MAINTENANCE

British monarchy: what power, what organization?

The imperial ceremonial crown rests over the coffin of Queen Elizabeth II during her funeral, September 14, 2022, in London, United Kingdom. © Max Mumby/Indigo/Getty Images

Text by: Anoushka Notaras

18 mn

Nearly a millennium after William the Conqueror's coronation in 1066, the United Kingdom is preparing to crown its 40th monarch, Charles III. What is the history of the British monarchy and how does it fit into the life of the country? What are the rules of succession to the throne? What are the functions of the monarch? His powers? How is the crown funded? Philippe Chassaigne, professor of contemporary history and specialist in Great Britain, answers RFI's questions.

Advertising

Read more

How long has the British monarchy existed?

Unification under the authority of a single monarch took place in the eighth century, this is called the Saxon dynasty. In 1066, the invasion of England by William the Conqueror marked the beginning of a chain of dynasties that would lead to that of the Windsors, since, notwithstanding the various crown passages from one house to another, there is always a dynastic thread.

From 1066 to today, the royal houses from William the Conqueror have succeeded one another almost uninterruptedly: the Plantagenets with Henry II or Richard the Lionheart and John Landless. In the fifteenth century, the Yorks and Lancastrians clashed during the Wars of the Roses. To get closer to our period, we have the well-known succession of the Tudor dynasties, from Henry VII in 1485 to Elizabeth 1st in 1603, then the Stuarts from 1603 to 1714. There was only one period without a monarchy in England, from the execution of Charles 1st with an axe in front of the Palace of Westminster in 1649, during the Great Rebellion, to the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 with Charles II, the son of the beheaded king.

The House of Hanover came to the British throne in 1714. This German dynasty is chosen by Parliament because it is related to James 1st, but especially because they are Protestants. It lasted until the death of Queen Victoria in 1901. Her eldest son became king as Edward VII, and as Victoria of Hanover had married Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in 1840, Edward VII was Edward of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha changed its name in 1917 when George V preferred to abandon the name of his lineage which sounds like a too German name. He then chose a very English name, the House of Windsor.

Also listen: What are monarchies for?

How does the order of succession to the British throne work?

The general rule is based on the system of heredity by primogeniture: it is the first born of the titular sovereign who ascends the throne. If the sovereign has no descendants, the crown passes to his younger brother, brother or sister. But this process has undergone several changes over time.

From the beginning of the eighteenth century, the order of succession must be validated by Parliament. To understand, we must go back to the time of King James II who was dethroned after the revolution of 1688. James II had two wives. From his union with the first, he had two daughters: Mary II Stuart and Anne. Mary had no children with her husband William III, and on his death the crown passed to Anne. But since the latter has no surviving children and her husband has died, who will have the crown after his death?

From his second marriage to Mary of Modena, James II had a son: James Francis Stuart. James II and Mary of Modena being Catholics, their son was raised in the faith of his parents. Logically, on the death of Queen Anne, the crown should have gone to her half-brother James Francis Stuart. But he is Catholic, which is unbearable for a Protestant nation. Thus in 1701, Parliament then adopted a law that twisted the arm to the rule of succession by primogeniture and closer to the crown: in the event of the death of Queen Anne, the crown would return to the princess-electress Sophie of Hanover, a granddaughter of James 1st Stuart. Although she was much further from the crown than James II's second son, she was of the Protestant faith. But Sophie of Hanover died before Queen Anne, so it was her son George of Hanover who became king in 1714 under the name of George 1st.

The deposed King James II was welcomed at the castle of Saint-Germain-en-Laye in 1690, after fleeing England with his wife Mary of Modena and their son, the Prince of Wales. Etching, Amsterdam, 1691. © Sepia Times/ Universal Images Group via Getty Images

From then on, any change in the order of succession had to be ratified by the British Parliament, but also by all the parliaments of the Commonwealth realms that had the British sovereign as head of state. This is why in 1936, Edward VIII had no choice but to abdicate, as none of the parliaments accepted Wallis Simpson as queen. And the crown passed to his younger brother George VI.

In 2013, the British Parliament passed a new law amending the rules of succession to the crown. On the one hand, it abolished the original rule based on male primogeniture, which put female children after male children. Women were not prevented from wearing the crown as in French royalty, but they took second place to male children. On the other hand, it abolishes the rule stipulating that to marry a person of the Catholic religion, one must renounce his rank in the order of succession. In 1830, Catholics obtained equal political rights and since then, the risk of Catholicism returning as the religion of the monarch is extremely low. This practice was therefore no longer necessary.

How did we go from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy?

Between 1625 and 1688, there were clashes either open – the Civil War and the Great Rebellion (1642-1651) – or latent between the Crown and Parliament over who would dominate the other. After the Glorious Revolution (1688-1689), power passed definitively into the hands of Parliament. This was due to the fact that from 1689 Parliament held the purse strings and controlled the expenses of the monarchy through the Civil List, and no taxes could be levied without Parliament's consent. At that point, the pendulum swung definitively in favour of Parliament, even if that does not mean that the king has no power.

It was during Victoria's reign that the monarchical function was gradually emptied of its content, for several reasons. First, because Victoria's husband, Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, made her understand that the attraction of the monarchy was to place itself above partisan struggles, above political parties. Second, because Victoria withdrew from public life for ten years after her husband's death in 1861, totally devastated by her widowhood, and as a result, unused powers withered. Finally, the electoral reform of 1867, which considerably expanded the right to vote and from which the political parties as we know them today were established: the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, with the Labour Party arriving a little later, in 1906. These parties are election winning machines and, from 1967-1970 onwards, there is in the vast majority of cases a party that has an absolute majority in the House of Commons. The sovereign has no choice but to appoint the leader of this party as Prime Minister. By losing all latitude in the choice of the head of government, it is a kind of sign of the end of the political influence that the British monarch could have.

" READ ALSO – From Elizabeth II to Charles III: a monarch without power

If the monarch has no political power, what are his functions?

In theory, he has a lot of them. He appoints the Prime Minister, but as we have just explained, he has no choice but to appoint the leader of the party that wins the election. The appointment of ministers is also made by "suggestion" of the head of government. It also gives its consent to any law enacted by Parliament. In fact, the last monarch to oppose a law was Queen Anne in 1708. He can dissolve Parliament but again, he does so at the request of the incumbent Prime Minister or if there is a political crisis. At the opening of the parliamentary session, he delivers the Speech from the Throne, which is drafted by the Prime Minister. Elizabeth II, during her reign, successively announced nationalizations, privatizations, renationalizations, privatizations according to the policies put in place by her various Prime Ministers.

As head of the Anglican Church, he appointed bishops and archbishops. But in reality, the choices are made long before by the synod of the Anglican Church. Proposals for appointments are forwarded to him by the Prime Minister for promulgation.

The same applies to the role of Chief of the Armed Forces. The last sovereign to lead his troops into battle was George II. During World War I and World War II, Kings George V and George VI visited soldiers at the front to boost morale. But that's it. During the Second World War, Churchill determined the plans. And at the time of the Falklands War, British strategy was entirely determined by Margaret Thatcher and members of the government.

With regard to the diplomatic role, all visits made by the sovereign are made at the request of the government. It was not Charles III who decided to dedicate his first state visits to France and then to Germany. It was Rushi Sunak's government that felt it was a strong gesture to show that, despite Brexit, Britain was not turning its back on the European continent.

The monarch is the head of state of the United Kingdom, he embodies the unity of the nation in its entirety. He is a figurehead. But in reality, he has no room for manoeuvre. All his actions are determined by the government, it is not the government who initiates them. Moreover, Charles, who, as Prince of Wales, did not hesitate to make his opinions known to the various ministers, had already said a long time ago that when the time came, he would not be a sovereign who would intervene in political affairs. He understood that what he could do as Prince of Wales, he could no longer do as a sovereign.

How is the relationship between the British monarch, government and Parliament organized?

The British sovereign has three rights: the right to be informed, which are the weekly audiences that the sovereign grants to his Prime Minister and during which the latter explains to him all the affairs of the nation; the right to be informed, which means that every day the monarch receives all state documents. It is also said that Charles III works to consult the most important documents until 21-21:30 p.m., before going to bed. The second right is the right to encourage: the sovereign can say, "Yes, this is a good measure applied there." Finally, the third right, which is the right to warn and draw the Prime Minister's attention to a particular measure that the monarch considered not necessarily appropriate. But nothing obliges the prime minister to follow the advice of the monarch. For example, in 1956, when Prime Minister Anthony Eden presented the joint military project with the French and Israelis to reoccupy the Suez Canal, Queen Elizabeth II reportedly said to him, "Are you sure it's a good idea?" and he said, "Yes, it's a good idea." And we know the sequel which was a military success but a diplomatic fiasco.

What is the Commonwealth?

The Commonwealth can be described as what replaced the British colonial Empire. This is not wrong, but not totally accurate either. A distinction must be made between the following two elements: on the one hand, there are the fourteen states that have the British sovereign as head of state and, on the other, the Member States that have no institutional link with Great Britain.

The first of these was India, which gained independence in 1947 and became a republic in 1950. The President of the Republic of India, Nehru, expressed the wish to see his country join the Commonwealth. At the time, the British government and George VI considered it preferable to maintain good relations with India rather than to deny it entry. For Nehru, being a member of the Commonwealth meant independence with something extra.

Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, meet Ghanaians during a state visit to Accra, Ghana, November 17, 1961. © AFP

Most of the former British colonies joined the Commonwealth, particularly the British colonies in Black Africa. Others have left, such as South Africa, which proclaimed itself a republic in 1961 because it could not stand the black majority of the organization while it practiced the policy of racial segregation. The country was reintegrated in 1994 at the end of apartheid.

The Commonwealth also attracts countries that have never been British colonies such as Mozambique, a former Portuguese colony, or Rwanda, a former Belgian colony. Its attractiveness comes from the fact that the Commonwealth is a forum in which all countries are equal, whether they are small or large in area, populous or less populous, whether they have a large GDP per capita or whether they are poor. And in this context, Britain represents only one voice.

What is the place of the monarch in this organization?

The British sovereign is the head of the Commonwealth, but this is a purely ceremonial position. It has no authority over the member countries of the organization. Queen Elizabeth II, who was head of the Commonwealth for 70 years, had an extremely in-depth knowledge of everything related to member countries and on several occasions she played the role of facilitator to help behind the scenes to resolve this or that tension. Charles has less experience, but he has still represented his mother several times over the past decade. He is therefore not totally Boeotian in this matter.

Three or four years ago, Queen Elizabeth expressed the wish that when the time came her son Charles would become head of the Commonwealth because nowhere is it written that the head of the Commonwealth must be the British sovereign. Before her, King George VI of Great Britain had been recognized as head of the Commonwealth, as member countries must have considered it simpler to have a hereditary succession at the head of the office. If this had not been the case, an election campaign would have had to be organised with as many candidates as Member States, which would have weakened the institution more than strengthened it.

The effective management authority of the Commonwealth is exercised by the Secretary-General, not the Sovereign. According to an unwritten rule, none of the Commonwealth Secretaries-General is British. So we have a British head of the Commonwealth and a secretary-general who is of all nationalities except British nationality.

I would also point out that with the new reign of Charles III, it is possible that some kingdoms will decide to proclaim themselves a republic without leaving the organization. Being a member of the Commonwealth does not imply acknowledging any dynastic connection to the British monarch.

How is the British monarchy financed?

At the beginning of each reign, the monarch symbolically hands over Crown lands to the nation. And since 2012, the British monarchy is financed through a provision that is voted for several years: the Sovereign Grant which replaces the Civil List (civil list) created in the eighteenth century. This royal endowment corresponds to 25% of Crown land revenues that are paid directly into the British budget. There are not only landed properties, the royal heritage is extremely diverse and generates a huge mass of income. But you should still know that half of the heart of London belongs to the Crown, including Regent Street etc. whose rents represent substantial profits. It is therefore wrong to say that it is taxpayers' money that finances the monarchy. It is not the revenue from taxes but from the income of the Crown Estate.

" READ ALSO – The finances of the British royal family, one of the best kept secrets of the United Kingdom

However, taxpayers' money is used for the security of the monarch and members of the royal family, which is provided by the Ministry of the Interior and the police force; for air travel provided by the Royal Air Force, i.e. the Ministry of Defence. When there was the yacht, it was the Navy that covered the cost. Estimates vary but the cost brought back by the British is minimal, it is around £1.29 (1.50 €) per inhabitant. And when the sovereign goes abroad, it is the host countries that bear the costs.

Why is the British monarchy so popular in the UK?

The popularity of the British monarchy seems to me to be linked first of all to the fact that it stems in part from the weakness of its opposition. Republican movements have a very limited audience. One example is the petition launched by Republicans calling for the cancellation of the coronation ceremony and the allocation of the money to economic or social expenses garnered only a few thousand signatures instead of the hundreds of thousands hoped.

Then, it is the ceremonial around the monarchy that pleases people and that refers to a not so distant time when the country was the first power in the world. A century ago, and even at the beginning of Elizabeth II's reign, despite the loss of India, Britain was the first colonial empire.

The fact also that by the duration of her reign – it had been the same for Queen Victoria – Elizabeth II was perceived as the grandmother of the nation. Which was completely illusory. The British thought they knew her, they saw her effigy just about everywhere, from postage stamps to banknotes, but they didn't know her personally. This feeling of closeness has also been maintained by the media.

For Charles, it's a little different. Elizabeth was 26 when she came to the throne and he is 74. It is not the same type of report that can be created. The Prince of Wales is said to be more respected than loved. His philanthropic commitment and ecological convictions have been known for a long time and this gives him an aura of sympathy. But he may be less able to evoke a feeling in quotation marks "of love" like his mother, and again. During his first crowd bath when he arrived at Buckingham Palace, when he had just become king, a lady in her fifties kissed him on both cheeks like good bread. This is the opposite of Elizabeth II who imposed more restraint. She never shook hands without wearing gloves, while Charles squeezed hands happily. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more Britons watching the coronation than some opinion polls are now predicting.

-----------

Philippe Chassaigne is professor of contemporary history at Bordeaux Montaigne University, specialist in Great Britain, author of History of England, From the origins to the present day (Flammarion, republished in 2021).

Our selection on the subject:

Listen:

• British crown, what future between tradition and modernity?
• After Elizabeth, will the British monarchy maintain its rank and power?
• United Kingdom: the Anglican Church inseparable from the British monarchy
• Queen Elizabeth, from Empire to Commonwealth

Further reading:

• Charles III favoured reflection on the role of the British monarchy in the atrocities of slavery
• Elizabeth II, privileged witness of the end of the British Empire and African independence
• Death of Elizabeth II: the long not-so-quiet reign of a popular queen
• On June 2, 1953, Elizabeth II has an appointment with history

Newsletter Receive all the international news directly in your mailbox

I subscribe

Follow all the international news by downloading the RFI application

Read on on the same topics:

• United Kingdom
• Charles III
• Commonwealth
• History
• Our selection