A job share, not a regency ahead for Britain’s royals
LONDON — Queen Elizabeth will never abdicate, but while the Prince of Wales takes on more duties, there are some that he can never perform, says Vernon Bogdanor.
The concept of retirement is unknown to the British monarchy. In 1947, at her coming of age, Queen Elizabeth declared in South Africa that she would serve her country and the Commonwealth for the whole of her life. At the time of the Silver Jubilee, she declared that, although she had made that promise during her “salad days”, she did not regret it and intended to keep it.
For this reason, there can be no question of the Queen following the example of Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, who recently abdicated in favour of her son. Indeed, the notion of abdication strikes at the heart of the British monarchy. For it implies that monarchy is a vocation that one can choose or abandon at will.
As soon as the monarchy becomes a matter of choice, its usefulness is greatly lessened. For the prime advantage of monarchy is that it makes the position of head of state automatic and unquestioned, so that it cannot be tarnished by the sticky fingers of politicians. Were abdication possible, the prime minister of the day could put pressure on a monarch who asked inconvenient questions to resign.
Last week we have learned that the Prince’s 10-strong communications team, which is responsible for his public image, is to move from Clarence House to Buckingham Palace. For more than 20 years, the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and minor members of the Royal family have had their own communications team in the Palace; now, the merged operation is to be overseen by the Prince’s communications secretary.
But there are some royal functions — the core constitutional functions — that cannot be delegated or shared. Only the Queen can give the Royal Assent to legislation. Only the Queen can appoint a prime minister. Only the Queen can exercise the functions, first identified by Bagehot, of being consulted, advising and warning, at weekly meetings with the prime minister. Some of these functions are mainly symbolic, except in emergency situations, but not all of them are. The Queen still retains a residual discretion which only she can employ.
In addition, the Queen retains the important function of appointing and dismissing governor generals in the 15 other realms of which she is Head of State. It is often forgotten that the Queen is not only Queen of the United Kingdom, but also Queen of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and of various small states in the West Indies and South East Asia.
Indeed, the concept of regency does not apply to the other 15 monarchies. It is for them to make their own arrangements if the sovereign becomes incapable. The Queen in fact plays a vital role in holding the Commonwealth together, and perhaps thought needs to be given as to how this cohesion is best achieved in future years.
The Queen, like so many of her citizens, has become a beneficiary of the great advances in health care during her reign, which enable so many of us to remain active well beyond the normal retirement age. But although she will be 88 in April, the Queen can never, unlike the rest of us, look forward to being relieved of her burden.
The future evolution of our constitutional monarchy, therefore, must make provision for a monarchy that could well become a gerontocracy. This may have beneficial effects in combating the cult of youth and increasing public respect for those of more mature years.
So the Queen, once again, may be setting an example which others could with advantage learn to follow.