Monarchs have been at the heart of Britain's system of government for over 1,000 years but their power has been eroded.

The monarchy is the oldest British institution of government, going back more than 1,000 years. Queen Elizabeth II is a descendant of King Egbert, who ruled England in the 9-th century. She came to the throne on February 6 1952, after the death of her father, King George VI.

The concept of monarchy is ancient, originally implying that one person had been given supreme authority over everyone else by a god. For centuries there was no separation between the power of the monarch and the power of the state. These "absolute" monarchs used their powers to levy taxes, raise armies and declare wars without consultation. Over time these unrestricted powers of absolute monarchs were removed. They have mostly been replaced by "constitutional" monarchies - those authorized or limited by a political constitution - in which power has been transferred to politicians.

In the English Civil War of 1642-9 a growing merchant class joined forces with a section of the aristocracy to limit the powers of Charles I, particularly in the area of taxation. Charles repeatedly dissolved Parliament to prevent criticism of his actions and for 11 years ruled the country without a Parliament. The struggle culminated in civil war, the king's execution and the establishment of a republic. In the republic, which lasted for 11 years under Oliver Cromwell, sovereign power was vested in Parliament.

But the propertied classes eventually restored the monarchy. However, the executed king's son, Charles II (who reigned from 1660-85), and his successor, James II (who reigned from 1685-88), proved unwilling to give up what they claimed was their right to absolute power. So William of Orange, who was married to James's daughter Mary and was a Protestant, was invited over from Holland and offered the throne in 1689. a Declaration of Rights at the same time, gave Parliament greater powers including the right to approve taxation. This completed "Glorious Revolution".

Although the monarchy had survived, its role had been severely restricted. Parliament wrested more financial and political control away from the Crown. By the end of the 19-th century, with the establishment of modern party politics, the monarch's role had become largely symbolic.

Today's monarchy seems far removed from that of much earlier times. If anything, the British royal family likes to emphasise its ordinariness. For years, Prince Philip let it be known that he did the football pools. Prince Charles frequently says that he sympathises with the problems of the unemployed and homeless.

This is not to say that the powers traditionally exercised by the Crown - the "Royal Prerogative" - are merely an irrelevant leftover from a bygone age. The Queen still opens and dissolves Parliament and in theory appoints prime ministers and peers, heads the Church of England, the armed forces and the judiciary. In practice, the Queen exercises these powers in name only.

But at times of political or economic crisis, for example, during the debates over Irish Home Rule in 1913-14, and over the formation of a National Government in 1931 - the monarch's remaining constitutional powers can and have come into play. Critics argue that such rare examples highlight the danger of allowing a non-elected, hereditary institution to retain even token political power.

At a more basic level, successive opinion polls have shown a certain amount of resentment at the extent of royal wealth and privilege in what the Prime Minister and others argue is a "classless society". So why has the monarchy survived? Social historians have claimed that when Queen Victoria came to the throne in 1837 she faced widespread public criticism. Revolutions and social upheavals in Europe and the rise in Britain of a radical Chartist movement that campaigned for democratic reforms added to the Queen's difficulties.

There were seven attempts to kill Queen Victoria between 1841 and 1882. By 1864 she had become such a recluse that posters began to appear outside Buckingham Palace announcing that it was to be sold or let "in consequence of the late occupant's declining business". Yet by the time of her funeral in 1901 the streets of London were thronged with affectionate crowds.

The growth of the British Empire and an upsurge of nationalism in the late 19-th century change the monarchy's public standing. In 1877, the Prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli, made the queen Empress of India. Her golden and diamond jubilee (in 1887 and 1897) were turned into fervent patriotic displays.

Walter Bagehot the famous political commentator, remarked at the time that the monarchy was "the most national thing in the nation ... the standard to which the eye; of the people perpetually turn to keep then all together."

A century later, Britain's role in world affairs is much diminished. But the monarch remains head of the Commonwealth as well as of Britain.

Windsor wealth

Estimates of the Queen's wealth range from under £50m to over £7bn, depending on which way her income and assets are calculated. The Queen's personal possessions include her racing stables, her Balmoral and Sandringham homes and her investments. Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace and the Crown jewels are "inalienable" property, that is, they can not be sold but must be passed on to her successor. The Economist reckons that the extent of the Queen's wealth has been exaggerated, because a lot of her money is ploughed back into helping other members of the royal family. But Phillip Hall, who has written a study of royal fortunes which calls for the Queen to be taxed, estimates that the Queen's investments are worth at least £341m, and that she is "without doubt the wealthiest person in Britain".

LANGUAGE PRACTICE AND COMPREHENSION CHECK:

TASK I Explain the meaning of the verb to raise in the following word combinations:

To raise armies, to raise money/funds, to raise a question/ an issue, to raise a chair, to raise one's hat, to raise prices/taxes, to raise a monument, to raise one's voice,
to raise children, to raise a siege/blockade, to raise an embargo, to raise awareness/fears.

 

 

TASK II     Match the verbs with the nouns:

a) to levy                        1) Parliament

b) to declare                   2) prime ministers

c) to dissolve                 3) the monarchy

d) to prevent                  4) the right

e) to restore                   5) the powers

f) to give up                   6) taxes

g) to exercise                 7) wars

h) to appoint                   8) criticism

TASK III    Use the following expressions to describe changes in Britain’s system of government:

• The power has been eroded;

• Separation between the power of the monarch and the power of the state;

• To use one's power;

• The unrestricted powers;

• Power is transferred;

• To limit the powers;

• Sovereign power is vested in;

• The right to absolute power;

• To give greater powers;

• The powers traditionally exercised by the Crown;

• The monarch's remaining constitutional powers;

• Token political power;

 • Dwindling power.

TASK IV    Find the following expressions in the text and use them to begin your own sentences:

a) Britain's system of government...

b) The oldest British institution of government...

c) King Egbert...

d) King George VI...

e) "Constitutional" monarchies...

f) The English Civil War...

g) Oliver Cromwell...

h) The "Glorious Revolution"...

i) The football pools...

j) The problems of the unemployed and homeless...

k) Prime ministers and peers...

l) The extent of the royal wealth and privilege...

TASK V       Use the text to add events to the following dates:

• 1952            

• 1642-1649

• 1660-1685

• 1685-1688

• 1689

• 1913-1914

• 1931                

• 1837         

• 1877           

• 1001

 

TEXT 6 A right royal argument*

Both monarchists and republicans have strong arguments to back up their case for tradition or change in Britain.

ALTHOUGH other countries in Europe — Denmark, Holland and Spain, for example — have monarchies, the lifestyle of continental kings and queens has less pomp and ceremony than their British counter­parts. The Swedish royal family, for example, sends its children to state schools.

However, most of the world's nations exist without a monarchy at all — the majority are republics. These are states in which there is no monarch and the role of a national figurehead is filled by an elected or nominated representative. In the Republic of Ireland, the president is elected by the people for a period of seven years. In Italy, the president is elected by an electoral college made up of two houses of parliament and dele­gates from the different regions.

Some supporters of this form of government, known as "republicans", argue that, apart from being more democratic, it is also cheaper to run. One writer on the finances of British royalty, Phillip Hall, has estimated that the cost to the public of running the royal family is more than five times that of the German presidency.

Modern republicanism dates back to the American (1775-83) and French (1789) revolutions. The idea is strongly associated with the democratic ideals of Thomas Paine (1737-1809), author of The Rights of Man. Although there has been a long republican tradition in this country, it had largely died out by the end of the last century.

Critics of the monarchy say it is out of keeping with modern democratic principles. But in general, the institu­tion of the royal family is accepted in Britain today with only limited criti­cism and has rarely faced serious challenges.

Supporters of the monarchy, known as "monarchists", argue that it has been an important source of stabil­ity and political continuity in Britain. They say that the pageantry associated with the royal family brightens people's lives and — at worst — causes no harm. Its defenders also emphasise that the royal family indirectly gener­ate tourism and trade, so giving the nation "value for money".

The main objection made by repub­licans to the monarchy is not so much financial as political. According to Tony Benn. the Labour MP and former cabinet minister, the monarchy "is actually an elaborate cover for a struc­ture of unaccountable executive power which is absolutely contrary to all the principles of democracy." The Royal Prerogative, he argues, enables prime ministers to go to war, make treaties, appoint peers, bishops and judges "without even pretending to consult Parliament". In 1991, Mr Benn present­ed a Bill to Parliament that advocated the abolition of the monarchy, the first such attempt in Parliament since Cromwell's time.

Supporters of the monarchy argue that a ceremonial head of state is preferable to an elected, and potential­ly dictatorial, politician. However, republicans argue that the hereditary system (by which the monarchy passes down through the royal family) does not guarantee individual merit.

Alternatives to the monarchy include different forms of elected presi­dency. Proposals have also been put forward in Britain (by the Labour party, for example), for an elected sec­ond chamber to replace the House of Lords. Yet few politicians voice anti-monarchist views today, and the main parties broadly support the institution.

Given the strength of royal tradi­tion in Britain it is unlikely that such ideas will be included in any party manifesto in the immediate future. 

 

⇐ Предыдущая17181920212223242526Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: