Why is monarchy so important

By entering your details, you are agreeing to HistoryExtra's terms and conditions. You can unsubscribe at any time. In , at the height of the bitter and deadly First World War against Germany and its allies, King George V decided that all these treble-barrelled names and German titles sounded unpatriotic.

He subsequently renamed the family after the English market town where they spent their weekends — Windsor, 25 miles west of London on the River Thames in Berkshire.

Today, the line of succession of the House of Windsor runs down through Prince Charles 1 , to his son Prince William 2 and then to his eldest son, Prince George 3. For centuries, males took precedence over females in the line — with monarchs like Queens Elizabeth and Queen Victoria only taking the throne when no male heirs were available.

But the law was changed in for members of the royal family born after 28 October Places 6 and 7 in the line are occupied by Prince Harry and his son, Archie , with Prince Andrew at 8 and his daughters Beatrice and Eugenie at 9 and 10 respectively. Fans of William Shakespeare will know that many members of the medieval royal family often took their titles from the English shires — York, Lancaster , Gloucester, Cornwall — and the same applies today. The one exception is the Duchy of Cornwall, which has lucrative estates that currently support Prince Charles as heir to the throne and will be passed on to William when he becomes heir.

In terms of precedence, the five male titles of the peerage are Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount and Baron, with Duke being the highest and most exclusive. The institution of the monarchy is essentially old-fashioned, say its critics , artificially maintaining the privileges of a bygone era and leading to numerous practices that have no place in a modern age.

When any young royal joins the armed forces, for example, they are automatically made officers — they never start from the bottom. They live rent-free in fancy digs, with some royals wearing ritzy clothes given to them by designers for the sake of the publicity. Even supporters of the monarchy might feel that the pages and hours dedicated by the media to the reporting of trivial royal activities diverts national attention from more substantial topics.

Yet another argument is advanced by atheists, agnostics, and free-thinkers: they condemn the endorsement that the royal family gives to the Church of England and organised religion. Despite the powerful theoretical arguments against them see above , the British royal family has survived by being more open and flexible — and yes, more democratic — than many others.

The French monarchy was destroyed in a blood-bath in the s, in part because it allied itself with a rigid and oppressive aristocratic upper class which unashamedly exploited ordinary people. At that same date, while far from perfect, the British royal family was consorting with merchants and entrepreneurs and was encouraging scientific research through institutions like the Royal Society.

The first time was in , when the new country of Canada was formed. The second occurred in , when a revised Constitution, basic law, was adopted. It helps to show we are an independent nation and yet it reflects our character by sharing our monarch with 15 other diverse countries in the Commonwealth such as Jamaica, New Zealand, Australia, Papua New Guinea and Belize. It promotes a stable political process, where the results of an election determine who will govern, not a violent act such as war or revolution.

It reminds Canadians of our special identity and way of life. This is important because of the huge influence of our friendly but much larger neighbour, the USA. So we have to work that little bit harder to appreciate our own institutions, in the same way as we have to work extra hard to obtain the best grades we can, to contribute to the team or the drama club or to find a good college, university or job.

The monarch promotes Canadian concerns such as tolerance, playing by the rules, protecting the environment and giving service to the community. This shows a commitment to the country that is not selfish, and not linked to any political party.

It makes clear the important but different roles of the monarch the head of our nation who represents the things we all agree about and the prime minister the elected head of our government whose policies we can argue about, and whose government we can re-elect — or not — about every four years.

Here is a series of brief points as to why Canada is a monarchy rather than a republic such as the United States. They are mainly written for older students. An interesting feature of our form of government is that not all the rules are written down, but some are based on what is called conventions — a word which means something that everyone agrees is the normal and right thing to do.

Examples of conventions in our ordinary lives? There are no laws that say you must say please and thank you, watch your language around your younger siblings, avoid chewing food with your mouth wide open or stand up when the National Anthem is played at an assembly or sports event. But they are the small important acts which help to define a civilized society. Can you think of some conventions that pretty well everyone follows at your school or in your family?

Prince Charles Find a biography of the Prince of Wales here. Charles is respected throughout the world for his active mind and pursuit of many projects to make the earth and its people a better, more sustainable and more tolerant place to live. In January , Paine's pamphlet Common Sense began to be passed around among the population of the colonies of the New World, a manifesto for American independence and republicanism.

He contrasted the common sense of his pamphlet's title with the absurdity and superstition that inspired the "prejudice of Englishmen" for monarchy, arising "as much or more from national pride than reason". To this day, British republicans refer to Paine's Common Sense almost as the sacred text.

But monarchists have their own sacred text, written almost exactly a century afterwards. Walter Bagehot's English Constitution was a belated response to the revolutionary arguments of the New World republicans. Bagehot didn't try to justify monarchy as rational indeed he accepted many of Paine's criticisms , but his point was that an "old and complicated society" like England required more than mundane, dreary logic.

Bagehot had identified a developing national characteristic. As colonial power and the riches of empire declined, there was an increasing desire to define greatness as something other than wealth and territory. Britain wanted to believe it was, intrinsically, special.

Wind the clock forward to and plans were being made for the Coronation of the new Elizabeth II. Despite post-war austerity, it was decided the event should be a fabulous, flamboyant, extravagant affair with all the pomp and pageantry they could muster. There would be feathers and fur, gold and jewels, anthems and trumpets. It was a giant gamble. Britain was re-evaluating many of the traditional power structures that had shaped society in the s.

How would a population still subject to food rationing react to a ceremony that almost rubbed its nose in the wealth and privilege of the hereditary monarch? Two sociologists, Michael Young and Ed Shils, had joined the crowds in the East End of London, dropping in on street parties to find out. Their thesis, entitled The Meaning of the Coronation, accepted that there were some who had dismissed the whole affair as a ridiculous waste of money.

But overall, they concluded: "The Coronation provided at one time and for practically the entire society such an intensive contact with the sacred that we believe we are justified in interpreting it as we have done in this essay, as a great act of national communion.

Britain - battered, bruised and broke - appeared determined to embrace its monarchy and hang the cost. The paradox is that austerity was positively comfortable with ostentation; institutional challenge spawned a passion for hereditary authority.

It wasn't just that Britain wanted a distraction from hardship and uncertainty. Enthusiastic support for monarchy seemed to run counter to the new liberalism which was guiding the politics of post-war Britain.