9th September 2022
By late yesterday afternoon, like many people I was braced for the news of the death of the Queen.
The well-connected were messaging the less well-connected saying that she had already died, and that it would be announced at 6pm, and then 6.30pm.
And even without such messages, it was increasingly obvious that the news was not going to be good.
But on the television they had to keep up the show of the news not being confirmed, though if you watched and listened carefully there were tells.
And so when the news was announced, the death was not a surprise.
But.
When Huw Edwards immediately referred to “the King” I jolted.
A King.
A word that is strange to type on a blog about current events.
A King.
We now have a King.
*
Of course, the transition from a Queen to a King presents no big constitutional issue.
The Sovereignty of the, well, sovereign is as continuous as the stars that shine.
As quoted in this outstanding briefing by the House of Commons Library on the death of the monarch:
“Most flags around the country fly at half-mast (subject to the new monarch’s wishes), except the Royal Standard, which is “never flown at half mast, even after the death of a monarch, as there is always a Sovereign on the throne”.”
The person of the monarch changes, but the concept continues.
*
The abstract notion of a “king” (or “queen”) or “lord” or “chief” is from our species’ earliest endeavours at organised society.
With a face-to-face community, with a pecking order, the most dominant individual can prevail without any need for a label.
But once there are too many individuals for a leader to dominate personally – in my view, about Dunbar’s number – those with power have to use concepts which we would regard as rules and commands that have to be obeyed.
And in this way dominance becomes a matter of status.
That individual has to be obeyed, not (just) because they are personally dominant but because they also are “king” (or “queen”) or “lord” or “chief” .
The status is separate and distinct from the individual.
It is like that Thackeray sketch that has featured on this blog before:
*
The Crown carries on, as it is distinct from any individual.
Some words will change because we have a male monarch instead of a female one.
Queen’s Counsel became King’s Counsel; the Queen’s Peace becomes the King’s Peace; and so on.
And when the throne goes from Charles to William, not even these labels will change.
We notice only these changes because, unusually, the Crown is not going from one man to another.
*
The Crown is a concept – perhaps a super-concept – in our constitutional, political and legal arrangements.
The Crown is the theoretical ultimate basis of most public power in the United Kingdom: for Parliament, for the Courts, and for the Executive.
Because Elizabeth was on the throne for so long, it became easy to identify her personally with the Crown.
And now we have a King – and so we can perhaps get a better sense than before of the distinction between the status and the individual.
*
I happen to be a non-militant republican, who would prefer the selection of the head of state not to be based on the hereditary principle.
The hereditary principle is a difficult principle to defend, and the only thing to be said for it is that it prevents the election of crude populists to be the head of state.
But that is, in one way, an issue about succession.
Succession – selection – is not the only issue about the Crown.
The powers of the Crown, and how the Crown binds the elements of the constitution together both theoretically and practically, are points wider than the question of succession and selection.
It we were to become a republic, should the office of President be otherwise identical to the Crown?
Or should the head of state in a republic have a different configuration in the constitution?
One argument for the Crown is that its value is not so much about what power it has – but what power it prevents others from having.
But would that still work with an elected head of state?
*
The debate about the powers of the Crown can now be uncoupled from a discussion about the undoubted merits of the late Queen.
It is a topic which we can think about and talk about in ways different from before.
Because we now have a King.
A King.
It still feels really strange to type.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
The comments policy is here.
So the alternative is what? God preserve us from a politician.
That’s what worries me. I appreciate the point about doing away with the hereditary principle but fear the law of unintended consequences.
Eire, Germany, Italy off the top of my head Im sure there are others
The role of Bundespräsident in the present German constitution seems to work well. I had to look it up who it is at the moment.
The German model is not flawless. We have had Bundespräsidenten who were unfit for this task and were only elected because of deals among the political parties. But the good part is that you don’t have to wait until their demise but after five years tenure somebody new will be elected. Very popular persons can be elected a second time. And: the contenders decide on their own that they want to do the job, they are not forced into it by birth.
The Irish and many others have managed perfectly well with an elected head of state and will never run the risk of having an Andrew Windsor inherit the job.
On Thursday, during the 150-odd mile journey through northern France to Dieppe after a few weeks’ holiday at my French house I was again struck by the fact that one sees no litter or fly tipping; where does this civic pride come from, and why is it so lacking in the UK? If I can think of anything else in which the French are so invested in, that we are not, I shall post it here…meanwhile, Vive la République!
We do not have to look back all that far to find a time when the UK suffered a considerable number of “drunk-driver” accidents, many of which were fatalities. As a nation, we responded with a number of measures, for example, “clunk-click, every trip” to promote the use of seat belts, but, more effectively, as a society we made the habit of drink-driving to be a social stigma.
It’s been a while since I last visited France [and then it was Paris], but if as you say there is no litter or fly-tipping, then I can’t help but suspect it is because such practices have been made socially unacceptable (as opposed to draconian laws that are hard to enforce).
As for fly-tipping… I’m not sure if my experience is merely local, but where I live the county has very few public access “tips” for rubbish… before the Covid pandemic there was *always* a modest queue for access. With Covid, the county council decided the risk of infection (from sitting in your car waiting for access) was so great that it reduced access still further, then imposed “appointment only access”. You now have to register a vehicle to even apply for a visit. Then you have to book a “slot” in advance – you are given a time and if you turn up too late or too early [the window is 15 minutes either side of the allotted time] you are turned away. If you are turned away or fail to show up at all more than a minimum number of times (3?) then your permission to access the tip is revoked.
And then the council wonders why fly-tipping remains a problem.
The direction of travel seems clear. The executive is hoovering up power from all sources: the monarchy, the media, parliament, the law, the church, local government. Thus many of these are increasingly “dignified” rather than “efficient” in Bagehot analysis.
This suggests that the monarchy will be operate in an ever smaller area of relevance.
Yes. I was struck by the new King’s pledge “to uphold the constitutional principles at the heart of our nation.” Is it clear to everyone what these are and, say, what those major occasions were over 70 years when the Queen did the required upholding? How does one do that and be “above politics”, as it’s often put? The rubber-stamping of the Brexit proroguing of Parliament business comes to mind. But maybe it happens all the time in a very discreet manner.
King Charles referred in his speech to ‘creating’ William Prince of Wales. Is the succession to that title something that needs to be confirmed by the new monarch (ie is it not automatic)? Also – there are various restrictions as to who can accede to be monarch (I’m thinking of the restrictions on Catholics). Is there a particular mechanism by which the King is confirmed? Does Parliament have any sort of confirmatory role?
Charles is proclaimed King, formally by the Accession Council. This is headed by Lord President of the Council, Penny Mordant.
“What is an Accession Council? An Accession Council is a ceremonial body made up of privy counsellors – the prime minister, cabinet members, shadow cabinet members, Archbishops, representatives of the Commonwealth realms, and other senior public figures.”
Only the monarch can declare the first son as Prince of Wales.
To ask the obvious question – is there any view of what would happen if either the Accession Council or the King failed to do either of those things? Is that a constitutional crisis scenario?
“is there any view of what would happen if either the Accession Council or the King failed to do either of those things? Is that a constitutional crisis scenario?”
Every thing I’ve heard underlines that this ceremony is one of recognition, not nomination. Charles III has been King since the death of his mother on Thursday afternoon. The Accession Council is simply an opportunity for ‘The Good and The Great’ to formally acknowledge the fact. We do not get to choose our sovereigns!
The monarch’s eldest son is automatically Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay, but he is not automatically Prince of Wales; he only has the latter title if and when the monarch confers it on him. (Charles wasn’t given the title until 1958; from 1952 to 1958 he was Duke of Cornwall, but not Prince of Wales.)
This would have been a smart move.
The Queen is dead long live the King.
Sure, it will take a bit of getting used to.
The key reason why the death of the Queen is so impactful as it is, in my view, is the sheer longevity of her length of service. 70 years on the throne – 70 years as Sovereign & all that entails.
She outlived 14 prime minister’s and numerous presidents of the US. That’s some going – & she knew all of them some better than others.
You’re absolutely right – we thought of the Queen as ‘the Crown’ albeit that Elizabeth II was custodian of ‘the Crown’ albeit temporarily for 70 years.
One question intrigues me more than anything ( in this blog context) is the meaning of The Sovereign & the challenges raised by sovereignty. Did the Queen as Sovereign act as the guardian of the nation’s sovereignty?
Maybe another blog post on this, please..
Thank you David.
I think you’ve written prior about value in the Crown preventing others from having power but I couldn’t find anything. Is my memory failing me?
“value in the Crown preventing others from having power”
That flawed concept clearly doesn’t work, does it?
The Crown has no power, the Executive far too much: that this power has been accumulated in the face of the idea of Parliamentary sovereignty absolutely gives the lie to any notion that an hereditary monarchy adds this “value” – it observably does not.
Like you, and many I’m sure, I would argue in principle for a republican form of government. But there are difficulties, and these would be magnified if a new President, how ever carefully chosen, were to inherit all the powers now resident in the Crown. The Royal Prerogative and all the rest survive precisely because the monarch does not, and has not for a very long time, used them. The recent Prime Minister, not by nature restrained by rules or precedent, showed what can be done, or at least tried, in the name of the Crown. Had he had the various powers in his own right it would have been much harder to call him to account, and easier for him to defend the non-, or more often anti,-democratic measures he tried to push through.
To prod one of your bugbears, the idea of a President without a written constitution is almost unthinkable.
“But there are difficulties”
That it may be difficult is no reason not to do it – other countries seems to manage very nicely, thank you.
“all the powers now resident in the Crown”
What powers? As an enfeebled constitutional figurehead, it has none of any significance.
Mmm. But mayby the crown is enfeebled because it lacks democratic legitimacy. Notionally the crown has very wide powers, and if these were transferred to an elected President or another official with a democratic mandate, it’s not inconceivable that they might try to exercise them.
But there’s no reason why they would be transferred to an elected President. In a republic, the President need not be, and typically is not, a “sovereign” in the way the monarch is in the UK. The President is simply the most senior or pre-eminent official of the State. Sovereignty resides in the people, not the President. The prerogative powers formerly exercised by the Crown in Ireland did not pass to the President, but to the Government and, even then, only subject to the provisions of the Constitution.
A British republic obviously does not have to mirror the structure of Ireland but, equally obviously, does not have to mirror the current distribution of powers in the United Kingdom. There is no reason why the President should inherit the prerogatives of the Monarch.
Discussing this earlier I was asked why the Irish solution was not acceptable? I know notheing about the appointment of the Irish President but they seem to have the respect of teh nation and no axes to grind politically.
Referring to an earlier comment about appointing William Prince of Wales, will this go down well in Wales. Charles had to attend University to learn the language and understand the culture and history. Will William have to do the same? If not it will be seen as yet another imposition? It will only further undermine his desire to unite the country.
So much to get on with and yet we seem to be kicking the proverbial can down the road.
William is much older than Charles was when he was declared Prince of Wales; indeed, the first couple of years or so of his marriage were spent on Anglesey if I remember correctly, which is about as Welsh as you can get, so I’d imagine he’s pretty well versed in things Welsh from that experience?
Another good piece that chimes with my views.
We should consider, however, that a Queen can move in any direction as far as she needs, a King only one square and he can be trapped by a horse!
(Heads up – not mine though I can’t find where I saw it)
Possibly this?
https://twitter.com/Fred_Delicious/status/1567979758939697153
If I’m honest, the thing that gives me the jitters more than somewhat is that we not only have a new king, we also have a new PM.
It feels like putting interns in charge of a multinational business.
This, surely, will test how our constitution works – and how well the mechanics of government ensure compliance (and maybe a bit of continuity).
I’m sure the King we be polite when Lizzie makes the inevitable faux pas of comparing their situations :)
Continuity? Perhaps the first thing the new Chancellor of the Exchequer did is sack the Treasury’s “permanent” secretary Tom Scholar, who was reappointed just last year for another five years.
I thought the civil service was meant to be impartial and independent? The creeping politicisation – teams of special advisers, and all the rest – is troubling.
It will be interesting to see if the Cabinet Secretary and other senior civil servants survive for long.
Apropos nothing in particular, but it’s mildly amusing to note that every senior barrister who was once a QC is now a KC. The last time we had senior barristers were KC that would not have been at all amusing. But the last time senior barristers were KC, nobody had heard of the Sunshine Band.
Here in Scotland I’ve been struck by how the Unionist case is made almost entirely with numbers and in some cases spreadsheets. Unsurprisingly this approach has been an electoral disaster.
What they miss is that a state is held together by emotion. Of course there’s no logic at all in having a hereditary monarch. And yet I think it’s incredibly important.
I think the main strength of the hereditary vs elected head of state/monarch is the protection against manipulation. The next in line is fixed and can’t be mucked about with by a sustained troll farm/think tank operation.
“I think the main strength of the hereditary vs elected head of state/monarch is the protection against manipulation.”
Also its main weakness – we could be lumbered with an entirely unsuitable head , and stuck with them.
I put my trust in Charles, then William, then George. Be careful what alternative you may wish for.
What has George done to merit the trust you repose in him?
Hence the crown appearing at the State opening of Parliament with it’s own cushion/seat (and car!)
Thus making the person under it somewhat irrelevant?
All of these comments remind me of George Bernard Shaw’s observation that the ideal form of government is Benevolent Dictatorship: he embodied this in one of his plays “The Apple Cart”. If memory serves, he did concede that it was a tad impractical!
All these comments remind me of George Bernard Shaw’s observation that the ideal form of government is a Benevolent Dictatorship and he used this idea as the basis for one of his later plays “The Apple Cart”. He did concede (if memory serves) that it was a tad impractical!
I had to wonder whether Charles will take a much more active role with politicians and be more critical. Remember that the Queen came to the throne as really a rather naive young woman, whereas Charles is a mature man with strong opinions. Would he, for example, have put up with Johnson’s prorogation tricks?
In answer to Ben above – this is not like putting interns in charge. Truss has had a number of important political roles, although as far as I can see, she seems to make a mess of all of them. Charles in many ways has been acting as a Regent for something like the past five years.
“Truss has had a number of important political roles, although as far as I can see, she seems to make a mess of all of them.”
So Ben is probably right then, as far as competence is concerned.
Why do we need your incisive commentary on an issue that appears to unite the country?
Perhaps because otherwise we succumb to the incredibly persuasive notion that because QEII was so loved, the status quo is absolutely necessary
I embrace change as much as anyone in their 6th decade, but the exemplar that was QEII really puts everything else to shame
I can’t defend the institution, but I can’t fault the office holder
Perceptive and insightful as always, DAG.
I did a sort of internal double-take the first (and second, and probably third) time I heard the word out loud. I tried saying it in my “internal voice” and, being of a certain age, it felt like nothing so much as being a character in The Lord of the Rings.
I imagine it will become more natural. Maybe after another lifetime it will be second nature.
Vivat!
In the 185 years since Queen Victoria came to the throne we’ve had a king for only 51 of those years so it’s fair to say Queens (usually) Rule UK
The late Queen did not involve herself in politics and, if indeed she objected, was not prepared to do much publically to mitigate what to most people would be egregious policies. An example is the torture and castration of prisoners in Kenya.
The current King appears to be much more empathetic and interested in his kingdom. How should he react if he feels that a policy is immoral; for example, actions to hasten climate change. Is it relevant that Johnson, Truss, Frost, Rees-Mogg and the Daily Mail do not believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change? Another example could be our Rwanda Asylum policy. What should the King do if he feels this is wrong? (He could pardon – his prerogative – all those involved. It is normal for a new king (and US and French president) to issue pardons for mainly minor acts under the previous regime)
In Shaw’s Apple Cart, the King defeats the Prime Minister because the King has made himself much more popular with the public. He threatens to abdicate (unthinkable when the play was written) and go into politics and form his own party. (There is also a lovely sub-plot about the USA taking over the UK by tearing up the Declaration of Independence!)
Perhaps DAG would lend his thoughts to the alternative others stubbornly refuse to discuss when granted the opportunity?
The merits of British monarchy are echoed repeatedly above: The King is unelected and therefore ‘outside’ the arena in which his politicians play ball. It is his ball, though he does not play, for to do so would show favour to one team over another, and they are all his teams.
That’s good: You can never, ever own the Kings ball. As a “non-militant republican”, I would rather the status quo than creating a sovereign chair someone like Donald Trump or Boris Johnson could ever legally have designs on occupying.
But, one does not need to throw “baby unelected” out with the hereditary bathwater. A modern culture might assemble a representative group ( randomly ) to define a modern method of sortition to use for producing sovereigns that is less offensive to the intellect than sexual reproduction. It’s excruciatingly embarrassing to think we have just witnessed that relic of prehistory – sovereignty by genetic happenstance – mock our intelligence again in 2022.
No Kings. No Presidents. Just us.
Why not sortition?
Regarding having an elected Head of State, two questions need answering:
1) Who would do the electing?
2) What powers would the Head of State have?
The thing is, I’m a republican in principle, but wary of the law of unintended consequences.
If we replaced the monarchy with a presidential system, which type of presidential system? That of the USA? Of Ireland? France? Germany? They’re all different.
The German model – chosen by the Bundestag and state representatives, and not by the people – would be my preference. (And I accept the comment by Nico above, who clearly knows more about that system than I do.) Yet I cannot imagine the British public accepting the end of the monarchy, and then handing the authority for choosing a president over to Parliament.
A big weakness, danger even, of the US model is for the head of government and the head of state to be held by one person. (To add to this mix, they’re also commander in chief of the armed forces.) I’m surprised a president such as Trump didn’t proclaim “L’Etat, c’est moi.” But combining those roles opens up the possibility that could happen. To some extent, that’s what Putin has done.
And I fear that a UK head of state/president elected by popular vote – as in Ireland – would at some point find themselves to be more popular than the prime minister, who, as we know, is chosen by an infinitely smaller electorate. Then the temptation to make demands on the government could prove to be too great to resist.
Additionally, the kudos of being the president of the UK, along with undoubted opportunities that would go with it, is going to be very attractive. And not all those attracted to it will have the best interests of the British people at heart. And what would happen if (say) 52% of the vote went to one candidate, and 48% to another?
The thing is, we already have a constitutional monarchy that works quite well, albeit in need of reform. There are much more pressing parts of the British Constitutional system that need fixing, if not scrapping. Let’s fix those things before we turn to looking at becoming a republic.
You ask: “we were to become a republic, should the office of President be otherwise identical to the Crown?”
That would ease the transition to a republic.
It would also pose less incentive to standing for those who would wish for political power. (Ambitious politicians do not stand for the various, entirely ceremonial, Lord Mayor positions).
And if those who would wish for political power were to stand, and win, the Presidency then it would limit the damage they could do.
Indeed, most arguments against a Republic envisage a different system and depend on disadvantages of that imagined other system for their force.
An otherwise-identical-to-monarch Presidency would be the same system we have now, but with a term limited and elected head of state.
And if the only difference between King or Queen and President is election and term limits, why call him or her “President”?
“President” is just three syllables tagged onto a concept and a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.
There is no reason not to call a man elected to the post “King” or a woman “Queen”.
For that matter, I see no reason not to call members of a wholly elected second chamber “Lords”.
It would seem to me to complete the takeover of the commoners.
We, the public, would choose our Lords and our Monarchs.
Our affairs would truly become a Res (thing) Publica (of the public).
Dressed as it all was in pageantry and archaic language what struck me was that this misdirection just barely obscured the sordid but essential reality that this was a restatement of the fiscal bargain between Crown and Parliament . More than once Charles made the declaration that he would hand over the revenues of the Crown Estates save only for a consideration by way of the civil list. That deal confirmed, hip hurrah, let the show go on.
Fascinating to read the various opinions regarding the role of the monarch in modern Britain and the potential consequences of converting to a republic. It is inevitable, I suppose, that we consider these questions in the context of the broader tableau of events that surround us at this moment, but I would observe the danger in both the question and the answers shared here.
This is – if I may use an overly simplistic illustration – a little bit like a scenario in which you come to visit me and I, as your host, offer you a chair and then immediately suggest, “Can I offer you a tea or coffee?” At face value this seems both polite and courteous. It is neither.
I haven’t asked you if you are thirsty. I haven’t considered that you might be hungry. Most importantly, irrespective of your disposition, I’ve already decided to limit your options down to two and only two choices – and I control both of them. In short, “tea or coffee?” is a trap – and a nasty one, to boot.
Such it is with “Would you prefer to retain the royal family or have an elected head of state?” as a similarly contrived, closed question.
For a start, there may be other options that could be considered, outside of the two limited choices from which the opening bid is made. Much (*much*) more importantly, however, is the un-asked but crucial question:-
“If we were to consider the present system of governance in the United Kingdom, including elements such as a “representative democracy” and “first past the post” election management, or perhaps look a little further afield to the rules and regulations governing elected representatives (second homes, expenses, second jobs, post-service “directorships”, etc., etc.) then it would, I hope, be clear that there are many elements of the present system of governance [not simply *government* – which is part of the problem] that require a rethink.
As a nation we seem to place great value on the “tradition” or the “history” of the fact that the UK is considered the “Mother of Parliaments”. In a way rather similar to the United States and their collective refusal to acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment (colloquially known as the “right to keep and bear arms”) is completely redundant given the nation now boasts the most powerful military in the world, the UK has become myopic over elements of the way that we are governed.
We accept that “we need MPs”, when in fact, in the modern digital age, we could all vote and interact with our administration in a way that would eliminate the need for many if not most of the 650 MPs currently on the payroll.
So yes, by all means let us have an earnest and honest debate about the role of the monarchy in 21st century Britain. Let’s have a discussion around the potential to bring together the disparate parts of our “constitution” and codify it into something a bit more tangible.
But let us not get suckered into the narrow question of “royal or republic”. It isn’t that this is false equivalence, more that there are many far more important questions we should be asking first.
What excellent comments, thank you, very helpful!
Such as “How do you know he’s a king?”
An execellent example of why the comments on this blog are so much better that the “twitter ranting” that would happen.
I am a monarchist (ironically based on much DAG says in his blog) – I have many issues with the upper chamber being elected as well for similar reasons, though the “fix” that was made for that by the Labour administration has not made the second chamber better – arguably it has been made far worse by the way it is abused by those who appoint to it.
If our constitution is to change, it needs careful considered thought, not quick fixes, that solve one group’s issue with the status quo and add/exacerbate several other issues
I find it interesting how we consistently hear about the Queen “staying above politics”, when in reality she didn’t. It’s just that we didn’t hear about it. For example, the Royal Household lobbied to be exempted from the equality act, allowing them to continue to discriminate against employees. We didn’t find out until recently, years after the fact. I have no doubt this wasn’t the only instance.
The power in monarchy is in its inaccessibility, its distance from us. True scrutiny would involve the public looking behind the curtain, a normal thing for elected politicians but not a monarch. It is no coincidence that the pinnacle of the coronation ceremony is done beyond the view of all.
My suspicion therefore is that most in this country favour a monarch over an elected person because the monarch is a distant figure upon which they can project but the elected are close and therefore real, with all their flaws in high definition. Or as one republican would say, the elected are seen “warts and all”.
Patrick Harvie’s contribution to the motion of condolence in the Holyrood Parliament was an object lesson in how to give precedence to reason over the instinct to grovel before Anointed (or as near as dammit) Majesty. I noticed that the Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone neither bowed from the neck nor curtsied when greeting Charles and Camilla at the entrance.
The Westminster adage is that the country is ruled by the King in Parliament, which is weird because the last time a King tried marching into the Chamber of the Commons he got his comeuppance good and proper.
From the first reconvening of the Scottish Parliament the monarch, when present, has been treated as a guest, not as someone with a role in its proceedings.