the Queen, combines qualities such as tenacity, restraint, diligence, dedication, and elegance, while remaining politically neutral and far from controversy. On the previous point, Charles had already shown impatience and impatience twice this week (once because the pen was leaking, and the other because the entourage did not remove the pen holder in time when signing the document), and there was a clear gap compared to the Queen's calm demeanor. On the latter point, Charles has been very vocal over the past few decades on controversial topics such as climate change, GMOs and organic farming. He has written dozens of letters to government ministers, expressing his views on various issues and even suspected of intervening in politics to promote specific policies. In 2017, the BBC produced a TV movie called "King Charles III", which fictionalized the constitutional crisis caused by Charles's intervention in legislation after he took the throne, which is a big brain-opening for the screenwriters, but it is also a reasonable assumption based on Charles's character. In an interview in 2018, Charles said he was well aware of the difference between being a king and being a crown prince, and that once he became king, there were some things he could no longer do. After declaring his succession last week, he also admitted to giving up some personal interests. How to continue to embody the humane, cultural, and moral authority of the monarch while maintaining political neutrality will be a major challenge for Charles here.

Even if Charles could manage himself and continue the monarch's honor and prestige, he would have to face the public relations problems posed by the rest of the royal family. In the last three years of her life, the queen was still plagued by royal controversies and scandals. The first is the sudden and unilateral announcement by Harry and Meghan in 2020 that they will withdraw from the royal family, no longer receive royal subsidies, and will no longer undertake royal official business. To this end, the Queen urgently called a royal meeting and made a rare statement on family affairs in person, expressing support for the idea of grandchildren and granddaughters-in-law to start a new life. In 2021, Megan was outspoken in the US talk show criticizing the British royal system, claiming that she did not have enough emotional support, and some members of the royal family even talked about the skin color of her unborn son, suspected of racist remarks, which once again caused a scramble for media coverage and controversy.

Can Charles III give the British constitutional monarchy a new lease of life in the 21st century?

On September 10, 2022, local time, Berkshire, England, after the death of Queen Elizabeth II, Princess Kate Middleton of Wales, William the Prince of Wales, Prince Harry of the Duke of Sussex and Meghan Markle met with the public at Windsor Castle.

The more serious crisis came from the Queen's second son, Prince Andrew. In 2019, American woman Yuffrey claimed that she was trafficked to Andrew by Epstein, a wealthy Wall Street businessman, in 2001 and sexually assaulted by him three times. Andrew denied it. Yuffrey filed a civil lawsuit in 2021, and the two parties eventually reached an out-of-court settlement. But Andrew was unanimously criticized by public opinion for the incident and his friendship with Epstein, a convicted sex trafficker, and the royal family's reputation was greatly damaged. Eventually, Andrew's title of "Your Highness" (HRH) was deactivated, his rank was revoked, and all royal official duties were cancelled. Britain's House of Commons is also reading a bill to strip Andrew of the title of Duke of York.

In the face of these crises, one of Charles's response options was "royal streamlining." Although the details are not yet known, it is said that it has been in the making, and the existing more than 20 royal members who perform official duties will be gradually reduced to single digits, and the core members are expected to include King Charles III, Queen Camilla, Charles's sister Princess Anne, brother Prince Edward and his wife, and Crown Prince William and his wife Kate. On the one hand, this helps to reduce government funding for royal activities, and on the other hand, it can also reduce the probability of scandals by reducing the number of core members of the royal family, which is similar to the reform direction of other royal families in Europe.

Scottish independence movement

Outside of England, the royal family's greatest concern is probably Scotland, which has been a country of rising calls for independence in recent years. Strictly speaking, the Scottish independence movement and the Scottish republican movement did not intersect much. The Scottish National Party (SNP), which is currently in power in Scotland, pursues independence but promises to maintain the monarchy after Scotland's independence, that is, to retreat to the "two countries, one monarch" state before the Soviet-British merger in 1707. However, this promise is only based on the reality that Queen Elizabeth II is still on the throne.

The Queen's own relationship with Scotland is indeed very close. Her mother was from a Scottish aristocracy and was the daughter of the 14th Counts of Strathmore and Kinghorn. Balmeral Castle, located in north-eastern Scotland, is the Queen's summer residence and her favourite residence. The Queen lived here almost every summer, and she died here on September 8. Throughout her life, the Queen showed a genuine love for Scotland, and the Scots repaid it. This relationship became an important emotional bond that held Scotland and England together.

In contrast, Charles was relatively estranged from Scotland, and although he would also dress in traditional Scottish dress as usual, he came to live in Scotland less, and the estates he chose were mostly in the south of England, and his personal style was more like that of an English squire. As in England, his poll support in Scotland is far lower than that of the Queen. Without decisive steps to maintain the authority of the royal family after Charles ascended to the throne, Scotland's sense of identity with the United Kingdom would continue to decline, and both the independence and republican movements would rise. At present, the central government has explicitly rejected the request for a second referendum in Scotland and will not recognize the results of any private referendum. But if a second independence referendum is actually held and passed in the future, the issue of the state system may be put on the agenda and become a potential referendum issue. At that time, the Scots will have to choose between a monarchy and a republic. The monarchy's approval rating in Scotland is already lower than in England, and the current polling figures are not very optimistic.

Towards a republican Commonwealth Kingdom

If the abolition of the monarchy in England is still a "long-term concern", then the republican movement in the Commonwealth Kingdom is a real "near-term worry". The Commonwealth currently has 54 member states, most of them former British colonies, of which 14 still have the British monarch as the head of state. These 14 countries, also known as the Commonwealth Kingdoms, include Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, the Bahamas, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, Grenada and others. Canada, Australia and New Zealand can be grouped into a category, they are predominantly Anglo-Saxon immigrants, the same language as the United Kingdom, developed well during the British rule, the people still have a certain home-country complex with Britain, and the main reason for republicanism here is the complete sovereignty of independent countries, not dissatisfaction with the royal family or British past rule. Among them, republicanism in Australia is the most prevalent, there was a referendum to abolish the monarchy in 1999, and the current ruling Labour Party also has a republican as one of its programs. After the Queen's death, republican issues will once again enter the fast lane. New Zealand and Canada have weaker republican movements, but New Zealand Prime Minister Ardern said in a recent interview that while there will be no change in the short term, she expects to see New Zealand become a republic in her lifetime.

Can Charles III give the British constitutional monarchy a new lease of life in the 21st century?

On September 11, 2022 local time, in Canberra, Australia, at the inauguration ceremony of King Charles III, soldiers marched in line.

For the remaining countries, particularly the Caribbean island countries, the situation is completely different. These countries were the base of the transatlantic slave trade hundreds of years ago, and the inhabitants are mostly descendants of slaves of African descent and have been subjected to British imperialism. Republicanism here is full of indictments of the evils of British colonialism and calls for compensation for slaves, and the royal family naturally became a symbol of colonial evil. Barbados announced its restructuring as a republic on 30 November 2021, and even with the Queen's enormous influence, it has not been able to stop it. To be sure, more Caribbean countries would have entered the ranks of republics in the Charles era, with the more mature conditions including Jamaica, the Bahamas and Antigua and Barbuda. Most British people do not care about this, after all, it is not the internal affairs of their own country. The move toward a republic is an unstoppable historical trend that should have happened long ago. If Britain can face up to its colonial history, a peaceful and dignified exit would be invaluable.

Heavy responsibilities

121 years ago, in 1901, Queen Victoria died after 63 years in power. Like Elizabeth II, Queen Victoria was a monarch beloved by the British people, and her sons Edward VII and Charles were in a similar situation, only to inherit the throne in the rare year after 60 years as a crown prince, and to take over the same British society that was undergoing great changes. Neither of them had the lofty prestige and influence of their respective mothers. However, in the short reign of Edward VII in just nine years, his achievements still exceeded the expectations of the people at that time. Charles also has a chance to become a successful monarch, after all, he also has 70 years of experience as a crown prince. It is now up to him to inherit the wisdom of his predecessors, reinvigorate the monarchy, preserve the unity of the country, properly resolve relations with former colonies, reshape the Commonwealth and, as far as possible, maintain Britain's global political and cultural influence.

Read on