Reflections on the imperial nature of Britain's monarchy and 'Global Britain'

The most remarkable recent development concerning the British monarchy has been the former Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull's observation that Australia may well become a republic after the death of the present Queen. If New Zealand, Canada and Jamaica were to follow suit, the eventual outcome could be interesting, to say the least, for the prospects of the British monarchy. It also has intriguing implications for the nebulous concept of 'Global Britain', that supposedly vital ingredient of 'soft power' which is assumed will ensure the United Kingdom's centrality in the international system. For thinkers and politicians who propose an 'Anglosphere', founded on similarities in political economy, legal traditions, language and foreign policy orientation, the role of the monarchy is often underplayed, but it surely has a crucial purpose. (For background, see Michael Kenny and Nick Pearce, 'Shadows of Empire: the Anglosphere in British Politics' (2018) ).

The identity of both the English and British monarchies have historically been inextricably connected to overseas possessions. Until the middle of the 15th century, the English monarchy was as much French as English ; until the reign of Edward III (1327-1377) , the official language of the royal court and bureaucracy was Norman French. After the Hundred Years' War, the English monarchy turned its attention to consolidating its power within Britain. Under Henry VIII (1509-1547) the English monarchy concentrated on subjugating Wales and Ireland, and with the accession of James VI and I to the throne of England in 1603, the union of the English and Scottish crowns was accomplished. After the deposition of James II (1685-1688), under William III (1688-1702), the British monarchy was also Dutch. From 1714 to 1837, the King was also Elector of Hanover. The first language of George I (1714-1727) and George II (1727-1760) was German. During Victoria's reign, the monarchy became more self-consciously imperial. The British prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli, made Victoria Empress of India in 1877 ; and, from Victoria's Golden Jubilee in 1887 onwards, elaborate ceremonial, display and protocol (as the historian David Cannadine has documented) became an integral part of the British monarchy's allure. At the same time, similar displays were used by the Viceroy of India to reinforce British imperial power (see David Cannadine, 'Ornamentalism').

Other monarchies (one can think of the Ottomans, the Habsburgs, the Hohenzollerns and the Romanovs) were also imperial. However, their area of their power was territorially contiguous (although the Habsburgs also had possessions in Latin America). The metamorphosis from Empire to Commonwealth allowed the monarchy to recast itself as the sovereign of a multi-racial community. For the present Queen, the Commonwealth has been an intrinsic part of the monarchy's identity. She had a warm working relationship with Harold Wilson because of his enthusiasm for the Commonwealth ; her relationship with Edward Heath was cool because his ideological pro-Europeanism overrode other considerations ; she had difficulties with Margaret Thatcher because of Thatcher's visceral hostility to the Commonwealth. If the connection to the Commonwealth is severed, will it not be the case that a central justification for the monarchy's existence also vanishes ? If this particular rationale is no longer available, what of the role of the British monarchy at home ? The SNP has indicated that the British monarch would be the head of state of Scotland after independence. However, would that still be the case if the monarchy itself diminished in importance ?

Underlying all this renewed controversy is the fact that the popularity of the monarchy, and the marginalisation of republicanism, has, since George III, depended on the personal popularity of the monarch. Over the past two hundred years, with the exceptions of George IV (1820-1830) and Edward VIII (1936) , British monarchs have managed to be popular. Although, as recent revelations in the 'Guardian' have demonstrated, the monarchy has always been assiduous, behind the scenes, in amending legisaltion which has threatened its interests, its public role, since the reign of William IV (1830-1837) has been studiously non-political. The present Prince of Wales has not observed that rule. He has often made a point of engaging in controversial matters, rather than avoiding them.

None of this necessarily means that the monarchy is in mortal danger (although, as a staunch republican of many years' standing, I believe that hereditary institutions are ridiculous). It has survived moments of great danger, such as the abdication of Edward VIII. 'The firm' (as the Royal Family calls themselves) has shown itself to be very durable and adaptable.