Pomp and Ceremony

When people ask me why I’m supportive of the monarchy, the long list of reasons normally includes the economic benefits of our royal family. Everyone always asks why we as taxpayers should be paying for one family to live in the lap of luxury in such an age. First of all, I like to remind people of the White House and how, although elected, the president of the United States lives in what is essentially a palace paid for by the state. And although, I’ll save this for another time, do we really want one of our politicians, none of whom garner as much support from the people as the Queen, to be living in Buckingham Palace, which after all is owned by the state and not Her Majesty herself. But of course, the most obvious economic benefit of having a long established monarchy is tourism.

It seems obvious that foreign visitors, as well as British people outside of London, such as myself, would want to visit beautiful and historic homes. However, this still applies to countries that have long abolished their monarchies, such as France and Russia with such palaces as Versailles and St. Petersburg’s winter palace. But similar to what I highlighted in my previous post about great houses, visitors are attracted to the living, breathing monarchy, not just an architectural wonder filled with antiques. Furthermore, the pomp and ceremony surrounding the monarchy, such as the grandiose State Opening of Parliament, during which the imperial state crown travels in its own coach and the Queen addresses her government in all the regalia of a British ruler, would all be lost if the Queen were just a rich woman and the country headed by an elected leader. And this is probably one of the reasons why London is the most visited city in Europe. But what about the other 10 European monarchies, such as Denmark, whose Queen can trace her royal lineage back to the 10^th century, making the Danish monarchy the oldest in Europe?

I have recently read The Great Survivors: How monarchy made it into the 21^st century by King’s Speech author Peter Conradi. Although not the greatest work of non-fiction, it is full of so many interesting facts about Europe’s royals. The most striking information that Conradi reports on is how different the Norwegian or Belgian monarchy are from our own. In some cases, even I started to ask, what’s the point?

When it comes to royal power, the most profound and frankly disappointing difference between Britain and her neighbours is the coronation; the official and, in our case, religious investiture of a new king or queen.  Not many people alive today remember the 26 year old Queen Elizabeth being crowned in 1953 but thanks to the power of the then infant television, the images of the grandest royal event are preserved for all to see. The gold state coach, the robes and the various crown jewels all played a part in the national event that saw the young queen swearing to devote herself to her nation. Although this was 60 years ago, it is likely that a very similar event will take place upon the eventual accession of Princes Charles and William. We only have to look at the Duke of Cambridge’s wedding to Kate Middleton to prove that British people are not against huge and extravagant royal events. And it’s these events that are missing from Europe.

When Harald V became king of Norway in 1991, the country’s parliament had long since removed the article in the constitution that stipulated a king (or queen) should be formally crowned. As a result of doing away with the royal tradition of the monarch being God’s representative on Earth, Harald swore an accession oath in the Council of State and the Norwegian parliament, instead of being crowned in a church, such as Westminster Abbey, despite the fact that he does in fact remain the nominal head of the church. The crown was not placed on his head, instead they were merely displayed. Most un-royal, in my opinion, was that instead of being the head of a grand procession, the king simply travelled to the ceremony in a car, as he does for the state opening of parliament.

The same, some-what presidential, forms of royal investiture occurs elsewhere. The King of the Belgians is sworn in before Parliament, sitting on what Conradi calls “a throne more or less knocked together for the occasion,” a contrast with the 700 year old King Edward’s Chair used for British coronations. The kings of Spain and Sweden simply swore oaths in the presence of the Crown Jewels and parliament.

For me, the pomp surrounding monarchy is what differentiates them from the elected politicians. Not only do such royal events maintain the historical traditions that I believe a monarchy needs to survive, they also make the royal family visible to the people looking royal, not like any ordinary person. And then there’s tourism. Why would a tourist visiting from a republic be attracted to a monarchy that simply lives in a large house and takes part in virtually no ceremony? Although anti-monarchists may look on  events such as the royal wedding and any future coronations as a waste of public money, they are more than worth it as a method of advertising the monarchy to foreign visitors, as well as making us, the British, all the more proud of our Queen and her family.