The main purpose of this essay is to critically assess the state of the monarchy, I shall point out any flaws I see with any aspect of the monarchy including looking back in history and assess the state of the monarchy many years ago and any controversies that may surround the monarchy I will be looking in detail to the act of settlement and point out all the main points of the act, I will assess if the monarchy should be abolished and if so what could replace them as a head of state, I will look at any aspect I think should be reformed, in doing so I will study the monarchies finances as well as study other head of state's finances as this seems to be the main focus point of the monarchy, I will also assess any relevant pieces of legislation which affect the monarchy and analyse if any of the legislation is in need of reform.
A brief history of the monarchy and the Act of Union 1707
Until 1603 the monarchy for England and Scotland were separate they lost executive power and that is why today we have a constitutional monarchy, we have had some of the greatest living monarchs in the world most notable Queen Elizabeth 1st, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth 2nd as well as being the greatest living monarchs they have also been the longest serving which is why I don't understand what is the problem with males being preferred over females, these statistics show that females have done a better job than males, take for example some of the male monarchs I will first of all talk about Charles I 'Controversy and disputes dogged Charles throughout his reign. They eventually led to civil wars, first with the Scots from 1637 and later in England (1642-46 and 1648). The wars deeply divided people at the time, and historians still disagree about the real causes of the conflict, but it is clear that Charles was not a successful ruler.' [1] And now taking a look some years previously at Henry Viii, he seemed to have an obsession with producing a male heir, something in which his first wives did not produce and so he asked the pope for an annulment in order to re-marry, he had six wives altogether which ended up in the country separating from the Catholic church, it seems as though Henry fabricated some of the charges in which bestowed his wives in order for an annulment or beheading etc, Anne Boleyn was charged with "adultery, incest and plotting to murder the King" this I would say is somewhat controversial charges I may add. Elizabeth 1st became Queen in 1558 upon the death of her much hated Catholic half sister Mary, daughter of Henry Viii and Catherine of Aragon when the 'News of Mary's death on November 17, 1558 reached Elizabeth at Hatfield, where she was said to be out in the park, sitting under an oak tree. Upon hearing that she was Queen, legend has it that Elizabeth quoted the 118th Psalm's twenty-third line, in Latin: "A Dominum factum est illud, et est mirabile in oculis notris" -- "It is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes."' [2] Elizabeth then became Queen of England and reigned for 45 years, she has been voted in 2002 has the greatest living monarch by a poll of radio 4 listeners [3] . When the Queen died in 1603 The King of Scotland James Vi claimed the throne which led to what is now known as Great Britain. The Act of Union 1707 had taken almost 100 years to be put into practice after the Scottish and English crowns came together in 1603 which also saw the binding of the Scottish and English flags almost another 100 years later another Act of Union 1801 was passed this time including Ireland and the St Patricks Cross which is now the United Kingdom flag we have today. Moving on to more recent times and to the house of Windsor the first controversial thing to happen here was that of the abdication by Edward Viii he gave up the right to his throne after just 11 months as King in order to marry an American divorcee by the name of Wallis Simpson it seems to be he was like a modern day Henry Viii had he been allowed to marry Mrs Simpson it has been said he was a compulsive womaniser, he could never be accepted as King if he married Mrs Simpson and his subjects would not have accepted her as their Queen, the same controversy that has bestowed Prince Charles and his marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles, but what I fail to understand is why Edward had to abdicate because of his determination to marry and then why is Charles still in line to the throne when he has himself married a divorcee, it seems to me that rules are in place to suit those that feels like following them, as some people like myself may think. When Elizabeth became Queen in 1953 it was challenged by a rector from University of Glasgow, MacCormack v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396 he challenged the right for the Queen to be Elizabeth 2nd in Scotland as Scotland has never had an Elizabeth 1st he though this to have breached the Act of Union 1707 not surprisingly the challenge failed, it was suggested that the Monarch would use the number either English or Scottish by whichever was higher so for example another James would be called James Vii as Scotland had a James Vi even although England only had a James 1st [4]
Act of Settlement 1701
This piece of legislation was introduced by William III and is one of the most important pieces of legislation that surround the monarchy to date and probably the most controversial for its tendency to be discriminatory, over the last few decades there have been repeated calls for reform of this act or abolishing the act altogether, but in hind sight this is not as simple as some people may think, I will explain this a little late but first I will explain in more detail about the Act of Settlement 1701.
'The future Queen Anne was very sickly and had problems producing an heir. She had 17 pregnancies, but none of her children survived childhood. She also had Roman Catholic relatives, who would assume the throne before the Protestant Hanoverian line by order of succession. She would not sit on the throne herself if the traditional order of succession had been followed - William and Mary had seen to that. Uniquely in the history of the monarchy, the Crown was shared between William III and Mary II.' [5]
This legislation is seen is discriminatory in many ways and has been called for reform for many years, the main points of the act include
S1 of the act states 'That all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should profess the Popish Religion or marry a Papist should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm.' [6]
This means that any person who has ascertained the catholic church as their religion OR anyone who marries a catholic person shall forever give up their line to succession in the throne, this does not bar any member of the royal family from marrying a Muslim, Sikh, Jew only Catholics, some may argue that this is in breach of said human rights as the Human rights act requires protection from discrimination, however should the ban on Catholics be removed from the Act of settlement it could disestablish the Church of England as then a Catholic monarch could claim the throne
There have been instances where a member of the royal family have indeed lost their line in succession to the throne because of marrying a roman catholic "Two examples of members of the current Royal family being removed from the line of succession are that of The Earl of St. Andrews and HRH Prince Michael of Kent, who both lost the right of succession to the throne through marriage to Roman Catholics. Any children of these marriages remain in the succession provided that they are in communion with the Church of England." In more recent times in 2008 Peter Phillips married Autumn Kelly at the time of the engagement she was in fact a roman catholic but at the time of the wedding she converted to Church of England which meant Peter Phillips kept his place in line of succession, this is the only way in which a member of the royal family can keep their place in line of succession, if their intended partner fails to convert to the protestant faith they will lost their line however this is what has been called to change, some might say it is not necessary or some might argue that if they are a roman catholic why can't they
Gordon Brown if the Labour Government win a fourth term plan to scrap the act, apparently however the Labour party are not favoured to win this fourth term so it will be up to the new government, depending on if the polls are right to decide on what they will do with the Act of Settlement if anything
Repealing the act would require agreement from 16 commonwealth countries as this is whom the Queen is head of state and is the law in all these countries where the Queen currently reigns
The act not only discriminates against religion but also against females, the act sets out that a male heir shall be preferred over any older females whoever should assume the throne their line of succession should include their children and grandchildren however the male equivalent of each will be preferred even if there was an older female, so for example if princess Anne was older than prince Charles, then prince Charles would still be first in line to the throne and princess Anne would still be 10th in line as the males are given priority. During Henry VIII reign and his marriage to Anne Boleyn he struggled to produce a male heir his first born was Elizabeth who would go on to become Queen Elizabeth 1st and after three more miscarriages Henry seemed to give up on Anne some would have say that the reason being is he wanted to keep the legacy of the male heir and soon after he had Anne charged with adultery, incest and treason and had her beheaded without a male heir to the throne, he then married Jane Seymour whom gave birth to a son and he would assume succession to the throne he became Edward VI he became king aged 9 years old. this is one thing that should be repealed in my opinion, the preference males has never been warranted as the best monarchs this country has seen have all been female as previously stated I would also say the worst monarchs have all been male, why continue with this nonsense it's extremely outdated and is in time for a change, but who in the country what's the change? If those people that want the change are actually those that are being discriminated against is that not being a little biased? For example Catholics would say abolish the Act of Settlement or even the Monarchy and Protestant's would say the opposite this is hardly a fair reflection on what people actually want.
Duties of the monarch
The Queen performs many duties but it would be difficult to list all the duties which the Queen may be required to carry out, the Queen carries out many visits during the year this could be in the form of opening's of buildings etc as well as these type of visits the Queen also has many formal duties which require her attention 'many state documents require her signature [this would involve new acts of parliament which require royal assent], and she received copies of all the major government papers, including reports from ambassadors abroad and their instructions from the foreign office, as well as minutes of Cabinet meetings and other Cabinet papers. There is therefore a continuing burden of unseen work involving some hours reading papers each day in addition to Her Majesty's more public duties' [7] of course many people would argue if they were to be abolished the President or his staff could carry out these many duties the Queen actually has, but the fact is all these duties must be done by someone.
Finance the monarchy, how is the monarchy financed?
The monarchy is financed from four different sources these sources are the civil list, the grants in aid for upkeep of palaces and for royal travel, the Privy Purse and the queen's personal wealth and income.
The civil list
This money is given to the royal household by parliament to cover expenses that the royal family may be required to pay this would include things like official state visits, garden parties, staff salaries, the amount is set at £7.9m per year to cover these costs and is governed by the Civil List Act 1952 "the Civil List is not as some believed, remuneration or 'pay' for the sovereign, but it is used to meet official expenditure necessarily incurred through his or her duties as head of state and Head of the Commonwealth" [8]
Grant-In-Aid
This funding is given to the royal family to fund transport including the Queen's helicopter which is used to carry out official engagements throughout the country and indeed state visits overseas.
"A separate grant is voted by Parliament each year, through the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, to cover the upkeep of the Royal residences. These are: Buckingham Palace, St James's Palace, Clarence House, Marlborough House Mews, the residential and office areas of Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle and the buildings in the Home and Great Parks at Windsor, and Hampton Court Mews and Paddocks, as well as The Queen's Gallery." [9]
Privy Purse and Duchy of Lancaster
"This is a historical term used to describe income from the Duchy of Lancaster, which is used to meet both official and private expenditure by The Queen.
The Duchy of Lancaster is a portfolio of land, property and assets held in trust for the Sovereign in his/her role as Sovereign. It is administered separately from the Crown Estates.
Its main purpose is to provide an independent source of income, and is used mainly to pay for official expenditure not met by the Civil List (primarily to meet expenses incurred by other members of the Royal Family)." [10]
The Queen's personal income and wealth
The Queen owns Balmoral and Sandringham, she also has a string of thoroughbred racehorses as well as owning Ascot racecourse, however items such as the crown jewels, royal palaces and the like are part of the nation and are not included in her own personal wealth, "in 1992, however, it was announced that the Queen had undertaken to pay tax on her private income with effect from 1993, but this does not extend to inheritance tax. The Prince of Wales has also agreed on a voluntary basis to pay tax on income derived from the Duchy of Cornwall." [11]
"The Queen and the Royal Family cost the taxpayer 69p per person last year - an increase of 3p, Buckingham Palace accounts showed today. [29th June 2009]
The total cost of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5 million to £41.5 million during the 2008-09 financial year. " [12] Still the cheapest head of state around the Queen cost each tax payer 69p per person last year? That to me seems a minimal amount compared to other countries like the U.S.A for example as I will explain later the President of the U.S.A costs the taxpayer a lot more than this, should the Monarchy be abolished just because some people think they cost too much? I'm sorry but these figures show that the monarch are not expensive as some people may think and in my opinion people believe what they want to believe and think what they want to think, I have known for a few years now how much the Monarchy costs and I have told many people whose argument is they cost too much but they don't want to believe it, it would also place a huge financial burden on the tax payer to rid the country of the Monarchy this would include re-printing all the money, stamps etc, removing the crown from post boxes, also the Monarchy would have to have some sort of payment like ex presidents in America and also the Job losses that would take place and not to mention what it would do to our tourism industry.
Finances of another head of state
When president Obama was Inaugurated as the president of the U.S.A the cost of this was said to be in excess of $170m this covers costs such as parties, swearing in ceremony and money for other essential equipment throughout the U.S.A this is an enormous amount considering that this could take place every 5 years where as the current monarch has been the head of state for almost 60 years and if there were to be a coronation with the size of the UK I'm sure it would come to less than $170m (for those of us that think an elected president is the better option for the UK they forget about the cost of such a scheme), and all this cost before he has even started the presidency. Currently the finances of the American government, they spend over $1.5bn each year on the white house and it's president the highest bill from this is obviously for security for the Protection of persons and facilities $689,535,000, it also includes salaries for the 2,300 staff which amounted to $151,800,000 'First, the total given here does not include classified outlays. These are likely to be substantial, but they cannot be published or even estimated. The total stated here is therefore smaller than the actual total.' [13] , most of this $1.5bn. is spent on security, this is of course because we are dealing with the most powerful person in the world and the amount of terrorist attacks that could, and has bestowed America is second to none, however, the UK cannot afford to go into these sort of figures for security of a well known figurehead, right now we are lucky to stay afloat as we are, for example the President had to travel around London in a $300k limo nicknamed 'the beast' 'It comes with a tear gas cannon, a night-vision camera and oxygen tanks. Its reinforced steel plating is said to be able to protect against bullets, chemical attack, and even a missile strike.' [14] But the Queen can merely travel around London in a horse and carriage, spot the difference?
Reform the monarchy what is needed?
When we talk about reforming the monarchy some might say, "stop the discrimination on Catholics marrying into the royal family" or make the royal family more accountable for example, the Queen has immunity from prosecution as any criminal proceeding are always in the name of the Monarch it is also a requirement that they do not have to give evidence in court take the Paul Burrell case R v Burrell, the queen made an intervention and it meant that he walked free from court [15] this is highly controversial and it makes people think should the Queen really have this much immunity from the courts? The only known royal in recent years to appear in court was Princess Anne, she was charged under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 when her Bull Terrier got loose in Windsor park and bit a 12 year old boy, she pleaded guilty but still had to appear in court, in the end she was fined £500 and ordered to pay £500 compensation, should the dog have been destroyed? Some people will question if this was Joe Public would the dog have been put to sleep? Was Anne given special treatment because of her status? If any member of the Monarchy is taken to court will the Judge remain impartial as I think in this case Princess Anne received a lighter sentence?
Another part of the Monarchy in need of reform is allowing younger born Sons to take precedence over older daughters in line I have stated previously this is vastly outdated and the greatest living Monarch has been voted female also should be noted the 2nd living monarch in the poll previously mentioned was Elizabeth 2nd I feel this argument alone should be discussed when applying for reform. 'In the 1990's the monarchy weathered lot of unwanted publicity about the private lives and business activities of some of its senior figures, and was subject to public criticism following the premature death of the Princess of Wales in 1997. But the greater the public exposure and a less differential media have at most ignited concerns for a more responsive monarchy not its replacement.' [16] but it also must be remembered that it cannot only be the UK that this is reformed, if anything happens involving the monarchy consultation MUST take place involving all countries of the commonwealth in which the queen reigns, it's not just a case of the UK government amending the law somewhat, Australia were given a referendum before the millennium on retaining the monarchy or opting for a president, they chose to retain the monarchy, in my opinion if there was a referendum in the UK in the same circumstances it would go the same way, although there have been calls for abolition I believe the monarchy would be retained.
Public Opinion
Public opinion on the monarchy always seems to be about money, they never seem to have a real argument about why the monarchy should be abolished and it's just about what they have heard through media or word of mouth I have heard the monarchy being called "freeloaders" and the like but I suspect none of these people have really thought it through and sat down and looked at how much the monarchy costs and how much it would cost to replace or how much it would cost to keep for example a president
A poll carried out by ICM for the BBC in March 2009 suggested 76% of people want to keep the monarchy after the queen dies while 18% would prefer a republic, in the poll carried out it also asked if they would like to see the heir to the throne marrying a catholic and whether that person should be allowed to become monarch 81% agreed and 15% disagreed, and also 89% would support men and women being treated equally in line to succession. [17] these figures are never absolute, I never put all my faith in polls however these figures suggest an overwhelming majority in favour of the monarchy, a different stance would be taken if the figures had been lower and it seems to me that the public are more in favour of reform that they are of abolition, this is the most recent poll that has been carried out, but looking back further there have been other interesting polls carried out by Ipsos MORI, in a poll of 1022 people carried out in April 2006 a telephone interview of individuals ranging 18+ the question was asked "Would you favour Britain becoming a republic or remaining a monarchy?" 72% stated they would prefer a monarchy and just18% said a republic 85% of these people also stated they thought the queen was doing a good job as monarch, [18] as this poll also suggests, that public opinion on the monarchy is high and only a relative few would want to abolish, other polls over the years have given around the same figures for retaining the monarchy in its current form, take that what you will, but public opinion on the monarchy seems strong and strong enough to continue, but not strong enough to continue as the current state without any reform.
Possible other heads of states
In my paper I have asked the question if it came to the conclusion that the monarchy ought to be abolished what could replace the monarch as a head of state? Here I will analyse all the possibilities of a head of state the UK could have if the monarchy was abolished
Dictator
A dictator in simple terms is someone which exercises absolute power; would this be good for the UK? Let's have a look at the more famous dictator's the world has seen. In the last few days Argentina's last dictator was sentenced to 25 years in prison his name is Reynaldo Bignone he was Argentina's dictator from 1976-1983 and was charged with kidnappings and torture. The most famous dictator of all it has to be agreed is Adolf Hitler; he is responsible for starting World War 2 with the invasion of Poland and the UK and France declaring War on Germany. "About six million European Jews were murdered before the war ended, in various ways, from plain shooting, to starvation of prisoners, to murder by poison gas in death camps. Millions of Slavs, both civilians and captured soldiers, were also murdered in various ways, following Hitler's commands that explicitly demanded maximum cruelty. Tens of millions died in the war itself." [19] Before the official end of the War Hitler committed suicide. Although I have only mentioned the dictators with evil intentions it is the case that this happens and in my opinion the UK could not afford this happening to them, I doubt it ever would happen if the monarchy were to be abolished and we elect what turns out to be a dictator but I would rather have a head of state that we know in other words better the devil you know than the devil you don't.
President
A president for the UK would be the most logical choice but is it the best choice? I will take a look at some of the world's leading presidents past and present and make any observations and some up opinions on how the UK could handle a president.
The U.S.A is the most famous country in the world and has the most powerful head of state in the world, this is the president and right now this is Barack Obama who took over from G.W Bush, Mr Obama seems to be a very popular president and has done many good things since being sworn into office, his predecessor however has to be the most unpopular president I have ever seen not just by Americans but on all sides of the world and amazingly enough managed to stay in office for the full term allowed the fact that he started the war in Iraq was very unpopular , It can be argued that the president has too much power hence the terms the most powerful person in the world, the president as we speak has an annual salary of $400,000 which is not expensive, however the inauguration as previously stated it cost in excess of $170m' this is a huge amount considering our Monarchy does not cost that for the year and this was only for an inauguration.
Conclusion
From what I have discovered the only real reason members of the public come up with for abolition of the monarchy is to do with finances, the public needs to be aware that with the research taken place that the cheapest head of state is in fact a monarchy. Another reason for abolition is because she is head of the church of England, this is in fact all to do with religion and nothing to do with anything else, the queen seems to be impartial and as far as I'm aware the queen has never had a cross word to say about any member of another church be it catholic or Muslim, the monarchy is more in need of reform than abolition the act of settlement 1701 is vastly out of date, the Monarchy is one of the cheapest ways to run a country and so I have proved it with figures at just 69p per taxable person and the fact the burden would be huge to remove the Queen as head of state. The polls carried out in recent years also suggest that the public are of the opinion the Monarchy should remain, possibly with some reform.
Word Count 4,779
