Royalty reigns

Monarchs are the embodiment of tradition, and may seem to have little to do with the modern world. The surprising thing is that so many of them, nevertheless, still exist, writes BILL KIRKMAN, Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge.

AS the monarchies of eastern Europe vanished in the 1930s and 1940s, when the continent was becoming embroiled in the turbulence of World War II, few people expected them to return. Indeed, they have not done so. Leka, heir of the deposed King Zog of Albania, and Alexander Karadjordjevic, heir of Peter of Yugoslavia, are most unlikely to reclaim their thrones. Ex-King Michael of Romania - who lives in Britain - will remain ex, as will ex-King Constantine of Greece.

Bulgaria has in a sense bucked the trend. Simeon Saxe- Coburggotski (what a royal name to conjure with is Saxe-Coburg- Gotha, from which the Bulgarian version is adapted) was a child when his father King Boris was deposed from the throne. He has now returned to Bulgaria, winning a large majority of votes in the recent general election, and has become Prime Minister. It is probably the first time such a translation from sovereign to elected political leader has occurred, and it is paradoxical that it has happened in a country which, for years, was under the domination of the Soviet communist empire.

Recently, Queen Elizabeth II, "by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith", visited the Channel Islands. The citizens of this small part of her "other Realms and Territories" gave her a warm and enthusiastic welcome, thus demonstrating once more that there is still a mystery attached to monarchy which provokes reactions of loyalty among the people. Indeed, it is interesting to see how even those who are critical of the activities and indiscretions of many members of the British Royal family frequently praise the Queen for her role during nearly half a century as a constitutional monarch. (Even republicans, incidentally, sometimes react to being in the presence of the Queen with something approaching sycophancy.)

Monarchs are frequently in the news, sometimes, as in Nepal recently, because of a disaster, but more often because they have been carrying out routine duties, as with the Queen's Channel Islands visit. By definition, monarchs are the embodiment of tradition, and may seem to have little to do with the modern world. The surprising thing is that so many of them nevertheless still exist. In the European Union, for example, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, Denmark and Sweden are monarchies, as well as the U.K., and Norway, though not in the EU, like its Scandinavian neighbours, has a royal head of state.

Because monarchs tend to be seen as representing the past rather than the future, their existence can produce odd situations. In 1963, for example, I was present at the inaugural meeting of the Organisation of African Unity (which has just had its last meeting and transformed itself into the African Union, along EU lines). At the time, a number of African countries had still not achieved independence, and these were given a platform during the conference. They were represented by the Kenya politician Oginga Odinga - Kenya's independence came later in that year - who delivered an impassioned attack on imperialism. Its effect was somewhat diluted for me because he had to begin his speech: "Your Imperial Majesty", as the conference was presided over by the Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia.

The fact is, of course, that sovereigns are not standard. They come in all sorts and sizes. In Europe, certainly, the difference in styles is marked. The Dutch Royal Family, for example, has traditionally, like the mass of Dutch people, cycled around the city. The Scandinavians, similarly, live simply and are accessible to their people. I was reminded of this a year or so ago in Cambridge when I attended a dinner in one of the Colleges of which Queen Margrethe of Denmark (herself a Cambridge graduate) is an honorary Fellow. She was present, and chatted easily and informally to her fellow guests.

Queen Elizabeth is a fairly frequent visitor to the University and, although she makes a point of meeting as many people as possible, her visits are always attended by far more formality and protocol than that which surrounded Queen Margrethe. The formality has been much reduced over the years and the Royal family has made itself more accessible. From their point of view, that has been a mixed blessing as some members of the family have courted, or at least attracted, publicity which has led to open, and often vitriolic public and press, criticism of them. You cannot turn mystery and distance on and off like a tap.

If kings and queens come in different sorts and sizes, so do their domains. Queen Elizabeth is head of state not only of the United Kingdom, but of a number of other former British possessions, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica and Barbados - but not Trinidad and Tobago, which has become a republic.

Right at the other end of the size scale is Monaco, with an area of one square kilometre - but a great deal of wealth. Having been a principality since 1297, it lost that status during the French Revolution, then regained it in 1815, under the protection of the kingdom of Sardinia, changing again in 1861 to come under French protection. Its monarch, Prince Rainier, is one of the longest serving royal heads of state, having succeeded to his throne in 1941. He was famous for his wife, film star Grace Kelly (who died in 1982).

There are two other small European states with monarchs or the equivalent - Luxembourg, which has a Grand Duke, and Liechtenstein, whose head of state is a prince. Geographically and, for many practical purposes, Liechtenstein is a part of Switzerland (though its independence is nonetheless real). Luxembourg is geographically part of the Netherlands (under whose sovereignty it once came), but its independence too is real, and it is an important player in the economic aspects of the EU.

There are marked differences also in how monarchs carry out their roles. As Shakespeare's plays remind us, they were, in the past, leaders, in fact as well as name, ruling as well as reigning, and personally taking their armies into battle. The modern pattern, of course, is quite different and most monarchs have symbolic and formal constitutional duties (though, as they acquire experience, their influence can be substantial). The pattern, however, is not universal. The King of Bhutan, for example, has the right to allocate cabinet portfolios (though the legislature nominates the members of the cabinet). In Brunei, executive authority rests with the Sultan, advised by a privy council, a religious council and a council of ministers. Rule is by decree, under a state of emergency that has existed since 1962 (which suggests a chronic rather than a critical state).

Differences in style, in role and in size of territory over which they preside beg the question: What are monarchs for? Or to put it another way: Do they do things which could not be done differently?

The answer to the second question is clearly "no". Monarchs are manifestly not an essential pre-requisite of statehood, and republics, in their profuse variety, have devised a plethora of different kinds of presidency.

There are two major arguments put forward by the republicans in the U.K. and the Queen's "other Realms and Territories". One is that the Royal family has become too large, and many of its members are often an embarrassment. (Sophie Rhys-Jones - or the Countess of Wessex, to give her her proper title as wife of Prince Edward - for example did not cover herself in dignity or demonstrate common sense when she was hoodwinked by a journalist posing as an Arab sheikh, and made indiscreet comments about her royal relatives, and the country's politicians.) The other argument is that the head of state ought to be chosen by democratic process.

When it came to the point in Australia recently, however, the voters decided to leave things as they were for the time being, largely because the alternatives put before them were singularly unattractive.

For my part, I would favour the trimming back of the royal extended family, and a good deal of the flummery attached to the Court. Replacing the monarch by an elected head of state, however, I find much less attractive. The present system works pretty well. The sovereign does not have to worry about the fickleness of voters. And the alternatives would not necessarily be appealing: we might, for example, end up with President Thatcher, or Hague, or Blair. Perish the thought.

E-mail the writer at wpk1000@cam.ac.uk

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Ear buds - exercise caution
Next     : So near and yet so far-I