ROYALTY AND COMMONALTY

New Zealand Listener, Volume 18, Issue 457, 25 March 1948, Page 6

ROYALTY AND COMMONALTY

WV HEN the King, accompanied by the Queen and Princess Margaret, visits New Zealand next year it will be the first visit paid to the Dominion by a reigning Sovereign, vet the influence of the Crown is as strong here as it is at Westminster. That influence, and the place of the Monarchy in the political and social life of all British peoples, is discussed briefly in the accompanying article.

YN estimating the relationship + between the British Crown and the British Dominions, a foreign observer might note the lapses of time between the foundation of certain colonies and the first visit of their Sovereign. There have been a number of Royal visits to Australia and New Zealand, from the Duke of Edinburgh’s in the ’sixties, and these two peoples have seen three British Kings to be, and two Queens, but by 1949 they will have waited 161 and 109 years respectively to receive the Sovereign himself. Our foreign observer may think it a little strange that Australia and New Zealand, so much more British in origins than the other Dominions, and second to none in devotion to the Motherland, should have had to wait so long. He will note that loyalty to the Throne has not been diminished by this, or by distance which is one of its causes. The Crash of Thrones If he decides to investigate the whole question of monarchical government, as exercised in Britain and the EmpireCommonwealth, he will find himself picking his way through a maze of ponderables and imponderables. Monarchy is an ancient institution, but it is much less popular in the world than it was. In his famous book on the Con-stitution-written in 1869 and still the most readable on the subject-Bagehot said "the best reason why monarchy is a strong government is that it is an intel-

ligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere else in the’world understand any other." In view of the extent of republican government in the Americas, this was an exaggeration, but it contained a good deal of truth. To-day the ‘position is very different. In seconding an address to King George the Fifth immediately after victory in 1918, Mr. Asquith said: "In the crash of Thrones — the Throne of this country stands unshaken, broad-based upon the people’s will." There have been more such

crashes since, but the foundation and fabric of Britain’s Throne are even stronger than in 1918. Why is this? Why do we British at home and overseas prefer a monarchy and seldom if ever question this form of government? Briefly, because a monarchy suits us. It is an institution that traces its line far back into history. It stands for our past and leads us into the future. The King is at once the father and the servant of his people, and the foremost representative of their ideals. It is the same with the President of the United States. A King in America is unthinkable, because the nation was formed in fighting against a monarch, and the President is the embodiment of certain local ideals of political and social freedom. In each case freedom is an integral part of the structure. We say we prefer a King to a President, for various reasons. Some of these, lying in the realms of philosophy, religion, and mysticism, we should find it hard to put into words, but one thing we would say definitely: In our opinion, it works better. At any rate, we like it. Saving the Monarchy "We have rebelled against Kings," says John Buchan, "but never against kingship." One king was executed in Britain, and another driven from his throne. The British did not like their one experience without a king-the nearest approach to Fascism in three hundred years of history-and have never shown any widespread desire to repeat it. But people and wise sovereigns have realised that loyalty depends

-- ultimately on the way the system works, A succession of bad kings could wreck it. Victoria was not a great woman. She suffered from severe limitations of intellect and sympathy. But she had certain qualities which, combined with circumstances, made her a Great Queen, She restored the Monarchy to its rightful position in the nation, and raised it higher than ever in popular respect and devotion. Britain was sick and tired of the Georges and the Royal Dukes. She may be said to have saved the Monarchy, for the alternative to her was a disreputable and detested prince. "Grave men, not the least given to exaggeration," told George Russell (Collections and Recollections) "their profound conviction that, had Ernest Duke of Cumberland succeeded to the Throne on the death of William the Fourth, no earthly power could have averted a revolution." Even in Victoria’s reign, largely as a result of the Queen’s long seclusion after her husband’s death, republicanism was openly discussed, and the baccarat scandal of the early ‘nineties, in which the Prince of Wales was involved, caused Henry Labouchere to predict that there would be a republic in a few years. Victoria’s wonderful Indian summer and the growth of interest in the Empire pushed republicanism aside, and "Labby" lived to see the Prince reign as a very popular King. Then came the two most perilous wars in British history. George the Fifth and Queen Mary, George the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth, shared the people’s dangers. (continued on next page)

(continued from previous page) They were a rallying point in dark days, and by their fortitude, good works and comradeship won still more of the nation’s trust and affection. That the King rules but does not govern is a commonplace. He must act on the advice of his Ministers. But there is a lot he can do. As Bagehot put it, he has three rights-‘"the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn. And a King of great sense and sagacity would want no others. He would find that his having no others would enable him to use these with singular effect." The King carries . a great load of duties and responsibilities besides those strictly political. He and his family are leaders of society, and are expected to be exemplars in morals. It is only fair to Royalty to reflect what its temptations may be, especially to the young. To quote Bagehot again: "It is not natural to expect the best virtue where temptation is applied in the most trying form at the frailest time of human life. The occupations of a constitutional monarch are grave, formal, important, but never exciting; they have nothing to stir eager blood, awaken high imagination, work off wild. thoughts.". The Sovereign is also a centre and symbol of religious feeling and expression. The Englishman does not believe in the Divine Right of Kings, but he does feel, however vaguely, that there is an element of divinity in the office. "Fear God; Honour the King." Even the Laodicean is moved when he reads the words of the Coronation Service, where the Bible is presented: "Here is wisdom; this is the royal Law; these are the lively Oracles of God." — The broadening of democracy and improvement in communications have

produced changes in the relationship between Sovereign and nation. The King can go about much more easily among his people, and speak to them all at one time. The office has come closer to the lives and interests of the citizen. The King must "walk with kings-nor lose the common touch." A vast amount of adulation-much of it nonsense-has been poured over royalty in ‘the past. When we read some of the eighteenth century verse on the Georges, we don’t quite know whether to laugh or cry. There is much less of this to-day. We look at royalty with clearer eyes. We don’t expect them to be super-men or super-women. We don’t expect Kings and Queens and Princes and Princesses to be brilliant. We do expect them to be hard-working, self-sacrificing, public-spirited, kind, and understanding, and, always remembering they are human like ourselves, we are not disappointed. Two modern tributes to the place of the Throne in the State may be quoted. John Buchan looked at the Monarchy with the experience of deep study and long public service, which culminated in the Governor-Generalship of a Dominion. In the last two hundred years, while the Throne has lost in definable powers, it has gained in significance. There have been wise monarchs and some not so wise, but the ‘ inherent and accumulated majesty of the office has increased, It is not only higher than any other human estate, but of a different kind from any other, for it is the mystical, indivisible centre of national union. It is the point around which coheres the nation’s sense of a continuing personality. In any deep stirring of heart the people turn from the mechanism of government, which is their own handiwork and their’ servant, to that ancient, abiding thing behind governments, which they feel to be the symbol of their past achievement and future hope.

The other is from a wage-earner who on his way from work paused among the happy crowds on Princess Elizabeth’s wedding day. "I’m a good trade unionist and a Labour Party man, but the Royal Family means something," he said to a correspondent of an American journal. "My father saw Victoria once, as closé as you and me are now. These two are getting married-they carry it on. I suppose it’s having something steady in your life. And God knows there isn’t much steady these days." Everything that has been said applies to the Dominions, with certain differences that spring from our conditions. Our laws are made in the King’s name through his deputy. That deputy carries a responsibility similar to the Sovereign’s and is expected to set the same example. The Sovereign is the centre of that family from which we sprang and to which we are proud to belong. He rules over a vaster family that extends to the ends of the earth. No President could exercise the same universal binding power, because it is not in the office of President to do so. To men and women of divers races and creeds the word "King" means something that "President" could never mean. Next year we shall welcome the King and the Queen and _ Princess Margaret for what they are and what they represent. It will be the. first reception of the supreme heads of our family. The thought will never be far from our minds that the basis of. the King’s rule is freedom, and that twice in a generation the blood of this country, with that of the Motherland, has been shed in that cause. Equally close to us should be the realisation that freedom must be guarded with intelligence and vigour, or it will perish.

A.

M.