Today, Britain’s government structure is best described as a “constitutional monarchy” which definitely sounds like an oxymoron. That means Britain actually has two separate top designations: the head of state (the queen) and the head of government (the prime minister.) The history of this goes back to a 13th-century deal called the Magna Carta between King John of England and a group of rebellious nobles who, through mediation by the Archbishop of Canterbury a.k.a the English Church Boss, forced the unpopular king to sign the agreement protecting the barons’ rights.
On its own, the Magna Carta isn’t considered particularly important today (since it failed and faded to obscurity for many generations). But the document is significant in terms of laying the foundation for England’s evolution from an absolute monarchy into a country with a ruling institution outside of the Crown. Although the Magna Carta was primarily meant to protect the interests of land-owning nobles — in other words, only England’s elite — it gave a foundation for the political idea that, actually, the King or Queen should not have so-called God-given and unlimited rights over other people.
So, how did the British go from having a king to a parliament? In Medieval times, a “parliament” was an annual gathering between the king and rich nobles to discuss England’s affairs. The parliament of 1265 — 50 years after the Magna Carta — was the first time “ordinary” people were allowed to join the elite gathering as elected representatives of municipalities across England. This elected body of representatives is known today as the House of Commons — literally, the house of commoners (historian A.F. Pollard argued the name was more a reference to the act of “communing” rather than a reference to members’ social class, but… let’s be real here.)
The House of Lords and the House of Commons make up the U.K. Parliament which is basically the branch of government that makes all the laws, not unlike the House of Representatives and the Senate of the U.S. Congress — except with a big difference. Members or “peers” of the House of Lords aren’t elected by voters; they’re either political appointments by a party or by the English Church, or inherit “peerage” from their family’s nobility. Oh, and “peers” can inherit or be appointed for life. U.K. news outfit Channel 4 has a cheeky explainer video on all this if you’re curious about it.
The fact that the British monarchy exists today makes more sense when you know Britain still has a legislative body full of unelected dukes, barons, and other noble descendants. Clearly, even after centuries, Britain is still struggling to shed remnants of its feudalism, and the Royal Family’s continued existence is a part of that.
But the Royal Family’s existence in 2021 is made even more remarkable given today’s politics. Just look at what’s happening in the world right now from Russia to Myanmar: people are no longer tolerating unchecked authority. So how the hell has the world’s utmost symbol of absolute power — the British monarchy — survived?
Simply put, the Royal Family’s continued existence may come from a mix of Britain’s historical reality and the politics by which Buckingham Palace has curated the Royals’ relationship with the public. As Britain modernized into a supposedly democratic country, the Royals were kept but with the obvious caveat of giving up influence over government matters. It was a trade-off the Queen’s ancestors happily obliged so long as the Royals could continue to exist.
It is strange, though, to see a western democracy like the U.K. still have a Queen — Patrick Freyne at the Irish Times likened it to having neighbors who are super into clowns that also murdered your ancestors. Critics of the Monarchy reasonably argue that the Royals are a waste of taxpayers’ pounds and that they’re not useful for much outside of pageantry. But the common belief that the Queen has no real power, that her status is purely symbolic, isn’t entirely true.
Parliament is responsible for creating and passing laws but bills still need to be formally signed under the Queen’s name to make them official. Technically, the Queen is also allowed to turn down bills she dislikes and has a special privilege called the Queen’s Consent in which she and her legal advisors are given a heads up on draft bills that would “affect the interests of the Crown” before they go to the legislature.
The archaic Queen’s Consent law was largely ignored until last month when the Guardian published an investigative report that found Queen Elizabeth II had been using it to influence draft bills regarding transparency laws that would’ve forced her to disclose her personal assets, estimated to total $500 million (the Royals as an entity are estimated to be worth $28 billion.)
If the Queen has been meddling in government affairs (which she’s not supposed to do) then it begs the question of whether the Monarchy should still exist. Make no mistake, if the public ever decided they no longer fancied the Royal Family, the Crown could be abolished. It’s why the Royals are so protective of their image — the tradition of patronage to charities and their transactional relationship with the British tabloids are critical to the Crown’s survival.
It’s also partly why the Crown likes to antagonize strong-willed progressive outsiders who are popular with the public, like Meghan and Diana, who were viewed as “changing” the institution. By comparison, the Duchess of Cambridge/Prince William’s wife, Kate Middleton, who was once a charismatic outsider but has fallen in lockstep with the Royals, has been spared the hostility by her in-laws.
But even with the bad PR in recent years, like Prince Andrew’s arms deals and shady ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and the Grade A racist behavior exposed in Meghan and Harry’s interview, royalists still argue that the Crown is Good. For one, they argue the Royals bring in a ton of money through tourism because foreigners want to see them, which I guess is true. But I don’t see that changing much without living monarchs. Tourists still flock to Versailles even though France has no king.
A lot of Brits also regard the Royal Family as a proud part of their heritage even if that heritage is full of genocide and imperialism; kind of like how a lot of Americans are still proud of the racist Confederacy. Guardian columnist Suzanne Moore wrote about growing up with working-class “monarchist” grandparents who simply adored the Royals, a sentiment still shared by many Brits today.
Personally, I think the biggest factor to the Monarchy’s survival is no doubt Queen Elizabeth II’s enduring popularity. The Queen’s passing someday could potentially rock public opinion in the future, especially since her heir, Prince Charles, is notoriously disliked.
Until then, it looks like the British Royals are still safe from public ire and shall continue to exist as they have for centuries.
It’s been less than two weeks since Inauguration Day and President Joe Biden’s full Cabinet is nearly complete with 17 out of the 23 positions confirmed so far. But even without the remaining six Cabinet seats filled, political observers are taking note that the new administration is already in shape to be the most diverse Cabinet in the country’s history, though there’s admittedly a low bar there to overcome.
A few notable confirmations so far:
✔️ Cecilia Rouse — Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors
Rouse is the first Black woman to head the CEA which is the president’s top economic advisor.
✔️ Deb Haaland — Interior Secretary
Congresswoman Haaland is now the first Native American to hold a Cabinet Secretary position in U.S. history.
✔️ Pete Buttigieg — Transportation Secretary
Despite reasonable concerns over the Indiana mayor’s lack of experience in the transit field, Mayor Pete has become the first openly-gay Cabinet Secretary in U.S. history.
✔️ Miguel Cardona — Education Secretary
Having served his entire career in the public education sector in Connecticut, Cardona’s appointment has fulfilled Biden’s promise for an Education Secretary chosen from the public education system.
✔️ Michael S. Regan — Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
Regan, who is African American, has spent his career doing environmental protection work in government and non-profit positions and is well-liked by both conservatives and liberals. He has his work cut out for him as the new head of the EPA.
Check out the full Cabinet roster and who made the cut (or didn’t) through USA Today’s interactive report here.
✨✨✨
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
🔥 New York City’s mayoral candidates are getting millions in their war chests thanks to the city’s incredibly generous matching funds program which matches candidates’ campaign contributions based on certain requirements. | Gotham Gazette
🔥 It might be Joe Biden World but his federal agencies seem to be full of top-notch policymakers who’ve served under famously-wonky ex-presidential contender U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren. | Mother Jones
🔥 The hollow meme-fication of Breonna Taylor’s death. | The Cut
🔥 After a London police officer was charged in the kidnap and killing of 33-year-old Sarah Everard, the public pushed back on the government’s lame decision to dispatch undercover cops to “protect” women in response to Everard’s murder at the hands of a cop. | BBC
🔥 A video report on the devastating aftermath of the lasting war in Syria, 10 years on. | Al Jazeera
🔥 “Why don't men have the right to be fragile?” asks a gender equality campaign video that was launched on International Women’s Day and took Chinese social media by storm. | CNN
✨✨✨
If you want more, check out past issues of The P Word, like issue #7 where I rank America’s dead presidents or issue #4 where I lay out why few of the insurrections that stormed the Capitol have faced consequences.
Thanks for keeping up with The P Word! Have random thoughts that you’d like to share? Reply to the email or leave comments on the original Substack post. You can also hit me up on the bird app.
Keep that pinky up,
Natasha