Why do we need a king, Brits are asking

King Charles

Within days of the demise of the longest serving British sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II, questions have begun to circulate in sections of the country and elsewhere on the relevance of monarchy in modern day Britain.

The Queen, who reigned for 70 years, died on Thursday at the age of 96.

Questions about the relevance of the monarchy have been raised in the past as well. But during Queen Elizabeth’s reign, these were mostly confined to the political margins because of the huge popularity she enjoyed among her subjects.

Their return to the thick of political discourse when Britain is facing a crisis of political leadership, and of the economy, is significant, as they interrogate the role of the new monarch, King Charles III.

Nonetheless, the affection for the monarchy in large sections of the people also shows what Queen Elizabeth II meant for Britain, especially during a crisis.

“Every age group thought she was great and that the monarchy should carry on into the future, preferably with her at its head,’’ observed commentator David Llyod in a piece on the fate of the monarchy after the Queen.

He said her real job was keeping Britain together.

The Queen had inherited a monarchy whose political power was in steady decline since the 18th century, and at the start of the 20th century, class tensions were so high that many predicted the crown’s demise.

But Elizabeth II made duty the “touchstone of her life and the theme of her reign,” and the British monarchy managed to retain a powerful hold on public imagination largely thanks to her.

Monarchs were expected to perform ceremonial duties with due gravity. But they were also expected to lighten up and spread joy and enjoy the tastes and interests of the ordinary people.

With her decision to allow her coronation in 1953 to be televised, she achieved to balance both these roles. Television took her straight into the homes of ordinary people.

The Queen went on to further revolutionise public perception of the monarchy when she consented to the 1969 BBC film, Royal Family. It was a remarkably intimate portrayal of her home life -- showing her at breakfast, having a barbecue and popping down to the local shops.

This was followed up with televising Prince Charles’ investiture as Prince of Wales, and her visit in 1970 to Australia and New Zealand, when the monarch broke with protocol and mixed directly with the crowds who had come out to see her.

These “walkabouts” soon became a key part of any royal visit.

The monarch provides pageantry and diplomacy: the face that Britain shows to the world, rather than the efficient arm of the government, renowned constitutional historian Walter Bagehot had observed.

According to Llyod, Elizabeth had the power of the powerless — which in her case was world fame. “Everyone who was anyone wished to meet her, and in her decades of rule, she met almost every world leader,” he added.

But her principal focus was domestic. For the Queen the purpose of the monarchy was to bolster the country’s sense of unity and continuity.

The monarchy represents the idea of a nation to which everybody belongs and in which every citizen has as much value as any other.

She wanted to achieve this by going about, inaugurating things, and meeting people, as visibly as possible.

“I must be seen to be believed,” the Queen often said. Many commentators wondered why she endlessly visited small towns, industrial estates, colleges, and minor firms. To which she responded by saying, “Because nobody else does.”

For the same reasons, receptions at Buckingham Palace were more socially, racially, and geographically diverse than those at Downing Street (the PM’s residence) or any other political venue.

Similarly, the mass investiture where councillors and cleaning ladies from all over the country were invited to take tea at the palace, was also an initiative of hers.

She felt it was her job to unify a disparate nation, to make the people ignored by the political classes feel important.

In a memorable tongue-in-cheek cameo during the opening of the 2012 London Olympics, she had parachuted into the arena from a helicopter, along with James Bond, aka Daniel Craig.

The Queen’s principal method of avoiding potential hostility was discretion. While visible in public she kept her personal views entirely private. Because speaking her mind might endear her to a group of Britons while alienating others. She never expressed any political views as the British monarch was supposed to be above politics.

The public silence that she maintained for over seven decades on almost any important subject, according to experts, was central to the monarch’s job of representing the country as a whole.

But unlike his mother, the new monarch, King Charles III, has the propensity to express his opinion in public on many things — from architecture to climate change, to government funding for his pet projects.

If he continues with this, then both he and his institution will not only suffer but also strengthen the view in Britain of finally doing away with the monarchy.