By Chris Trotter*
The sheer weight of it takes your breath away.
On display in St James’s Palace on Saturday night (10/9/22) were rituals and traditions dating back centuries. To say the weight of those rituals and traditions, and all the gilt machinery of monarchical government, is crushing, would be no exaggeration. To the millions watching on television, the ceremony proclaiming King Charles III, conveyed another message. That the House of Windsor is the last great royal house of Europe.
When the late Queen’s great-great-grandmother, Victoria, sat upon the throne of Great Britain and Ireland, the House of Saxe-Coburg (latter re-named Windsor) was just one of many great royal houses. Alongside it stood the House of Hapsburg, the House of Hohenzollern, and the House of Romanov. By the end of the First World War, the Queen’s grandfather, the King-Emperor, George V, was the last man standing.
Kaiser Wilhelm II had abdicated and Germany had declared itself a Republic. The Emperor of what had been the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Karl I, had similarly renounced his throne. The Tsar of all the Russias, Nicholas II, along with his family, had been murdered by the Bolsheviks. The Ottoman Empire, which had once threatened to conquer all of Western Europe, had similarly disintegrated under the hammer blows of war.
Britain, alone of all the great monarchical European empires, stood alone. Only once, in a span of close to 1,000 years, had the English people succumbed to foreign invasion, defeat and occupation. The Norman Conquest of 1066 broke the Anglo-Saxon state into pieces and re-constituted it according to the principles of feudalism. That feudal state then proceeded to see off all foreign challengers for the best part of ten centuries. The Spanish failed in 1588. The French in 1805. The Germans tried and failed twice. The first time between 1914-18. The second, between 1939-45.
It is hard to over-emphasise the importance of British resilience. The grim audit of war had seen the other great royal dynasties declared politically bankrupt. The emperors and aristocrats who ruled them had failed in their first and most important duty – to protect the security and integrity of their realms. That failure allowed their peoples to reconfigure their political systems into new and (sometimes) more democratic ways. Old ideas and old institutions were either tossed aside in revolutionary fervour, or, carefully retired to the national attic – pending more favourable circumstances.
But not the House of Windsor. Not the British Empire. At the end of every existential struggle, England’s king, and its ancient aristocratic families, were there to take the salute of their triumphant armies. Proof that the ideas and ideals of the Middle Ages were more than equal to the challenges of economic and social change. Certainly, other classes had been admitted to the magic circles of political power, but the splendid feudal pageantry, the resonant feudal vocabulary, remained undisturbed – as the millions watching on Saturday night could see and hear.
Yes, the Cromwellian revolution of the 1640s and 50s, and the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 had tamed Great Britain’s kings and queens, transforming them slowly but surely into that most curious of creatures – half-medieval, half-modern – the “constitutional monarch”. But, it was never a purely one-way process. Century after century, the rebellious and democratic instincts of the British people have been tamed and domesticated by their kings and queens.
It was impossible to look upon that extraordinary line-up of former prime-ministers – four Tories, two Labour – all of them members of His Majesty’s Privy Council – standing loyally to attention and bellowing “God Save The King!”, without mentally doffing one’s cap to the extraordinary political legerdemain of the British ruling-class.
It is easy to scoff at such scenes, dismissing them as so much medieval mummery, but the deeper truth remains: they’re still being played out. J.M. Barrie in Peter Pan informs his young readers that fairies will continue to exist only for as long as people believe in them. The same is true of kings and queens.
Politicians under-rated the political perspicacity of Elizabeth II at their peril. In the 70 years of her extraordinary reign, the late Queen saw the British economy and the British people transformed. By a sustained act of tutelary will, she convinced them that, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, they remained one people: that there was more holding them together than there was tearing them apart. Her stubborn refusal to be convinced otherwise thus acted as a sort of dam, behind which the waters of division and disquiet rose higher and higher.
It was Louis XV of France who famously declared: “Après moi, le déluge” (After me, the flood!) Although she would never have indulged in such nihilistic despair, Elizabeth II could justifiably have said the same.
King Charles III must be wondering, along with the British political journalist who came up with the metaphor, whether his mother’s death signals “the conclusion of a season, or the end of the whole series?” Certainly, he could be forgiven for considering the term “United Kingdom” to be a joke in very poor taste. Those who witnessed Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s angry rejection of Boris Johnson’s arm, or watched on Twitter the Welsh nationalist actor Michael Sheen’s stupendous evocation of Welsh pride, would surely agree with the king.
A principled man (not a healthy attribute in a constitutional monarch) Charles must be looking with grave apprehension at the new, far-right British prime minister, Liz Truss. She cut a positively creepy figure in the otherwise splendid surroundings of St James’ Palace – bearing a frightening resemblance to the wicked queen in Disney’s Snow White.
The go-to explainer of Britain’s unwritten constitution, Walter Bagehot, wrote that the British monarch has only three constitutional rights: The right to be consulted. The right to encourage. And the right to warn. Given the ferocious ambitions of the Truss ministry, one suspects that King Charles III will soon be in need of all three.
And, here, in his far-flung realm of New Zealand? What will his antipodean subjects make of their new king? These islands are no less troubled by division and disquiet than Charles’ own beloved British Isles. Looming constitutional debates, all having at their heart the historical relationship of the British Crown with Aotearoa’s indigenous people, can hardly avoid attracting his royal attention.
In the meantime, the pageantry and pathos of the late Queen’s funeral – not to mention the looming pomp and circumstance of Charles III’s coronation – will serve as a reminder to Māori and Pakeha alike, that their nation is the deliberate creation of an empire presided over by the great-great-great grandmother of its new Head of State. A reminder, too, that, in Karl Marx’s memorable formulation:
“Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.”
King Charles III’s brain, and those of his subjects, alike.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
55 Comments
Agreed.
Give me primogeniture and the Divine Right of Kings any day of the week over the potential threat of Presidents Mallard, Mahuta or Key.
Although I'm part of the younger generation that's meant to see the monarchy as a complete waste of time and space, I personally no value in NZ becoming a republic. What would it allow us to do tomorrow that we can't do today? There are bigger issues the country needs to solve than wasting money on replacing a system that doesn't appear to be broken (in terms of how it affects our day-to-day lives)
Hopefully we will keep getting Governor Generals who are loyal to the country and not a foreign power, given they can dissolve parliament (see 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis for reference, "coincidentally" after the Whitlam government suggested closing US military bases).
I've a lot of respect for ER 2 & the outstanding job she's done however for NZs perspective Hereditary Monarch's reign over people who ultimately genuflect to others for their own lives & their countries success. There's an ever increasing number of these this century, facilitated & encouraged by self serving political, academic and media classes.
Relacing NZs head of state is both simple and cheap to do: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3746086
While the cost up front might be cheap, but not as cheap as maintaining the status quo as the royal family costs us nothing, the long term costs as nepotism and political elitism and favour take root will be substantial. The status quo provides an independent protection for our democracy that is entirely divorced from the politics of the nation. Thus it is the office serves the people, not the ruling classes in the end. The alternative is entirely unpalatable.
"The status quo provides an independent protection for our democracy that is entirely divorced from the politics of the nation. ". What protection would that be ? The NZ HoS is the Governor General who acts only as the date stamp for the PM. As Oz learned nearly 50 years ago the GG is not above politics.
The Aussie lesson is salient, but the GG is not just a rubber stamp. Within the law, the Government serves at the pleasure of the King, and in these times that is somewhat divorced from what an elected Government does on behalf of the people. In other words the royal house steps back somewhat from the day to day running of the country, to become a figurehead role, nothing more. So yes the GG, who is the agent of the King in NZ does not have much to do day to day in overseeing the Government as I understand it. But the big, important part is if we the people decided we didn't like the Government and wanted them out before the electoral term was up, the option to present a petition to the GG to have the Government sacked, which would require the King's sign off I expect, would be there for us. I seriously doubt that would happen if we were a republic. Besides a presidential office would cost the tax payer a lot more that the current situation and in a small country I suggest we can afford to forgo those costs.
At the risk of sounding morbid, cynical & clinical, the Queen has timed her departure impeccably. As Tony Blair proclaimed during the dismal circumstances of Princess Diana’s death, “she (the Queen) has scarcely ever put a foot wrong.” Now Charles is of an age, stature & capacity that strongly equips him as the next monarch, but that wasn’t so even not so long ago. The man himself has arrived and is now well respected, at home and internationally and no longer under the shadow of his father. With thanks especially to his wife, his sister, his elder son, his wife & their children. That is a solid platform, a sound foundation, for his monarchy as could ever have been envisaged. King Charles 111 can now take the opportunity to realign, reconstitute, and reform the Royals, for which the timing is again impeccable.
I think you may be being a little unfair to the man. Even though he was heir to the throne, Charles himself wasn't the King and so could express opinions of his own, knowing full well that the Queen, officially, may have another view. I don't think he was that dim as to not be aware of the distinction. And in a interview clip repeated on the weekend he took a swipe at the media when asked that question, responding that he wasn't that stupid and he was well aware that the office of King was significantly different to that of Prince of Wales, demonstrating that he did indeed understand the difference. I also note that in Victoria's reign Albert was known for stepping outside his wife's opinions on occasion to some consternation of Victoria and her entourage. Proximity does not make them the same.
Fair points. Yes certainly agree he has not been lacking in appreciating & considering the precedents etched by his family, good & bad. Aware you are versed in the pyschological aspects of life and likewise my mind was drawn to those early formative years, where circumstances I would suggest implanted by his father, the schools selected for instance, saw Charles come to seek and receive much needed support from his uncle Mountbatten. I myself thought there was something of an uplift & step forward by Charles when his father passed. It took him directly alongside his mother, and with the support of William, he started then, to assert influence and some discipline, for example in the case of Andrew. Sometimes one has to learn to jump out of one’s own shadow, but again I suggest his father, not intentionally destructively, cast a larger one.
dumbthoughts,
And you are clearly not alone in your views. I am very much part of the older generation, but I would love to see us move on from monarchy. I accept that it has no effect on our daily lives, but surely it's time to move on. Lots of countries don't now have a monarch and they seem to manage ok.
I just don't understand the adulation of these people. It makes no sense to me, but NZ can't even have its own honours system. Key couldn't wait to dump what the previous government had set up and of course, got his knighthood. When will this country grow up?
Have to agree. Logically it seems wrong that we still support hereditary power in the days of equality, however there is a certain stability that comes from people born into power, rather acquiring it through ruthless ambition. I also admired Prince Charles (Now King Charles III) for his environmental views and I am sure he would have a thing or two to say about the architecture of NZ new builds!
I don't agree with Chris Trotter. I think the change-over that took place at the death of Good Queen Elizabeth was quick and seamless.
And I think it's good to have someone who is taking a much more serious, longer term view than a self-serving politician.
If King Charles 3 does even half as good as Good Queen Elizabeth he will have done an outstanding job and better than any politician.
Imagine the garbage that would fill various magazines (can't mention a gender specific market in these PC times) without pages devoted to the Royals. While it may cost a fortune to maintain them, they also indirectly support a very wide range of industries that capitalize on their existence. Glossy mags, souveniers, tourism, security.
And all those gilted treasures and historic buildings would still need to be treasured, stored, secured, maintained regardless of whether or not anyone still had the use of them.
It was pretty boring to watch, but seemed pretty important most of the things that were done. A lot of it was kind of reaffirming of putting the monarchy in it's place!
All the former UK PMs were there front and centre, I thought that was a bit unusual, I figured they would only need the current ones?
To your last point, this explains it well: https://www.royal.uk/accession-council
Basically, former PMs like Blair and Cameron are in the Privy Council, which oversees this process.
The definition of culture is the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society - usually built on values and traditions.
This was fully on display in the UK this weekend gone- this has all been about customs, traditions and values. I personally admire how well it has all been executed- the transition has been seamless.
We should also consider the concept of continuity - and thats what the Monarchy brings to the UK - a sense of continuity and with that stability, in a world that is ever changing and at times traumatic - the Monarchy certainly in the last 200 years has offered that continuity and with that a sense of stability and belonging.
There is a lesson for New Zealand and Australia too - which is how do we give our own citizens that stability and continuity when as young countries, formed from unique cultures less than 200 years ago, we are still forming our own ideas, customs and behaviours.
Is this one of those things where history and tradition is bad but only to the extent that it justifies replacing one set of values and traditions with another lot that we're not consulted on but expected to be OK with because they're local ones?
Give me the removed stability of an external body that doesn't swan around ignoring a democratic mandate or, indeed, making constitutional level changes of the country without consultation. Lord knows the alternatives we brew locally aren't capable of such a thing.
5 years of Jacinda has turned me from being a republicyst , into a monarchcyst ...
... thank goodness for the ramrod steely nerve of our head of state in the UK ... a far cry from the jellyfish flip floppers who currently ruin our nation ... Ardern & her circus of clowns ...
Agree. Our ruling elite seem to favor trade with china over lomg standing connections with the west at the moment.
Imagine we break off all ties with the Uk and leave to these muppets to decide our future (which would all be based on the wealth of them and their mates) ... we will all end up wearing red and in fear of reeducation camps with no climate to speak of.
I used to believe in capitalism. Now i am not sure at all.. but i do believe charles and william have peoples best interest at heart.
Strong and reliable friends are a must as we reside here in the South Pacific. Australia and NZ are still lonely outposts of Western Civilisation. The recent history of an aggressive Japan conquering southwards only being stopped in New Guinea by the Aussies with American help reminds me of that. I hope Britain and the USA would come to our aid if they were not directly under threat themselves. Trying to stay independent with the rise of the CCP in our neighbourhood is a delicate balancing act.
Reading some of the comments it never ceases to amaze me the common sense approach to how we are governed and how the monarchy impacts that. The institution of the Governor General seems to me to be a generally apolitical and moral position that quietly oversees the progress of the country from the position of unassailable authority. Not reduced to short term thinking and the gaining and maintenance of political power. If we opted for a President of our republic it would become a political institution with all of the risks associated with that as we observe overseas.
I never thought I would hear myself saying this but being guided by an arms length constitutional monarchy with a democratically elected parliament feels like a comforting place to be at this moment in time.
On a more serious note. UK got rid of coal fired in the last 5 years. Trying to resurrect one of them now. No hydro to speak of and gas is generally a dirty word for electricity generation. Up to a point OK for houses as a very large percentage of British homes heated by gas. Gas for new houses out from 2030?. I think they also stopped any further exploration for gas. Sound familiar here.
With fracking could be close to self sufficiency. Boris's wife had a Damascene experience and passed it onto Boris who then U-turned and became a man made climate change convert embraced with a religious fervour of a zealot.
All that is left is the circuit breaker, which is all we need.
If a Hitler bullies and bribes his way to the top, he gets blocked by lack of royal ascent. An NZ despot can't overthrow or bribe the British monarchy, so he then has to unconstitutionally ignore it, and we get to another massive clue that we need rid of him - it reveals his true colours.
The go-to explainer of Britain’s unwritten constitution, Walter Bagehot, wrote that the British monarch has only three constitutional rights: The right to be consulted. The right to encourage. And the right to warn. Given the ferocious ambitions of the Truss ministry, one suspects that King Charles III will soon be in need of all three.
One final thought; I do not expect this will amount to much, but it is fun to speculate. King Charles III has let it be known he intends to attempt to wield more influence on government than his mother. He comes to power at the same moment as a new government under Liz Truss, which is utterly anathema to Charles’ political beliefs.
Charles is a woolly liberal environmentalist with a genuine if superficial attachment to multi-culturalism. He has let it be known he deplores deportations to Rwanda. He is now going to be fitting into his role while government in his name is carried out by crazed right-wing ideologues, who want a massive push to produce more fossil fuels. Could be worth getting in the popcorn. Link
According to Plato a benevolent monarchy is the best form of leadership - one good person. Aristocracy is next - a few good people, with demotcracy (note the Greek) in the middle - leadership by the people for the people. Oligarchy comes in fourth - a few bad people, with tyranny last - one bad person. And yes, while this theory is over 2,500 years old, its fundamentals still ring true today, all though I'm sure CT would disagree.
How do you define good leadership? That debate could go on forever. However, coming back to QEII & her 70 years as ER, you would have to go back into human history a long way to find someone who performed her duties as well as she did, especially considering the age & fall of empire the English went through during her reign. The English weren't perfect, far from it, but they had the grace to surrender their holdings where appropriate & move on. Then, when you look at what type of leaderships these nations have replaced them with today (Hong Kong comes to mind) & you might go, well, perhaps the British weren't that bad after all.
Episodes like this taint one's views - How red flags were brushed aside to push through Rwanda deal
Possibly fewer low pay farm labour jobs :
We need more stability of food supply chains. Supporting domestic farmers & encouraging them to produce more food crops to expand livestock farming increases domestic food security & sustainability. The EU is doing the opposite. Conscious decisions to disrupt European agriculture Link
Europe has rediscovered compassion for refugees – but only if they’re white
KC III will benefit for the next few years from the goodwill generated by QE II for the past many decades.
But the generations are changing in the world and monarchy is not very appealing or relevant to the new kids and youngsters. By the time William becomes King, I expect that only Britain will have the King as its Head of State. All erstwhile colonies and Commonwealth would have ditched the Monarchy. As they should.
Not so sure about that. With the improvement in education of the populace young people are able to view the various systems of government worldwide and make up their own minds as to what system garners the greatest amount of trust. The quote from Plato above is a reminder that there is pretty much “nothing new under the sun”. “Benevolent dictatorship/monarchy” being the best. With regard to the dictatorship you are all good for one generation only. At least with the “benevolent monarchy” the benevolence is passed on to the next generation after said individual has had a lifetime of training (Prince Charles).
I wonder what King Charles will do if the Tories try to pass a Brexit law that breaks international law? - e.g. breaks the legal agreement with the EU? And/or that tears up the Northern Ireland protocol and is thus seen to pose a significant risk to the Good Friday Agreement? Bojo prorogued Parliament illegally and lied to the Queen - would Charles react differently to such actions?
No it wasn’t. The NIP was jointly constructed by EU and Tories to facilitate Tory wish to exit common market and customs union while still honouring the Good Friday Agreement - international law - of which they are co-guarantor. Bojo himself signed it off before rushing it through parliament (without so much as allowing people to read it, let alone debate it). Then a few months later starts complaining about the NIP provisions which he himself negotiated (and which is actually working well for most in NI with best growth in UK outside London and unique access to both British and EU markets)
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.