Wchurch’s Weblog

“Monarchy is antiquated, irrational and worst of all hereditary elitism. Only fuddy-duddy types like Hyacinth Bucket are monarchists, the type that decorate their mantlepiece with Royal Doultons.”

Monarchists endure this kind of mockery everyday. The resolute individual will rise above the mockery and stick firmly to their conviction. The charge of hereditary elitism is no doubt indicative of a manifest ignorance, the mistaken view that succession is entirely a matter of inheritance and birthright. Since, 1689 it is clear that parliament may alter the line of succession, and the sovereign must fulfil certain statutory duties.

As for the charge that monarchy is less than ideal because it is “antiquated” and “irrational”, one should surely judge any system based on results and human experience. Since, 1689 Great Britain has been indisputably the most free and stable democracy in the world by any comparison.

As for Republican constitutional arrangements…

France?

Since the revolution of 1789 France has had five republics. Edmund Burke predicted in 1790 that the French Republic would be plagued by instability, eventually collapse and see the ascendancy of a military autocrat – they got General Napoleon Bonaparte! They have also had a fascist Regime under Vichy. The current Fifth Republic was implemented in 1958 following the collapse of the Fourth Republic.

USA?

Apparently the ideal Republic, however, this did not prevent a bloody civil war between 1861 and 1864. (Ironically, ‘slavery” was a major reason for this war, a practice abolished by the British Parliament in 1832.) Today the president exercises powers that would have been inconceivable to the founding fathers. A president can effectively rule by executive order, making directives that circumvent the constitution. (E.g. Executive Order 9066 FDR used his authority as Commander-in-Chief to send ethnic groups to internment camps.)

Germany?

The Weimar Constitution was flawed, a flaw that Hitler exploited in 1934 following the death of Hindenburg.

Lest we forget the attrocities that occured in the USSR, Vietnam, China, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, the Czech Republic and Ethiopia that were direct consequences of a republicanism !!!!!

Britain, in contrast, has had a history of stability and freedom that is unparalleled. Somewhere between 1688 and the middle 19th century it’s monarchical system evolved into constitutional monarchy, whereby the sovereign is primarily a constitutional safeguard that plays a passive role in the activities of parliament. The fundamental pillars of this system are Magna Carta, and the Bill of Rights 1689 which enshrined the principle of parliamentary supremacy – and of course the related right of parliament to alter the line of succession.

The beauty of the system is that it was not inspired by ideals, nor drafted by self-proclaimed philosopher Kings. Rather, it is the outcome of spontaneous acts and gradual evolution.

So what events or acts created this constitutional system?

Here is my attempt to trace these acts and events:

Constraints on Sovereign Power:

1100:
The Charter of Liberties, aka Coronation Charter, was a written proclamation by Henry I of England, issued upon his ascension to the throne. It bound the king to certain laws regarding the treatment of church officials and nobles.

1215:
Sixty three clauses requiring that the King renounce certain rights, respect certain legal procedures and accept that he is bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the King’s subjects. The document guaranteed, inter alia: freedom of the church; redress of feudal grievances; consultation before the imposition of taxes; availability of justice to all; habeus corpus (clause 39); control on the behaviour of of Royal officials. In terms of constraining the power of the monarch clause 61 was crucial. A council of twenty-five barons was appointed to ensure the sovereign observed the charter, gving them the right to wage war on the sovereign if he did not!

Petitition of Right 1628:
Sought to further limit royal preogative. The petitition sought to address: Taxation without Parliament’s consent; forced loans ; arbitrary arrest; imprisonment contrary to Magna Carta; arbitrary interference with property rights; lack of enforcement of habeas corpus; forced billeting of troops; imposition of martial law & exemption of officials from due process. It was supported by Charles II.

Bill of Rights 1689:
Enshrined the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. It is an essential document of English constitutional law, alongside Magna Carta 1215, the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Parliament Acts. It also forms part of the constitution of some other Commonwealth nations, such as Australia! It was a product of the Glorious Revolution, led by William III of Orange Nassu. It was a response to the tendency towards absolute monarchism – in Golden v Hales, 1686, James II had dismissed six judges and solictor general, to secure the decision he wanted. The document guaranteed civil and poltical rights to Englishman, such as: freedom from royal interference with the law (Parliamentary Sovereignty); freedom from taxation by royal prerogative without consent of Parliament; freedom to petition the Monarch; freedom from a peace-time standing army; freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign; the freedom of speech in Parliament (parliamentary privlege); freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, and excessive bail; and freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial.

Triennial Act 1697:
Stated that parliament is to be called every three years, and guaranteed free speech in parliament.

Civil List Act 1697:
Made the sovereign dependent upon parliament for annual gifts fixed at the begininnig of each reign.

Act of Settlement 1701:
No catholic nor anyone married to a catholic could succeed to the throne. Altered hereditary succession, granting to parliament the right to determine succession to the throne & the conditions under which the crown be held.

Reform Act 1832:
The Reform Act had fundamental consequences for the evolution of constitutional monarchy, it abolished rotten boroughs, expanded and rationalised franchise, and enhanced the power of the House of Commons. The expansion of the electorate made it harder for the sovereign to influence general elections. It meant that the sovereign did not have room to maneouvre and made the acceptance of ministerial advice unavoidable. Party organization became the vehicle through which government was determined.

Queen Victoria (Reign 1837-1901):
Queen Victoria acceded to the throne in 1837 on the death of William IV. Despite her strong Tory sympathies she was a passive monarch whose reign was instrumental to the development of a non-partisan monarchy.

Non-partisanship:
Prince Albert was thought to be a de facto King acting in the name of Queen Victoria. He had been strongly influenced by Baron Stockmar, and took the view that the sovereign was an umpire and arbiter who used his/her power in a non-partisan manner for the benefit of the nation. He took the view that a neutral sovereign would be better able to exert influence over legislation.

Ministerial Appointments:
During the latter half of Victoria’s reign, the Sovereign lost the power to choose and veto ministerial appointments. The only ministerial appointment she successfully vetoed in the latter half of her reign was that of Henry Labouchere, who insulted the monarchy in 1892 and had little popular support.

Dissolution of Parliament:
Victoria thought the sovereign should tread carefully with respect to the dissolution power. In 1846 she told Lord Russell the power to dissolve parliament “ought not to be used except in extreme cases and with a certainty of success. To use this instrument and be defeated is a thing most lowering to the Crown and hurtful to the Country.”

The Rise of Imperial Britain:
1815-1914 is called the imperial century, as indistinct from the two-hundred and thirty-two years of British Empire that preceded it. Britain adopted ‘Pax Brittanica” and radically revised it’s foreign policy, this saw the global spread of the English language, parliamentary democracy, technology, imperial measurements, and English Common Law. The rise of imperial monarchy signaled the end of an active sovereign. As the sovereign’s role extended to Head of the Commonwealth the possibility of exercising an active role in politics became increasingly remote. As the system of responsible government in Britain strengthened it was spread throughout the world.

Imperialism also saw greater autonomy granted to the dominions. During Victoria’s reign in 1888 the first imperial conference was held aka “Colonial Conference.” (This was a precursor to the later Imperial Conferences of 1926 & 1930, which finally severed any political or legal link between the UK and the dominions.)

Power of Parliament to alter the line of Succession:

The power of parliament to alter the line of succession is integeral to constitutional monarchy. Since 1689 it has been clear that parliament may alter the line of succession, and may impose conditions upon the sovereign. No sovereign could succeed without satisfying certain statutory duties. The common law rule of primogeniture still applies, but the statutory rules governing succession have fundamentally changed the nature of British monarchy. To this extent succession is subservient to the will of parliament, and ultimately the British people!

There are four statutory conditions any sovereign must meet:

(i) The Sovereign must declare at the first meeting of parliament after accession, or Coronation, (which ever comes first) faithfulness to Protestantism: now regulated by Accession Declaration Act 1910.

(ii) Sovereign must under Coronation Oath Act 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701 and Accession Act 1901 take an oath at his or her coronation in form prescribed by Statute.

(iii) Sovereign must promise in accordance with 25th Article of the Acts of Union with Scotland 1706, to maintain the Presbyterian church of Scotland.

(iv) Sovereign must be in communion with the Church of England, of which he or she is Supreme Governor: Act of Settlement 1701.

Parliament has twice altered the line of succession since 1689. The first time was in 1701, when the Act of Settlement provided that succession lie with the Electress of Hanover, and her heirs being Protestant. The second time was in 1936, following the abdication of Edward VIII : The Declaration of Abdication Act 1936.

Regency:

Since 1689 it is clear that parliament can alter the line of succession. Parliament may also pass laws to provide for regency, first occurring in 1728 when parliament declared that Queen Caroline could act as sovereign in the absence of King George II.

The Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 installed King George VI as king. His heiress presumptive (now HM Queen Elisabeth II) was under the age of 18, thus necessitating a new Regency Act. The Regency Act 1937 defined a “regent” as: over the age of 21; domiciled in the United Kingdom; and capable of succeeding to the Crown pursuant to conditions in the Act of Settlement 1701. It provided for: (i) a minority of sovereign; (ii) permanent incapacity of sovereign; (iii) temporary incapacity of the sovereign; and (iv) absence from the United Kingdom. In the case of situations (i) and (ii) provisions for regency apply; and in situations (iii) & (iv) a Council of State acts on the monarchs behalf. The act has been amended since 1937, in 1943 and 1952 and fixed anomalies in the 1937 legislation. The 1953 amendment saw the definition of regent extended to “best person” instead of next in line of succession!

Author: W.R.Church