monarchy

monarchy If we accept Cerdic as founder, the English monarchy dates back to about 519. The Scottish monarchy may be dated from.c. 843, when Kenneth MacAlpin of Dalriada united Picts and Scots to form the kingdom of Alba. The role of the monarch was essentially that of battle‐leader. As a consequence, strict primogeniture was slow to establish itself, since it could result in a child or a simpleton on the throne. Few monarchs lasted long enough for old age to be a problem. With expectation of life short, it was unlikely that the eldest son would be old enough for the task. Edgar's eldest son Edward was only 13 when chosen in 975 but the innovation was hardly encouraging since he was murdered within three years.

Apart from waging war—admittedly at times a demanding business—early kings had little to do. They attempted very few of the activities of the modern state. Justice was dispensed by landowners themselves; the king did not make law, though he might declare what it was; there was little revenue to collect, though he was entitled to support and hospitality. There was no economic or education policy to supervise.

But the great effort needed to push back the Danes in the 9th and 10th cents. produced important developments in the institutions of Wessex. Burhs, erected as strong points, had to be built and garrisoned, naval vessels commissioned and manned, and all had to be paid for. By the reign of Athelstan a much more complex governmental structure is apparent and the kingdom of England has emerged. Indeed, by the reign of Edgar, one can see the outlines of a claim to British sovereignty, with the monarch rowed on the Dee in 973 by kings from Scotland, from Wales, and of the British.

With the Conquest in 1066 the kingdom was once more in alien hands. The first three Norman rulers were powerful. Their significance is seen more in relations with the other rulers in the British Isles than in domestic reform. Scotland felt the change quickly. William I paralleled the expedition by Cnut in 1031 with his own march to the Tay in 1072, which brought about the submission of Malcolm Canmore. His son William Rufus reoccupied Cumberland in 1092. Into Wales, the incursion of Norman lords began, particularly in the south, as early as one year after Hastings. The Norman attack upon Ireland was postponed until the 12th cent. and the reign of Henry II.

Since medieval government centred on the king, its efficacy varied greatly. Under strong rulers, the monarchy advanced, royal justice was extended, revenue increased, local government reorganized. Under weak rulers, control became slack and important concessions were made to subjects—Magna Carta in 1215, even if the immediate beneficiaries were the barons. Monarchs were frequently in danger since they were still expected to lead in battle: Edward II, Richard II, and Henry VI were deposed and killed, Edward V murdered, Richard III killed on the battlefield. Success in war, on the other hand, gave the king a strong, if not impregnable, position— William I, Edward I, Edward III, Henry V.

The prestige and standing of the monarchy was enhanced in a variety of ways. The coronation ceremony became more elaborate and more dignified. Some early coronations were so hasty that rehearsals could hardly have been possible. Henry I apologized to Anselm for his coronation three days after succeeding Rufus, explaining that ‘enemies would have risen up against me’. Monarchs were competitive. The kings of France were proud that, at the coronation of Clovis, an angel had appeared bearing holy oil: fortunately the balance was more than restored when the Virgin Mary herself presented Becket with holy oil, which was quickly incorporated into the English coronation ceremony.

It was also of value to a monarch to be associated with great buildings and great deeds. The Confessor built Westminster abbey, consecrated just before his death, and Henry III rebuilt it. Rufus built Westminster hall and Richard II embellished it. David I of Scotland founded the abbeys of Holyrood and Dunfermline, later turned into royal residences. Edward III's institution of the Order of the Garter was supported by a new chapel at Windsor, completed by Edward IV, and deliberately echoed the legendary deeds of King Arthur.

The Tudor period is usually regarded as the apogee of the English monarchy. Certainly it was stronger than in the 15th cent., when the Wars of the Roses produced frequent changes of ruler. Yet lawlessness and rebellion were not easily stamped out. Several of their policies returned to haunt their successors. The take‐over of church powers added greatly to the patronage of the monarch but also involved him more directly in religious disputation at a time when the waves of controversy were beginning to run high. The Civil War, after all, began with Charles I's dispute over religion with his Scottish subjects. The vast proceeds of the dissolution of the monasteries were not merely squandered by the crown but finished up with the nobility, helping to strengthen its position. Henry VIII's use of Parliament to effect the Reformation, and Mary and Elizabeth's use to adjust it, gave it confidence to challenge the monarchy in the following century.

Though at one level the Civil War was disastrous for monarchy—the king beheaded, the institution abolished—in the end it may have helped its survival. The role of the army in the 1650s and the social upheaval of the Commonwealth period sobered the gentry and nobility and prepared the ground for the peaceful restoration of Charles II in 1660. The complex negotiations of the early 1640s, in which Charles I had described the role of the crown as a balancing one, pointed the way to a compromise between crown and Parliament. From the melodrama of James II's reign, the monarchy emerged strengthened—limited certainly in its formal powers and prerogatives, but more in touch with the wishes of the nation.

From 1688 onwards, though the monarchy retained fundamental powers, it was in slow constitutional retreat. The Bill of Rights removed the suspending power and the dispensing power as it had been employed. The right of veto fell into abeyance after Anne's reign. Though the choice of ministers remained an important prerogative it was increasingly limited by the growth of party loyalty, and the fiasco of Lord Bute at the start of George III's reign suggested that royal favourites would no longer serve. Even the granting of honours fell largely into the hands of the prime minister and new orders had to be invented so that the monarch could retain some personal control.

But there were compensations in the changing role and the crown's retreat opened the way for a more national function. After the first three Georges, who had revealed little desire to show themselves to their subjects, George IV introduced a new note, with well‐publicized visits to Scotland and Ireland. Though Victoria was not a battle‐leader, she undoubtedly became a symbol of the nation and of the empire, as her Golden and Diamond Jubilees in 1887 and 1897 demonstrated.

The 20th‐cent. British monarchy survived when most others were swept away because it came to terms with democracy. The dangers that awaited it were, in the end, not red revolution or republican egalitarianism, but the more insidious difficulty of knowing what image to present in an age of rapidly changing standards, and how to do it. The abdication of Edward VIII in 1936 appears in retrospect less a grave constitutional issue than an early warning of the problems that would arise if the monarch, or members of the royal family, were not prepared to do their duty. The monarchy was not helped by the growth of a vulgar, censorious, and meretricious press. Universal education produced a nation of critics, less respectful than their 7th‐cent. ancestors.