As a natural conservative, not merely a political one, I have always felt an affinity for the British monarchy, and never bought into the excessively utilitarian (and inherently radical) arguments that favor the abolition of the monarchy. After weeks of listening to videos from The People Profiles about the monarchy, I am even more convinced in the necessity of the British monarchy as a cultural and political force.
To be clear, I do not advocate for monarchy of any form in the United States. The reader might ask, “if it’s so beneficial to our British cousins, with whom we share quite a bit of history and culture, why isn’t it good for us?” The answer is simple: we’ve never had one! Monarchy is something almost completely foreign to Americans, at least since 1776. Our Founding was explicitly anti-monarchical, even if there were Americans willing to submit to a kingship under George Washington.
The British—and, more specifically, the English—however, have possessed a monarchy for over 1000 years, with the exception of that Cromwellian unpleasantness from 1648-1660, ending with the restoration of the Stuarts with Charles II. That is a great deal of tradition, custom, and ceremony to toss out merely to save a few bucks on maintaining the Royal Family.
Indeed, even with the somewhat squishy King Charles III on the throne, I would argue that the monarchy is even more important today than it has been in many decades. In a world of mass migration and woke identify politics, perhaps the only constant, consistent link with Britain’s past is the monarchy. The Royal Family is a symbol of Englishness, traditionally understood, and while they have roots in Germany, they nevertheless represent the essential English spirit.
Americans love the monarchy, and even though we would never wish any form of monarchy on ourselves—even a rather weak constitutional one—I think we have a certain respect of and yearning for the pageantry and pomp that go with it. We certainly have our American forms of pageantry, pomp, and ceremony, and they are no less stirring than the British varieties. But there is something powerful, something ancient, about the British monarchy that captures our imaginations and stirs us. For a nation built, in part, on perpetual (albeit fundamentally conservative) revolution, there is something deeply appealing about an institution that has endured for a millennium—and a rather eventful millennium, at that!
Similarly, I think the British need this link to their past. The Royal Family is a reminder of Britain’s greatness, and perhaps could serve as an inspiration for the British to become great again. There is no returning to the glories and civilizing influence of the British Empire, but the constant, living reminder of Britain’s impressive, almost boyish, dominion over much of the world is surely a source of pride and inspiration.
The arguments against the monarchy essentially boil down into three categories: financial, political, and revolutionary. Each of these have serious flaws.
Financially, the argument is made that maintaining the monarchy is expensive, and that money could be better spent elsewhere. This argument seems sensible, but it misses the point of the monarchy entirely. It smacks of the disciples who scolded Jesus for letting the prostitute pour the expensive oil on His Feet—“we could have sold it to help the poor!” Jesus Noted that there will always be poor among us. Similarly, why pour out this beautiful legacy just for the government to blow the money on another boondoggle?
Politically, the argument is that the Royal Family no longer serves any practical purpose, that they do not exercise any real, hard power. Certainly that is the case, although new Prime Ministers must go to the king and ask to form a government. Besides the intriguing possibility of a monarch saying, “no”—which would probably never happen, because Parliament would likely ignore it and proceed anyway—the king does not wield much direct power over the function of government. But he is a living embodiment of the English people and the British Commonwealth, and his utterances can influence policy, albeit very subtly. There is still a role for the monarch to play, but it is, of necessity, a quiet one. I doubt seriously that Charles III will make major proclamations on issues of public or even foreign policy, but his behind-the-scenes influence could be immense if wielded with a soft touch.
Revolutionarily, there are those who simply wish to rip up the monarchy, root and branch. These types see it as a relic of a disgraceful past, and that Britain should become a full-fledged republic. While the monarchy does not wield much practical power, ripping it up would simply create a substantial soft power vacuum. It would be like tearing out one’s own Conscious. The monarchy serves as an exemplar of the British “stiff upper lip,” of quiet resolve and determination in the face of adversity. I doubt seriously that Sadiq Khan could convey Britishness quite so well or enduringly, and not just because he’s a Paki.
Again, constitutional monarchy is not ideal for every people. It would never work here in the United States. Mexico shouldn’t have a king. But Britain should. Indeed, it needs a king. I would go so far as to argue that Americans need Britain to have a king, as a reminder that we defeated one, but also to remind us that we, too, respect the past, and that the world is older and more complex than 247 years of very recent history.
God Save the King!