British Monarchy and its influence upon governmental institutions
Constitutional monarchy: System
of government in which a monarch has agreed to share power with a
constitutionally organized government. The monarch may remain the de facto head
of state or may be a purely ceremonial head. The constitution allocates the
rest of the government's power to the legislature and judiciary. Britain became
a constitutional monarchy under the Whigs; other constitutional monarchies
include Belgium, Cambodia, Jordan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and
Thailand.
THE BRITISH CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY
"The British
Constitutional Monarchy was the consequence of the Glorious Revolution of 1688,
and was enshrined in the Bill of Rights of 1689. Whereby William and Mary in
accepting the throne, had to consent to govern 'according to the statutes in
parliament on."
A monarch does not have to curry favour for
votes from any section of the community.
A monarch is almost invariably more popular than an
Executive President, who can be elected by less than 50% of the electorate and
may therefore represent less than half the people. In the 1995 French
presidential election the future President Chirac was not the nation's choice
in the first round of voting. In Britain, governments are formed on the basis
of parliamentary seats won. In the 1992 General Election the Conservative Prime
Minister took the office with only 43% of votes cast in England, Scotland and
Wales. The Queen however, as hereditary Head of State, remains the
representative of the whole nation.
Elected presidents are concerned more with their own
political futures and power, and as we have seen (in Brazil for example), may
use their temporary tenure to enrich themselves. Monarchs are not subject to
the influences which corrupt short-term presidents. A monarch looks back on
centuries of history and forward to the well being of the entire nation under
his/her heir. Elected presidents in their nature devote much energy to undoing
the achievements of their forebears in order to strengthen the position of
their successors.
A long reigning monarch can put enormous experience at
the disposal of transient political leaders. Since succeeding her father in
1952 Queen Elizabeth has had a number of Prime Ministers, the latest of whom
were not even in Parliament at the time of her accession. An experienced
monarch can act as a brake on over ambitious or misguided politicians, and
encorage others who are less confident. The reality is often the converse of
the theory: the monarch is frequently the Prime Minister's best adviser.
Monarchs, particularly those in Europe are part of an
extended Royal Family, facilitating links between their nations. As Burke observed,
nations touch at their summits. A recent example of this was the attendance of
so many members of Royal Families at the 50th birthday celebrations for Sweden’s
King Carl XVI Gustav. Swedish newspapers reported that this this was a much
better indication of their closeness to the rest of Europe than any number of
treaties, protocols or directives from the European Union.
A monarch is trained from Birth for the position of
Head of State and even where, as after the abdication of Edward VIII, a younger
brother succeeds, he too has enormous experience of his country, its people and
its government. The people know who will succeed, and this certainly gives a
nation invaluable continuity and stability. This also explains why it is rare
for an unsuitable person to become King. There are no expensive elections as in
the US where, as one pro-Monarchist American says, "we have to elect a new
' Royal Family' every four years." In the French system the President may
be a member of one party, while the Prime Minister is from another, which only
leads to confused governement. In a monarchy there is no such confusion, for
the monarch does not rule in conflict with government but reigns over the whole
nation.
In ceremonial presidencies the Head of State is often
a former politician tainted by, and still in thrall to, his former political
life and loyalties, or an academic or retired diplomat who can never have the
same prestige as a monarch, and who is frequently little known inside the
country, and almost totally unknown outside it. For example, ask a German why
is Britain's Head of State and a high proportion will know it is Queen
Elizabeth II. Ask a Briton, or any Non- German, who is Head of State of Germany?
, and very few will be able to answer correctly.
Aided by his immediate family, a monarch can carry out
a range of duties and public engagements - ceremonial, charitable,
environmental etc. which an Executive President would never have time to do,
and to which a ceremonial President would not add lustre.
A monarch and members of a Royal Family can become
involved in a wide range of issues which are forbidden to politicians. All
parties have vested interests which they cannot ignore. Vernon Bogdanor says in
' The Monarchy and the Constitution' - «A politician must inevitably be a
spokesperson for only part of the nation, not the whole. A politician's motives
will always be suspected. Members of the Royal Family, by contrast, because of
their symbolic position, are able to speak to a much wider constituency than
can be commanded by even the most popular political leader." In a
Republic, then, who is there to speak out on issues where the 'here today, gone
tomorrow' government is constrained from criticising its backers, even though
such criticism is in the national interest.
All nations are made up of families, and it's natural
that a family should be at a nation's head.
While the question of Divine Right is now obsolescent,
the fact that "there's such divinity doth hedge a King" remains true,
and it is interesting to note that even today Kings are able to play a role in
the spiritual life of a nation which presidents seem unable to fulfil.
It has been demonstrated that, even ignoring the
enormous cost of presidential elections, a monarch as head of state is no more
expensive than a president. In Britain many costs, such as the upkeep of the
Royal residencies, are erroneosly thought to be uniquely attributable to the
monarchy, even though the preservation of our heritage would still be
undertaken if the county were a republic! The US government has criticised the
cost to the Brazilian people of maintaining their president.
Even Royal Families which are not reigning are
dedicated to the service of their people, and continue to be regarded as the
symbol of the nation's continuity. Prominent examples are H.R.H. the Duke of
Braganza in Portugal and H.R.H. the County of Paris in France. Royal Families
forced to live in exile, such as the Yugoslav and Romanian, are often promoters
of charities formed to help their countries.
KINGS AND QUEENS OF ENGLAND
The history of the English Crown up to the Union of
the Crowns in 1603 is long and varied. The concept of a single ruler unifying
different tribes based in England developed in the eighth and ninth centuries in
figures such as Offa and Alfred the Great, who began to create centralised
systems of government. Following the Norman Conquest, the machinery of
government developed further, producing long-lived national institutions
including Parliament.
The Middle Ages saw several fierce contests for the
Crown, culminating in the Wars of the Roses, which lasted for nearly a century.
The conflict was finally ended with the advent of the Tudors, the dynasty which
produced some of England's most successful rulers and a flourishing cultural
Renaissance. The end of the Tudor line with the death of the 'Virgin Queen' in
1603 brought about the Union of the Crowns with Scotland.
THE ANGLO-SAXON KINGS
In the Dark Ages during the fifth and sixth centuries,
communities of peoples in Britain inhabited homelands with ill-defined borders.
Such communities were organised and led by chieftains or kings. Following the
final withdrawal of the Roman legions from the provinces of Britannia in around
408 AD these small kingdoms were left to preserve their own order and to deal
with invaders and waves of migrant peoples such as the Picts from beyond
Hadrian's Wall, the Scots from Ireland and Germanic tribes from the continent.
(King Arthur, a larger-than-life figure, has often been cited as a leader of
one or more of these kingdoms during this period, although his name now tends
to be used as a symbol of British resistance against invasion.)
The invading communities overwhelmed or adapted
existing kingdoms and created new ones - for example, the Angles in Mercia and
Northumbria. Some British kingdoms initially survived the onslaught, such as
Strathclyde, which was wedged in the north between Pictland and the new
Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria.
By 650 AD, the British Isles were a patchwork of many
kingdoms founded from native or immigrant communities and led by powerful
chieftains or kings. In their personal feuds and struggles between communities
for control and supremacy, a small number of kingdoms became dominant: Bernicia
and Deira (which merged to form Northumbria in 651 AD), Lindsey, East Anglia,
Mercia, Wessex and Kent. Until the late seventh century, a series of
warrior-kings in turn established their own personal authority over other
kings, usually won by force or through alliances and often cemented by dynastic
marriages.
According to the later chronicler Bede, the most
famous of these kings was Ethelberht, king of Kent (reigned c.560-616), who
married Bertha, the Christian daughter of the king of Paris, and who became the
first English king to be converted to Christianity (St Augustine's mission from
the Pope to Britain in 597 during Ethelberht's reign prompted thousands of such
conversions). Ethelberht's law code was the first to be written in any Germanic
language and included 90 laws. His influence extended both north and south of
the river Humber: his nephew became king of the East Saxons and his daughter
married king Edwin of Northumbria (died 633).
In the eighth century, smaller kingdoms in the British
Isles continued to fall to more powerful kingdoms, which claimed rights over
whole areas and established temporary primacies: Dalriada in Scotland, Munster
and Ulster in Ireland. In England, Mercia and later Wessex came to
dominate, giving rise to the start of the monarchy.
Throughout the Anglo-Saxon period the succession was
frequently contested, by both the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy and leaders of the
settling Scandinavian communities. The Scandinavian influence was to prove
strong in the early years. It was the threat of invading Vikings which
galvanised English leaders into unifying their forces, and, centuries later,
the Normans who successfully invaded in 1066 were themselves the descendants of
Scandinavian 'Northmen'.
HOUSE OF
WESSEX AND ENGLAND
802 – 1066
EGBERT = Redburga
(802–839)
ETHELWULF = Osburga
dau. of Oslac of Isle of Wight
(839–855)
ETHELBERHT ALFRED
the Great = Ealhswith
ETHELBALD
(860–866) ETHELRED (871–899)
(855–860)
(866–871)
Ecgwyn = EDWARD THE ELDER= Edgiva
(899–924)
ATHELSTAN
(924–939)
Elgiva
= EDMUND
I
EDRED (939–946)
(946–955)
EDWY
Ethelfleda = EDGAR = Elfrida,
dau. of Ordgar, Ealdorman of East Anglia
(955–959)
dau. of (959–975)
Ealdorman
Ordmaer
EDWARD THE MARTYR
(975–979)
Elfgifu = ETHELRED II THE UNREADY = Emma
(979–1016)
(later
(deposed
1013/14) married
CANUTE)
EDMUND II IRONSIDE
(Apr.–Nov.1016)
Godwin = Gytha
EDWARD THE = Eadgyth
HAROLD II
CONFESSOR
(Edith) (Jan.–Oct.1066)
(1042–1066)
EGBERT (802-39 AD)
Known as the first King of All England, he was forced
into exile at the court of Charlemagne, by the powerful Offa, King of Mercia.
Egbert returned to England in 802 and was recognized as king of Wessex. He
defeated the rival Mercians at the battle of Ellendun in 825. In 829, the
Northumbrians accepted his overlordship and he was proclaimed
"Bretwalda" or sole ruler of Britain.
ÆTHELWULF (839-55 AD)
Æthelwulf
was the son of Egbert and a sub-king of Kent. He assumed the throne of Wessex
upon his father's death in 839. His reign is characterized by the usual Viking
invasions and repulsions common to all English rulers of the time, but the
making of war was not his chief claim to fame. Æthelwulf is remembered,
however dimly, as a highly religious man who cared about the establishment and
preservation of the church. He was also a wealthy man and controlled vast
resources. Out of these resources, he gave generously, to Rome and to religious
houses that were in need.
Ñòðàíèöû: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
|