Public confidence in the monarchy legitimises the institution. Will the Prince of Wales gain it on ascending to the throne?
In last year’s “democracy rankings” by the Economist Intelligence Unit, four of the top five spots went to countries where the head of state wears a crown. Nobody with a modern democratic outlook would dream of putting a monarchy atop a democracy. In practice they seem to work rather well. The reasoning, perhaps, being that somebody has to possess the final power of decision and thus stamp a democratic regime with their own views. Why not an apolitical sovereign, born to power irrespective of ability and whose opinions are hidden? Only a constitutional monarch, the logic runs, could permit unimpeded public administration.
This is one of the arguments in a lively, republican-leaning essay by Tom Clark in this month’s Prospect magazine. He argues persuasively for shrinking the crown to a continental-sized monarchy. Mr Clark, formerly one of this column’s writers and editors, says that it would be unwise to assume the institution “can – or should – just carry on as it has been after Elizabeth II”. He says that the crown could be sunk by a more divisive monarch. Royalty depends on popularity. YouGov polling in 2020 put Elizabeth II’s approval rating at 69%, way above her son and heir Prince Charles, at just 40%. Only 7% approve of Prince Andrew, who unwisely went on TV and defended his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
