With the death of Elizabeth II and the coronation of Charles, the debacle over Harry and Megan, and debates over the crimes of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (formerly ‘Prince’), the question of whether the monarchy is fit for the modern day has been a common one. In order to answer the question of whether or not the monarchy is redundant, we need to look back at historical kings and queens, and figure out what the role of the monarchy really is.
While usurpation was uncommon, and indeed unheard of prior to Edward III, if a king was weak he would face rebellion. The best examples of this are found during the Wars of the Roses – during this period, if a King was weak or disliked, like the famously tyrannical Richard II, he could be deposed. This demonstrated clearly that a king could and would be held to account. Another example of this is the notoriously weak Henry VI, who, while by all accounts a merciful king for the time, was not a strong leader – he was deposed not once but twice. This happened again with Richard III. Rebellions served as a test of a monarch’s strength – if they couldn’t withstand internal unrest, how would they withstand foreign threats?
The second point includes the example of Henry VI, who some would argue is the best example of what a monarch should not be. In those days, a King was expected to ‘live off his own’, which is to say, live off his own income. Taxes were used only to raise money for war, not to line the King’s wallet – Parliament could prevent the King from taxing the people for this reason. The King took a good share of his money from customs exports. When Henry VI wore simple clothes, and didn’t indulge in the pastimes of a King, people worried, because the monarch was effectively the canary in the financial mine. If the King was poor, then trade was poor, and other financial troubles were to come. A monarch’s wealth had a purpose; to showcase the prosperity of the realm. The modern monarchy, however, is nothing of the sort, which can be seen in the ongoing ‘cost of living crisis’ while the royal family is not a penny poorer.
Both princes and princesses were expected to make a good match. The outcry after Edward IV, for example, married the lower-nobility Elizabeth Woodville, was enough to push him off the throne; ‘The Kingmaker’ Richard Neville, had been arranging for a marriage that would strengthen relations with France. This sort of alliance is seen in almost every royal couple in history, with very few being love matches or a royal marrying somebody below their station, until recent history. Now, tabloid headlines gush over Kate and William, or Megan and Harry, or go on about the ‘scandalous love triangle’ between Charles, Camilla and Diana. Royal romances have become a thing of fantasy, not of pragmatism, which further serves to highlight how the the monarchy is now redundant.
The role of the monarchy was to serve as an early warning of financial crisis, to create and uphold the law, to act as an ambassador and marry to create foreign links. In a time of economic disparity such as this, with millions of people living below the poverty line and the welfare state crumbling around us, medieval yeomen would be shocked at how the royal family attends galas in glittering diamonds, contributing but a fraction of their ‘Sovereign Grant’, funded by taxpayer’s money, towards this and that charity. The convention of monarchy ‘living off its own’ has long since died – the royal family have nothing to do with politics, and serve only as figureheads. The modern monarchy is a pantomime of tradition, which is the very same tradition that would call it redundant, given how it fails its role in almost every conceivable way.
