Sunder Katwala is the Director of British Future.
How should a new King modernise his monarchy? Gradually. The King might be sceptical of both uber-modernisers, whose rational reforms may lose sight of the emotional in the appeal of a monarchy, and Ming Vase Monarchists, who pessimistically fear that any change must prove a slippery slope to abolition.
King Charles III inherits a much more robust institution, at the end of the longest reign in history, than anyone would have predicted when Elizabeth II acknowledged her “annus horribilis” of 1992. That speech reads wisely now, in its hope for a less frenetic judgment from history, and her acceptance that criticism can spur constructive reform. The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh were quiet modernisers letting daylight in upon magic in 1969 with the Royal Family TV series. The personal tribulations of the 1980s and 90s, including the saga of the then Prince of Wales’s marriage, may ultimately have proved humanising to many blended families across the nation.
The institutional instinct is for survival. The only way to resolve the paradox of a hereditary monarchy in a liberal democracy is sustained public consent. Even those who inherit their ceremonial powers are ultimately subject to the tyranny of the opinion polls. This Spring’s ‘Jubilee Britain’ research from British Future captured a national vote of confidence, with six out of ten people in favour of the Monarchy’s survival indefinitely, while one in four felt the end of the reign would be the time to move to a Republic. Rock solid support from English conservatives was combined with challenges to reach across nations, generations and ethnic groups.
The King favours a slimmed down core working family but, since Britain is not Scandinavia, we will not want to transplant a ‘bicycling monarchy’ model wholesale. The British monarchy should remain majestic in its ceremonies, as with the pleasing Shakespearean cadences – “our late majesty of happy memory” – of the Accession Council. (Though perhaps the new King could gently let his Prime Minister know that he does not mind if she curtsies or not).
The constitutional role of the Monarchy endures, with the King acknowledging the new limits on his voice. Its civic role can evolve. The Queen’s longevity made her a source of stability just by always being there. The new King should be more proactive in seeking to renew the ties that bind in polarised times.
To decide on the pace of change, the King needs a clear public narrative of what a modern Monarchy is for. This kingdom is more anxious, fragmented and divided than we are used to, or than any of us would want. Great occasions of state, in Jubilee thanksgiving or funereal mourning, do remind us that we are not quite as divided as constant chatter about ‘culture wars’ can sometimes suggest. But democratic politics does divide – as we have to pick a side in elections and referendums. Party, media and online dynamics create incentives to reinforce the ‘them and us’ perspectives of one 40 per cent coalition or another. Reaching out for common ground can be risky.
The Monarchy can be a public institution committed to defusing identity conflict, by promoting meaningful contact across our divides. 2023 can be a year to join the dots between our past, present and future. The Coronation will build on seven decades of the Queen’s service. It falls three-quarters of a century into a new, post-war story of modern Britain, coinciding with the 75th birthday of the NHS and the 75th anniversary of the arrival of the Windrush, a key moment in the story of the Britain we have now become.
Reconnection and renewal could be the central themes of the King’s Coronation year. The role of the Established Church in crowning the King could be combined with symbolic recognition of the service of other faiths in Britain today. As well as pledging to serve his citizens of every colour and creed, the King could ask what each of us could do to make this an era of national reconnection too.
A mission to reconnect could involve inviting national and local institutions to make practical commitments that can reach across social divides, making new links between children of different backgrounds in our schools, and helping voluntary and welcoming projects to grow their networks. It could champion citizenship and those who choose to become British. It could also mean some modest changes at the Palace, too. Salma Shah, a former Special Adviser, recently suggested a new post of Commonwealth Private Secretary to the monarch. Closer to home, the royal households could create new opportunities to bring in more people from state schools and across the regions.
The new King can practice the statecraft of conservative modernisation – not in the vanguard of change, but helping to ratify the social changes that have happened and unlock their full potential for the common good. The bridging mission of a gradually modernising Monarchy is not to choose between traditional and modern Britain – but to invite us now to knit a new chapter together.
Sunder Katwala is the Director of British Future.
How should a new King modernise his monarchy? Gradually. The King might be sceptical of both uber-modernisers, whose rational reforms may lose sight of the emotional in the appeal of a monarchy, and Ming Vase Monarchists, who pessimistically fear that any change must prove a slippery slope to abolition.
King Charles III inherits a much more robust institution, at the end of the longest reign in history, than anyone would have predicted when Elizabeth II acknowledged her “annus horribilis” of 1992. That speech reads wisely now, in its hope for a less frenetic judgment from history, and her acceptance that criticism can spur constructive reform. The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh were quiet modernisers letting daylight in upon magic in 1969 with the Royal Family TV series. The personal tribulations of the 1980s and 90s, including the saga of the then Prince of Wales’s marriage, may ultimately have proved humanising to many blended families across the nation.
The institutional instinct is for survival. The only way to resolve the paradox of a hereditary monarchy in a liberal democracy is sustained public consent. Even those who inherit their ceremonial powers are ultimately subject to the tyranny of the opinion polls. This Spring’s ‘Jubilee Britain’ research from British Future captured a national vote of confidence, with six out of ten people in favour of the Monarchy’s survival indefinitely, while one in four felt the end of the reign would be the time to move to a Republic. Rock solid support from English conservatives was combined with challenges to reach across nations, generations and ethnic groups.
The King favours a slimmed down core working family but, since Britain is not Scandinavia, we will not want to transplant a ‘bicycling monarchy’ model wholesale. The British monarchy should remain majestic in its ceremonies, as with the pleasing Shakespearean cadences – “our late majesty of happy memory” – of the Accession Council. (Though perhaps the new King could gently let his Prime Minister know that he does not mind if she curtsies or not).
The constitutional role of the Monarchy endures, with the King acknowledging the new limits on his voice. Its civic role can evolve. The Queen’s longevity made her a source of stability just by always being there. The new King should be more proactive in seeking to renew the ties that bind in polarised times.
To decide on the pace of change, the King needs a clear public narrative of what a modern Monarchy is for. This kingdom is more anxious, fragmented and divided than we are used to, or than any of us would want. Great occasions of state, in Jubilee thanksgiving or funereal mourning, do remind us that we are not quite as divided as constant chatter about ‘culture wars’ can sometimes suggest. But democratic politics does divide – as we have to pick a side in elections and referendums. Party, media and online dynamics create incentives to reinforce the ‘them and us’ perspectives of one 40 per cent coalition or another. Reaching out for common ground can be risky.
The Monarchy can be a public institution committed to defusing identity conflict, by promoting meaningful contact across our divides. 2023 can be a year to join the dots between our past, present and future. The Coronation will build on seven decades of the Queen’s service. It falls three-quarters of a century into a new, post-war story of modern Britain, coinciding with the 75th birthday of the NHS and the 75th anniversary of the arrival of the Windrush, a key moment in the story of the Britain we have now become.
Reconnection and renewal could be the central themes of the King’s Coronation year. The role of the Established Church in crowning the King could be combined with symbolic recognition of the service of other faiths in Britain today. As well as pledging to serve his citizens of every colour and creed, the King could ask what each of us could do to make this an era of national reconnection too.
A mission to reconnect could involve inviting national and local institutions to make practical commitments that can reach across social divides, making new links between children of different backgrounds in our schools, and helping voluntary and welcoming projects to grow their networks. It could champion citizenship and those who choose to become British. It could also mean some modest changes at the Palace, too. Salma Shah, a former Special Adviser, recently suggested a new post of Commonwealth Private Secretary to the monarch. Closer to home, the royal households could create new opportunities to bring in more people from state schools and across the regions.
The new King can practice the statecraft of conservative modernisation – not in the vanguard of change, but helping to ratify the social changes that have happened and unlock their full potential for the common good. The bridging mission of a gradually modernising Monarchy is not to choose between traditional and modern Britain – but to invite us now to knit a new chapter together.