Citizen Writes
The coronation of King Charles III
It’s an anachronism, but monarchy works
2023-05-03
By Tor Clark, Associate Professor in Journalism and Deputy Head of the School of Media, Communication and Sociology at the University of Leicester. As a political journalist he has covered the last eight UK general elections for newspapers, radio and television.
As the forthcoming coronation turns the national spotlight on the monarchy, alongside the commemorative mugs, tea-towels and wall-to-wall news coverage, the uneven debate on the place and future of the crown in UK society is raising its head once again.
Opinion polls show young people are not particularly pro-monarchy and protests are made about lack of media debate about a possible republican alternative to the monarchy.
In a 21st century democracy an hereditary head of state seems an anachronism, yet it persists – and indeed persists rather successfully. The same Yougov poll used by BBC Panorama last week which showed only 32 per cent of young people supported the monarchy, also showed general support of 58 per cent and huge support among older age groups. Political parties would kill for 58 per cent approval ratings.
Of course The Queen enjoyed huge personal popularity, emphasised by plaudits for her 70 years as head of state she received even from diehard republicans on her death last September. She was hugely experienced and skilled after seven decades negotiating all the issues of a sovereign and 15 prime ministers from Winston Churchill to Liz Truss.
We know the success of a monarchy depends on the incumbent, and so Charles III has huge shoes to fill in replacing his mother, who enjoyed up to 80 per cent approval ratings in her lifetime. Her huge achievement was to avoid politics over that length of time, something her son did not manage as heir to the throne.
A monarchy makes no democratic sense in the modern world. We get to vote on virtually everything, why can’t we choose the person at the very top of society?
When I have taught the constitution to my students, they have mostly been amazed and somewhat befuddled by my response to the question of the source of the head of state’s authority: God.
So monarchy seems outdated, feudal and possibly insulting to a mature 21st century democracy. But there are two problems with that entirely logical analysis. Firstly, it remains popular with the population – much more than any political party, ever – and, even more importantly, it works.
The UK monarchy has survived over the centuries where its overseas equivalents have not because it has consistently and voluntarily surrendered its authority to elected politicians and because in exercising the small amount of real power it still possesses, in appointing prime ministers and authorising their policies, it falls back on precedent, convention and the most obvious indications of the democratic processes in place.
The British public knows the royal family are privileged, yet they also know they take a keen interest in all aspects of the society they theoretically rule, especially those aspects which seek to actively help their subjects. There wouldn’t be so much media coverage of the monarchy or the royal family if people didn’t consume it.
The question of payment for royalty always crops up, and yes they cost several millions to ferry around the country to perform their official functions, but that payment is just a small part of the revenues of the Crown Estate, property traditionally owned by the monarchy but given to the government so its proceeds can be generally spent by the government of the day.
So in the end it’s not a sophisticated argument, but monarchy remains because it works and it’s popular. Republicanism makes more logical sense but its sensible and laudable arguments haven’t ever cut through against the population’s own prejudices in favour of their thousand-year-old ruling dynasty.
Of course the right of any sitting monarch to occupy their own throne is now much more sensitive to public opinion and King Charles is much more obviously political than his mother ever was and may have been vaguely vulnerable in that area. But, if you’ll pardon the insensitivity, he will not be our monarch anywhere near as long as she was and then the crown passes to his son, who has kept his own counsel rather better than his father so far and who has the dual benefit of having the respect of general monarchists and the affection of the very many people who cared for his mother.
So in the end the coronation will have wall-to-wall coverage and the republican arguments will not be particularly well aired, I suspect, but this ceremony is the formal recognition of the place of the country’s head of state in its established and accepted system of government and therefore needs to be seen to be done.