By Andrew Hammond
With Queen Elizabeth II turning 95 this week, the passing of her husband Prince Philip, whose funeral was Saturday, has highlighted the uncertain future of the U.K. monarchy, and indeed wider United Kingdom, in the post-Elizabethan age to come.
For more than seven decades, Elizabeth and Philip have represented remarkable figures of stability and reassurance for many U.K. and international publics. When she assumed the throne in the 1950s, Winston Churchill was U.K. prime minister, Joseph Stalin was leader of the Soviet Union, Harry Truman was U.S. president, and Mao Zedong was the Chinese Communist leader.
Then the world's population was only around 2.6 billion people; the Korean War was still underway; the People's Republic of China (PRC) was only two years old; and the U.K. was just about to join the United States and Soviet Union as a nuclear weapons power.
Today, the world is vastly different, and the U.K. has transitioned to "middle power" status. Much of the nation's former empire is now part of the 54-member, 2.4 billion population, Commonwealth which the Queen and Philip have done much to champion.
Amidst the high esteem that she, Philip, and some other members of the royal family are now held, what is sometimes forgotten is that they have enjoyed bouts of significantly lower popularity. The 1990s were particularly troubled in this respect, with 1992 becoming the Queen's self-described "annus horribilis" when the marriages of three of her children, including her heir Charles, disintegrated, and Windsor Castle was nearly destroyed by fire.
Yet, the public response to Philip's sad passing underlines that, by and large, some three decades on from those high-profile problems, the royal family has largely recovered from the troubles of her reign. Less than a quarter of the U.K. population wants a republic with many believing that it is better to have a non-divisive, non-political head of state.
Whether the royal family can continue to enjoy this popularity is uncertain, however, and this has implications not just for the institution's future, but also potentially for that of the U.K. For it is not just the monarchy, but also the continued union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which could suffer from a potentially significantly less popular future U.K. head of state.
Already, despite the unifying force that the monarch exerts, the U.K. is increasingly divided on geographic lines, including growing post-Brexit pressure for a second Scottish independence referendum. While the Queen hopefully still has years of life ahead of her, and appears unlikely to abdicate before she dies, there are already concerns held by royalists and unionists about what the post-Elizabeth II era may hold.
The next in line to the throne, Charles, is of an age (72) when many people are retired, and the longest-waiting and oldest heir to the throne in U.K. history. Moreover, his own popularity is neither as high as his mother's, nor that of his son Prince William.
Indeed, it is the Queen, Philip, William and Prince Harry who have helped power the ruling clan's popularity ratings in recent years. Aside from the Queen and Philip, polls tend to show that William is regarded as having made the strongest contribution to the royal family, followed by his wife Kate, and Harry (although the popularity of Harry with the U.K. public may now be chequered by his rift with his family).
While the Queen is widely perceived as a force for stability, the role of the U.K. monarch has actually changed significantly during her reign. Amongst key reforms she has helped oversee include ending the rule of male primogeniture on the throne which means girls now born to members of the royal family have equal rights with boys in the succession to the throne; and ending the prohibition on her successors marrying a Catholic.
Another change concerns the monarch's finances which are now more transparent with the Queen paying income and capital gains tax, and her official residences opened to the public to help pay for their upkeep. Moreover, as of 2013, she no longer receives a fixed amount of money through the Civil List (as had her predecessors for some 250 years), and instead receives a portion of revenue from the Crown Estate property portfolio.
This trick of being a reformer, while being seen as a force for continuity and stability, is one that Charles would do well to learn as the royal family continues to evolve to meet the changing contours of the twenty-first century. For while U.K. support for the monarchy is currently high, significant uncertainties remain about the post-Elizabeth II period, and the skill and popularity Charles demonstrates as her successor will therefore potentially have key implications not just for the institution he will head, but also the wider U.K. union.
Andrew Hammond is an associate at LSE IDEAS at the London School of Economics
 |
With Queen Elizabeth II turning 95 this week, the passing of her husband Prince Philip, whose funeral was Saturday, has highlighted the uncertain future of the U.K. monarchy, and indeed wider United Kingdom, in the post-Elizabethan age to come.
For more than seven decades, Elizabeth and Philip have represented remarkable figures of stability and reassurance for many U.K. and international publics. When she assumed the throne in the 1950s, Winston Churchill was U.K. prime minister, Joseph Stalin was leader of the Soviet Union, Harry Truman was U.S. president, and Mao Zedong was the Chinese Communist leader.
Then the world's population was only around 2.6 billion people; the Korean War was still underway; the People's Republic of China (PRC) was only two years old; and the U.K. was just about to join the United States and Soviet Union as a nuclear weapons power.
Today, the world is vastly different, and the U.K. has transitioned to "middle power" status. Much of the nation's former empire is now part of the 54-member, 2.4 billion population, Commonwealth which the Queen and Philip have done much to champion.
Amidst the high esteem that she, Philip, and some other members of the royal family are now held, what is sometimes forgotten is that they have enjoyed bouts of significantly lower popularity. The 1990s were particularly troubled in this respect, with 1992 becoming the Queen's self-described "annus horribilis" when the marriages of three of her children, including her heir Charles, disintegrated, and Windsor Castle was nearly destroyed by fire.
Yet, the public response to Philip's sad passing underlines that, by and large, some three decades on from those high-profile problems, the royal family has largely recovered from the troubles of her reign. Less than a quarter of the U.K. population wants a republic with many believing that it is better to have a non-divisive, non-political head of state.
Whether the royal family can continue to enjoy this popularity is uncertain, however, and this has implications not just for the institution's future, but also potentially for that of the U.K. For it is not just the monarchy, but also the continued union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which could suffer from a potentially significantly less popular future U.K. head of state.
Already, despite the unifying force that the monarch exerts, the U.K. is increasingly divided on geographic lines, including growing post-Brexit pressure for a second Scottish independence referendum. While the Queen hopefully still has years of life ahead of her, and appears unlikely to abdicate before she dies, there are already concerns held by royalists and unionists about what the post-Elizabeth II era may hold.
The next in line to the throne, Charles, is of an age (72) when many people are retired, and the longest-waiting and oldest heir to the throne in U.K. history. Moreover, his own popularity is neither as high as his mother's, nor that of his son Prince William.
Indeed, it is the Queen, Philip, William and Prince Harry who have helped power the ruling clan's popularity ratings in recent years. Aside from the Queen and Philip, polls tend to show that William is regarded as having made the strongest contribution to the royal family, followed by his wife Kate, and Harry (although the popularity of Harry with the U.K. public may now be chequered by his rift with his family).
While the Queen is widely perceived as a force for stability, the role of the U.K. monarch has actually changed significantly during her reign. Amongst key reforms she has helped oversee include ending the rule of male primogeniture on the throne which means girls now born to members of the royal family have equal rights with boys in the succession to the throne; and ending the prohibition on her successors marrying a Catholic.
Another change concerns the monarch's finances which are now more transparent with the Queen paying income and capital gains tax, and her official residences opened to the public to help pay for their upkeep. Moreover, as of 2013, she no longer receives a fixed amount of money through the Civil List (as had her predecessors for some 250 years), and instead receives a portion of revenue from the Crown Estate property portfolio.
This trick of being a reformer, while being seen as a force for continuity and stability, is one that Charles would do well to learn as the royal family continues to evolve to meet the changing contours of the twenty-first century. For while U.K. support for the monarchy is currently high, significant uncertainties remain about the post-Elizabeth II period, and the skill and popularity Charles demonstrates as her successor will therefore potentially have key implications not just for the institution he will head, but also the wider U.K. union.
Andrew Hammond is an associate at LSE IDEAS at the London School of Economics
