ARE MONARCHIES STILL RELEVANT?

Queen Elizabeth II, the only queen most everyone in the English speaking world ever knew, died at the age of 96. Upwards of two million people expressed their anguish, sorrow and respect observing the carefully choreographed and flawlessly executed funeral arrangements throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For most, the Queen's impressive regal funeral ceremony was largely appreciated. For many it must have felt like the passing of a greatly admired and respected family member. The pomp and ceremony surrounding the ascension of Elizabeth's son, Prince Charles, to King Charles III, however, came across as the pageantry from a bygone era. For some spectators the spectacle must have raised questions about the kingdom's orthodox attempt at portraying Britain as the last remaining vestige of traditional royal rule. While the display of pageant splendor surrounding the British royal family may well be the most elaborate of its kind in the western world, the institution itself is not the last remaining monarchical relic in modern times. There are still 43 sovereign states in the world that are ruled by a monarch as head of state. Of these, Europe features seven kingdoms: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain, The Netherlands, Belgium and, of course, The United Kingdom. Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco are principalities. Luxembourg is a Grand Duchy, and Vatican City is described as a theocratic elective monarchy. Most of these are constitutional monarchies in which the monarch does not influence the politics of the state, either because of convention or because it is explicitly forbidden by their constitution. None of these exhibit the elaborate demonstration of traditional pageantry displayed in the U.K. All of them have adapted to contemporary realities. None are seriously threatened with extinction. Almost all regularly receive 80% plus support from their constituency. This last point ought to be considered as one of the challenges newly minted King Charles needs to be concerned about. While the timing may be inappropriate, "republicans," organized in a persistent movement seeking to replace the monarchy with an alternative form of governance ruled by an elected head of state, are already erecting anti-monarchy banners advocating to "Make Elizabeth the Last." Support for King Charles' ascension to the throne is benefiting from the emotions of the moment. However, his challenges are rapidly mounting. Domestically, the republican movement feels that their time has come. Graham Smith, CEO of the campaign group "Republic," clarified that "the Queen is the monarchy for most people. After she dies the institution is in serious jeopardy." Charles is significantly less popular than his mother was. The word is already spreading that Britain's new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, albeit 27 years ago, confirmed that, in her opinion, the monarchy should be abolished. If not abolished, chances are that significant reductions could affect the size of the realm. In Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein, the Irish nationalist party which seeks unification with the Republic of Ireland, captured the largest number of seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly this year. In Scotland, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the ruling Scottish Nationalist Party, already announced plans for another referendum on Scottish independence next year. And then there is the issue of the Commonwealth. King Charles becomes the titular head of state of 14 countries, or realms, in the Commonwealth. Doubtlessly influenced by pressure from Queen Elizabeth, the 2018 Commonwealth Conference agreed that Charles would get the role after becoming king. However, his position is honorary, not hereditary. While his role as head of state is symbolic, and while few things are expected to change, some suspect that the royal succession could strengthen existing republican movements in Commonwealth countries as well. Last year, Barbados already removed the British monarch as head of state, and transitioned to a parliamentary republic with a ceremonial, indirectly elected, president. Jamaica's prime minister, Andrew Holness, announced that his country intends to leave the monarchy by the time of its next election in 2025. Belize, Antigua and Barbuda have indicated similar intentions. Support for a break with the monarchy in Canada, Australia and New Zealand is still relatively minor. However, the sentiment is growing. Amongst the elaborate symbolism and pervasive historic, but archaic pomp and ceremony reminiscent of 16th Century monarchism, many "subjects" are revisiting the question whether the institution has enduring relevance and utility. Steadfast royalists answer this question in the affirmative. They argue that: Monarchs can rise above politics in the way an elected head of state can not; In politically unstable countries, like e.g. Thailand, the existence of a monarch is often the only thing holding the country back from civil war; Monarchs prevent the emergence of extreme forms of government - they encourage slow, incremental change instead of extreme swings; and, perhaps just as important, they are repositories of tradition and continuity - which is comforting to many. King Charles' challenge will be how to refashion the monarchy and maintain public support for it as a ceremonial institution at the center of British public life, providing an anchor at a time when the pace of change is bewildering to many. His expressed commitment to slim it down might include bringing it into the modern world, akin to what most continental European monarchies have done, safeguarding their continued existence in the process. Theo Wierdsma