Farewell to Monarchs

 First off, my tribute of sorts to current events:

Work was so busy today that this was literally relaxation.
And I only finished two of four Dragoon Guards and zero
of twelve Grenadier Guards - might co-opt the teens into helping
me finish them next week.

I also had three books for the display - one had been removed by
the time I took this picture, which I suppose is a good sign.

I've just (finally) finished The Last King of America: the Misunderstood Reign of George III (the American title; the original is George III: the Life and Reign of Britain's Most Misunderstood Monarch). And, timely, it gave me an insight into the latest Queen Regnant.

I feel the author's politics and obvious bias hurt it a little. OK, I expect anyone has to be obsessed with their subject to write a biography in the first place, but it turns out Andrew Roberts has, ahem, a reputation. I may be a touch biased myself what with two history degrees, but let's start with saying I don't think George III has quite as bad a reputation in the US as Roberts seems to think.

The heart of the book, I feel, is the depiction of George as a typical and actually rather quiet and unassuming Hanoverian king.

See, monarchs don't really DO anything substantial anymore.

I follow one particular liberal/skeptical/science blog, where the posters are pouring scorn on Liz for being the beneficiary of a (literally) rich heritage of colonial oppression, and for not just dissolving the useless monarchy. But honestly, I don't think she ever had a choice. She had no power. Giving royal assent doesn't mean quite as much when, if you don't give it, you cause a constitutional crisis. If she had declared publically that, say, Britain should leave Kenya, there'd probably have been a riot. And the crown jewels may technically belong to the monarchy, but there'd be a lot of diplomatic work before you could just carve off the Koh-i-noor Diamond and return it to the Punjab - which the monarch wouldn't have any part of. Just because something belongs to you doesn't make it easy to give away.

Society is entrenched, which is why there are still monarchs in the first place.

The thing about her reputation is that it's effectively built on air, because her constitutional duty was essentially to sit there.

And so was George's, for much of his reign.

It's easy to impute values to someone who, in a practical sense, cannot speak her true mind. (Did she have the right to vote?) The "fount of honour" is a symbolic thing - a fountain doesn't actually move or control the water that passes through it. There's also the meme, "be quiet and be thought wise, or open your mouth and remove all doubt." Some members of the royal family manage to keep to the former, others the latter. 

The conventional wisdom in popular media might be that George and Charles are similar - slightly flaky types without obvious substance; the truth is that George was more like Elizabeth in his rectitude (the only Hanoverian king not to cheat on his wife), his religious faith, his incredible sense of duty, and his general determination (despite later propaganda) to play a less, well, commanding role. He had the ability to choose and dismiss ministers (and had a talent for choosing reluctant ones), but like Liz he stuck to the letter of the law and generally let Parliament do its thing without hindrance. Perhaps Americans' attitudes about monarchy are rooted in misconceptions about how it works? ;)

Andrew Roberts' most telling counters to the claims of tyranny are the cases in which George had to accept governments and ministers he despised, or be libeled and satirized by a baying press. Heck, he went to bat for several attempted assassins, who ended up in asylums rather than on the scaffold. To me, this sounds a lot like Liz. (Not to mention just generally keeping one's cool when offered something surprising to eat, or being treated with disrespect by a foreign dignitary or even a civilian).

Some monarchs (and presidents) travel through life with absolute grace, which in context means being unruffled and invariably polite. (Though this is probably much easier when you have dozens of handlers and guards, and therein, perhaps, lies one of the roots of republicanism.)

Some are gaffe-prone or generally awkward or perhaps (like Lincoln) rough-hewn, but work hard and remain dedicated.

And some just don't care.

George drifted through all three of these in the course of his life (the final stage wasn't his fault). He did have enough influence to build up or tear down a couple governments, but generally let those governments do their thing once they were in place. He didn't, for example, lead during the Napoleonic Wars - but he became, at least for the first half, the rock around which the nation rallied. His son would have done far worse (and boy, are George IV's faults listed here). In fact, an incident is mentioned where George jr demanded a generalship and an army to command and had to be reminded that his place was near the King; his brothers got to command, but not him.

Society was entrenched for him, too, and (like Edward VIII) stepping out of control created enormous scandal.

Sometimes I think the discredited Great Man of History theory still has a point. It absolutely is the lower classes that do all the work, but there is still some value in looking at decision points. And who makes the decisions? So-called Great Men.

In the 18th century UK, prime ministers made those decisions. Kings didn't. 

George III was extremely serious about his oaths, which meant he knew and accepted that he was subordinate to Parliament. Americans, and some liberal politicians, thought otherwise, but they were wrong. (George wrote a LOT of letters for historians to pore over, excellent insight into his thinking.) Without acceptance of Parliament's role, his great-grandfather could not have come from Hanover. He owed his place to Parliament's toleration. 

A monarch is just a cypher. 

In more ways than one.

(Edit: I don't mean that in the sense of a rubber stamp; the monarch (and any head of state that isn't also head of government) can be a constitutional "backstop" of last resort. I'm thinking more in terms of a unifying symbol - as symbolized by the actual cypher, money, badges, etc - and also unknowable thoughts that make it easier to accept the symbol and accept its quiet influence.)

What she DOES or THINKS doesn't seem to have mattered quite as much as that she was THERE. She doesn't have to be anything else to be regarded as important or special. Conflicts can and have arisen that way, when others don't regard "sacred cows" or unquestioned truths the same way. The American colonists' dispute with George was partly a cultural misunderstanding, because the Americans were becoming increasingly far from the British mainstream. And many independent countries today have good reasons to reconsider the relevance of the Commonwealth that Elizabeth wasn't, but represented.

Today, Parliament is a different beast, less oligarchical; even the House of Lords has a smaller role. The US is the same way. Suffrage is far wider, so that ordinary people have a greater say in what happens. And since they do, they also have more say in what the monarchy's role should be. I'll be interested to see how attitudes change after this first outburst of national grief and pride...