Subscribe to RSS feed
As a kid, I was given a picture chart of English monarchs since William the Conqueror. I’m sure it was given me ‘learn’ me some history, but it subtly brainwashed me into thinking that British monarchy is a long, unbroken chain stretching back almost a thousand years.
Of course, it’s nothing like that. The succession from one crowned head to another has been squabbled over throughout that time, making the line of succession as complicated as a London Tube map. I remember on my childhood chart that even the accession of Charles Stuart jr was backdated to his father’s execution, completely missing the glaring historical reality that England and Wales, and later Scotland and Ireland, were a de facto republic for just over a decade, and the earliest attempt at a modern, rather than mediaeval, republican state. Monarchists cast this period as the Interregnum, ‘between kings’. However, no one, whatever their political stripe, in the period used such an anachronistic term.
There have been lots of twists, tricks and breaks in the chain of monarchy. One that perhaps needs a little more publicity is the great big fudge in the rules of succession that led to Georg Ludwig von Braunschweig-Lüneburg becoming monarch in 1714. There were around 56 people higher up the list of succession, but Parliament chose him on the basis that he was Protestant, whereas the others were either Catholic or not known to be Protestant. The hereditary principle, which I believe has no place in our society, seems not even to be rock solid when it comes to picking a monarch.
Just imagine that when Elizabeth Windsor dies, Parliament declares that neither Charles nor William shall become king, but they had decided to pass the crown to David Carnegie, aged 48, of Brechin, Scotland! As far as I can tell, Mr Carnegie is as far from the throne today as Georg Ludwig was in 1714. The royal gossipists talk about the possibility of skipping the ever unpopular Charles Windsor, for their poster boy ‘Wills’, but there is precedent for a much larger jump — long live, King David!
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m sure David Carnegie is a nice bloke, but I don’t want to be subject to a monarch whoever it is. After all, Mr Carnegie happens to be the son of a duke, and lives with his wife and three sons in a nice little castle. I want to live in a Britain where any common citizen — regardless of class, ethnicity, gender and religion — can rise to the highest office in this land with the consent of the electorate, and then make way for the next First Citizen after a few years.
However, I tell you about King David because it highlights just how flimsy a lot of the monarchy’s ‘tradition’ really is. The image of a long, unbroken chain of hereditary monarchs stretching back through history with nothing but the best intentions for their country is myth, not history. The emphasis on the line of succession and pedigree is not built of some divine order, but is there to stop the toffs squabbling. After all, the fluttering scraps of our constitution define the monarchic succession as to Protestant heirs of a German princess called Sophia. A constitutional arrangement that is clearly absurd, indefensible and incompatible with any reasonable ethical framework one would like to have for this country.
Tags: Hereditary, Monarchy myths, Succession
November 12th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
It is true many of us supporters of the monarchy think it would be safer with a King William than a King Charles, although either will be much weaker than Queen Elizabeth II, so as long as she lives atleast another 20 years its not something we must worry about right now.
20 years will give us plenty of time to deal with some of the problems and ensure the continuation of the monarchy, although as shown in a poll a few months ago there is still an overwhelming support for the the monarchy to continue after the Queens death. So aslong as we reverse a dangerous tide, things will work out in the end.
This problem does ofcourse mean we really do mean it when we say God save the Queen!, because its vital she lives on for a couple more decades.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
If supporters of monarchy wish to pass over unsuitable candidates, as you suggest, Simon, who chooses the monarch? You either follow the hereditary principle absolutely or you don’t at all. I merely want to point out that the principle has been broken many, many times in the past because it’s not a good a principle: it allows for a choice of head of state that is not the best.
I believe the fate of the nation should rest on the shoulders of all, not on any one person or family. Even the ‘Few’ who fought the Battle of Britain were supported by a large support network (including many volunteers from the West Indies), and further given moral support by the general public. Given that, it is plainly absurd that the future of our country should rest with the health of an old woman, and the ‘bet’ that she might outlast her son. In fact the pressure you put upon this one woman and her family is of a level that could be considered psychologically damaging.
So, if you’re all for picking and choosing monarchs that suit your taste. How should such a system work?
November 12th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Gareth ,
I did not say we should pick and choose just that at the moment it would appear the monarchy would be safer if William became king rather than Charles. However the Queen will live on for another 20 years anyway, so WIlliam would be in his 40s then and Charles in his 80’s, opinion of charles may be more supportive then. Although again i must highlight that the majority of British people want the monarchy to continue after the Queen and we all know at this time that would mean King Charles. Its not a case of if Charles becomes king the monarchy will be gone, just more at risk than under William.
You make a good point about the pressure placed on our glorious Queen, it is a very tough job and indeed other royals face that pressure too. Imagine how Prince Charles must feel knowing that at any moment he could be informed that his mother has died and that he is King of over 100 million people. Or how Prince William and Prince Harry felt when their mother tragically died leading to huge media attention on them. Attending a mothers funeral is hard enough, but with the world watching that must be so much harder.
That is why its rather strange that on one hand republicans talk of the royals living a life of luxury and privilege at the expense of us common folk when they really have so many pressures and duties. Of course any royal can opt out if that is their wish, they can depart from the royal scene never to heard from again without any tax payers money going to them.
However we have a glorious Queen who some years ago declared that her whole life, be it long or short would be devoted to the service of her people. Whilst republicans may disagree, most of us think she has done a great job as Queen and the fact we still have a monarchy is because of her greatness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZkDulaNnT4
This video about King George VI’s death is intersting to watch and remember.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Glorious Queen……yawwwwnnnnnn! Come on Simon, come up with something new for XXXX’s sake!!!!!
November 12th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Glorious Simon!
It makes little difference whether you want to pick and choose your monarch now or later. If you think it’s ever right not to put up with what succession gives you, you’ve undermined the principle of the birthright through which monarchs assume authority. I think the whole birthright thing is baloney anyway.
The wooly arguments of monarchists cannot compare to the reasoned principles of republicanism. When I point out that monarchy is bad for the monarch’s health (and ours), I am pointing to the damage done by being totally wrapped in a sycophantic shroud (like being referred to as ‘Glorious’ everywhere). It is fairly easy to see that this sycophancy has had a damaging effect on Charles Windsor’s life, and the lives of those around him. The weight of soap-opera expectations, and the linkage of one’s private life to affairs of state are also vectors of psychological damage. To outline this is in no way contrary to the factually acknowledgement that the royal family live in unearned luxury. I don’t think it’s that easy for royals to ‘opt out’. First of all, many have an inability to survive in the wild. When David Windsor abdicated, he went completely nuts and turned to illegal currency speculating to keep him in expensive tailoring.
I don’t want to watch a video of someone else’s grandfather’s death. My own grandfather’s death is far more important and moving to me.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Simon,
If you are prepared to accept William as king because it would be easier to continue the monarchy than under Charles, you are choosing your head of state. You as a committed monarchist cannot do this, you have to accept whoever is next in line, because that is the system you have accepted. The fact that you claim to support the monarchy but would pass over Charles for William again shows that you are unprincipled and are solely concerned with achieving what you think is best rather than respecting a system of government.
I disagree with the monarchy for many reasons, primarily on principle, but you accept them. You have forfeited your right to have a say in who becomes the monarch, you have to accept Charles. Failure to do so, and selecting William, means that you are essentially proposing a head of state who is chosen by the people, albeit from a smaller pool of applicants. Your saying that if an unpopular heir is going to succeed then they can be passed over for a more popular one.
You also show that you do not believe in the monarchy any more than us, it’s just the you currently like the reigning monarch. You cannot select the monarch based on popularity, your system does not work that way. That you would suggest the monarch could be selected shows you as unprincipled and that you support an elected system, because you would accept the selection of William over Charles. I can’t believe people have wasted their time on an unprincipled opportunist like you.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:45 am
The video about the death of king george V1 was interesting. A piece of history. Our country has changed a lot now. Of course it showed a time of personal sadness for the bereaved. However one thing did strike me above everything else. This was the fact that we all must die, king, queen, politician ,businessman, labourer, even child, sadly.We all come to Dust. Royalty has no exemption from our common destiny. Therefore why should royalty be extolled as superior. In death the corpse always ends up the same way. There is no royalty in Death. To me,the death of the smallest , poorest child in the world is just as meaningful as that of a member of the monarchy, anywhere.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Gareth
For one awful moment I thought you might have been addressing the subject of your blog at me. However, your comments actually make far more sense than that, and highlight just yet another myth upon which the monarchy is based. The whole idea of such an institution gets sillier every day (no mean feat considering the low base it started at).
November 15th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I am sorry but i am not saying we should pick William over Charles, i am not “choosing”. We all know the monarchy would be easier to defend with Prince William as King rather than Prince Charles, i was simply being honest and accepting that. I never said we should “fix it” so William becomes king.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
So true Graham.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Why on Earth would the monarchy be easier to defend with William rather than Charles ???
November 15th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Perhaps because to some misgiuded souls, William is younger and therfore more ‘hip, trendy and with-it’. Also, he is somewhat more photogenic. He is also a direct link to Diana, obviously being her son and also having a look of her, so for many in this current Hello / OK gossip, media and celeb obsessed era, he is more of a saleable commodity as a celeb than Charles who at times looks world weary, tired and old fashioned. William looks fresher in comparison.
And of course, let’s not forget William’s upcomming royal farce, sorry wedding. No doubt it will be milked like no other royal wedding has been before. It will be used to show how ‘popular, loved (no laughing at the back) and relevant the royals still are here and abroad. All this will merely show just how easily many people can be bought.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Simon,
The very fact you need to raise the issue of who inherits the throne, and the fact the heir is a threat to the continuation of the monarchy, shows that your system is inherently flawed. If the line of succession does not lead to the best person then the whole argument for the monarchy is proven invalid. You are demonstrating why the monarchy should be abolished.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:27 am
imatt,
Very well put
Sam,
Umm i do not think that Prince Charles will lead to the end of the monarchy, we all know he is expected to be the next King and yet the polls show the majority of British people support the continuation of the monarchy. All i said was that William would be a safer pair of hands. Of course it is a tribute to just how great Queen Elizabeth II has been that the monarchy will be weakened following her death.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:33 am
My above point was in no way complimentary!