Modern democratic Monarchy endures today in over a dozen independent European countries and 15 former British colonies around the world, embracing a quarter billion people. This institution has developed ‘below the radar’ of many of us Americans in the last couple centuries. Still, the most familiar Monarchy for Americans is the one that used to rule our 13 original American States, Britain. And so these remarks focus there.
 

Forget everything you’ve ever heard about the British monarchy: “the Queen reigns but doesn’t rule; head of state not head of government; figurehead, formality; the prime minister is the real power;” etc.
 

To truly understand the Monarchy, you must understand that the Queen does rule, is head of government - chief executive, even - and the prime minister works for her.
 

Therefore, the question is, how does the Queen rule, administer government, etc.
 

First, a little history - not too much. Say you’re a Celtic clan chieftain (male or female, Cuchullain or Boudicca, it doesn’t matter) a century before Christ. You’re “in charge,” but you need help leading your people, whether it’s others to advise you, or just to “represent” their faction of the clan so they don’t rise up against you. So you govern in the midst of your clan’s nobles, princes, princesses. You also have a traditional legal code to enforce and traditional judges to abide by - you can’t just do what you want, if you want to stay Chief, if you want to maintain your kin’s support.
 

Now it’s the year 500 in Britain, and you’re an Anglo-Saxon petty king whose grandfather invaded the country. You’re in the same situation, but it’s a little more formalized: you govern “in Council,” but it’s the same basic concept. In fact, a few centuries later, you’re Alfred the Great, the first real King of the English; you’ve acquired most of Britain through conquest, treaty, or marriage; now how do you hold it all together - military force? If so, how do you keep your knights and barons in line?? Advice and Representation, it is hoped, remove the need for force. The King puts his subordinate lords on his Council with his barons, supporters, and even enemies: “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” He also governs each new part of his realm according to its own variant legal traditions, customs, and culture, instead of trying to make them all Wessex (your home petty kingdom). Again, you can’t do what you want, if you want to keep your head; you’re part of a national organism, Britain.
 

In 1066, you’re William the Conqueror. You have a tenuous claim to the succession to the English throne, come over from Normandy, France, win the Battle of Hastings, and are crowned King. You bring over a bunch of your own knights and clergy to fill the key governmental jobs and keep order, you introduce French culture to Saxon England, but “a man’s gotta know his limitations,” so you don’t try to make England Normandy: you mostly keep the English Common Law tradition that’s already centuries old, highly complex, and adapted to the peculiar local conditions in England, so even though you’re “the Conqueror” you’ll continue to “govern according to law.” And as King of England, your Council only gets bigger - eventually it becomes the House of Lords, which in 1997 had over 1200 members, all potentially active in the work of the House. That’s a bit unwieldy, so from it you form a smaller, closer-in council, the Privy Council; in 1997 it had 1200 members too, but most were honorary or inactive. The functional core of the Privy Council is the group of the King’s or Queen’s Ministers, or the Cabinet. Ministers are ‘servants,’ but very powerful and influential because the have the Monarch’s ear and affect what s/he hears, knows, and does. They’re royal appointees and can be fired, but they get their jobs because they’re trusted by the Monarch to guide him/her aright in ruling the land. The Queen’s/King’s chief minister is her/his Prime Minister. So, the administration of the government is composed of Monarch and Ministers, basically.
 

All governments need money to do their work; they ain’t volunteers. Believe it or not Monarchs hate to raise taxes, because that means they have to persuade those who pay the taxes to pony up. Or their elected representatives. This is where the House of Commons comes in. The Commons will go along with a tax if they’re convinced it’s a good idea, and if they get their gripes attended to by the Monarch. So Parliament is composed of Monarch, Lords, and Commons, who together make law, and tax.
 

Now when more democracy came to Britain, they didn’t feel it necessary to get rid of the Monarchy; they worked around it. Today the Queen’s Ministers are those who maintain the support of the elected representatives of the people, the House of Commons. It’s their advice she follows, though she retains the rights “to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn.” The Queen still promulgates all Acts of Parliament and issues all administrative orders and military commissions. Without her, they would have to invent something else, or some other way to do those things - a way that would probably involve elections and politics and corruption, and make the top job in government representative of only part of the nation instead of the whole nation.
 

This model of government is retained not only by Great Britain, but also by 15 completely independent former British colonies and their sovereign subdivisions - Canada and its Provinces, Australia and its States, New Zealand, Belize, Jamaica, and 10 other island nations in the West Indies and the Pacific (as well as 15 dependent territories that, like many have since World War II, could maybe become independent countries too). All are democracies; all retain the Constitutional, Representative, Democratic Monarchy. How do they do this? Remember that the Queen governs according to law: the law in Great Britain is now different from the law in Canada, both are different from the law in Australia or New Zealand or the other Commonwealth Realms. And since the 1920s, these Realms (and others as they later became independent) have been equal to Britain, no longer subordinate in any way at all really. The Queen makes law for Canada only within the Canadian Parliament, and the same for the other Realms - the UK Parliament has no say at all in them. This was shown clearly in 2003 when Britain and Australia, independent of each other, joined the United States in its war in Iraq, while Canada did not. In fact, Britain has tied its future to the will of its sister Commonwealth Realms, in that it can make no material change in the shared monarchy without the consent of all of them. The Queen of Great Britain is ex officio Queen also of “her other Realms and Territories,” but the Realms, as they have retained her as their Monarch, have an equal legal claim on her.
 

So what’s with all the “figurehead” talk? At best, it is shorthand for the democratic principle now centered in the House of Commons, as described above. But it is misleading, because it detracts from understanding the most important office in 16 independent countries. Remember, Tony Blair isn’t Britain’s prime minister, he’s Queen Elizabeth’s prime minister. And the Queen probably goes through more paperwork each day than he does, in fulfilling her job as leader of these nations. Corporately speaking, the British (or other) nation is the Board, the Queen is Chief Executive Officer, and her prime minister is Chief Operating Officer - more or less!
 

Perhaps the biggest structural argument against this form of government raised in the United States is that it combines government’s Legislative and Executive Branches, whereas the U.S. Constitution since 1787 separates these, providing checks and balances on each, so you don’t have a runaway legislature or a tyrannical executive. This Monarchy is sometimes called a dictatorship by Cabinet - as long as they keep their MPs in line theey can do whatever they want for up to 5 years, by custom the maximum length of a Parliament’s term of office. But arguably the U.S. President has dominated Congress since Andrew Jackson; veto overrides by Congress are rare. And an abusive President can’t be removed from office easily - in fact has not yet been! - while a Prime Minister who goes too far can lose his majority in the Commons, and so his job. His policies can even be called into question by the Queen: it is reported that Queen Elizabeth questioned to the Archbishop of Canterbury the morality of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s economic policies in the 1980s, reminding us that besides the Commons, the PM also must maintain the confidence of the Monarch herself for whom he works, whose “unelected” position, long view, and moral tradition may transcend short-term politics and “spin,” and who may still fire him or pan his legislative or executive proposals - although such drastic action hasn’t happened in Britain in over two centuries.
 

Another argument raised is that it’s not all set down in a single agreed enforceable document comparable to the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Actually there are “written Constitutions” in Commonwealth Realms, and Charters in the Dependent Territories, which embody much of the above explicitly or by reference. In Britain itself there’s a movement to do the same, and the European Union is introducing into Britain the idea of civil and human rights. In the meantime there’s the very embedded structural respect for legal and governmental tradition that the British have - after all, they’ve been doing this for a couple thousand years! But if push comes to shove, the Queen is prevented from exercising tyrannical powers by Parliament, just as she prevents them from doing so legitimately; talk about Balance of Power.
 

The American revolutionaries two and a quarter centuries ago complained of “tyranny” from both their king, George III, and Parliament. In all honesty, much of the more liberal side of the British governmental structures and traditions has developed since 1776, arguably even under U.S. influence. But one doesn’t see the British giving up what rights and powers they now have anytime soon...while recently the U.S. Constitution has been put to the test repeatedly, not always coming through unscathed.
 

Tiernan O Faolain, Jan. 13, 2004