Tea at Trianon: Meanwhile, in the UK...

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Thursday, June 15, 2023

Meanwhile, in the UK...

From J.K. Baltzersen at Enter Stage Right:

In the reign of the present King's great-great-great grandmother, Queen Victoria, Editor-in-Chief of The Economist Walter Bagehot wrote The English Constitution, in which he put out the rights of a "constitutional monarch," narrowly defining constitutional monarchy. The rights are: the right to encourage, the right to warn, and the right to be consulted. It is indeed a form of constitutional monarchy, but it is a narrow definition and describes a subclass of constitutional monarchy, denying the term to other constitutionally limited monarchies of the past, and even the European principalities of this present age. Queen Victoria is often described as the first British constitutional monarch, but that too is according to a narrow definition.
In extension of the Bagehot rights are the reserve powers, the available option for a monarch to pull the emergency brake, indicating a less narrow definition of constitutional monarchy, but narrow still.
One would wonder whether the modern monarchs ever could pull that emergency brake, considering a top priority is to stay out of political controversy. The King of Italy pulled it first after more than 20 years with Mussolini as his Prime Minister.
These monarchies are technically a form of constitutional monarchy. It would, however, be more precise to call them ceremonial or symbolic monarchies (sometimes called crowned republics), especially for the case of Sweden, where the monarch has been completely removed from the decision-making process. The closest the King of Sweden comes to that process is the formal opening of Parliament and signing of ambassadorial credentials. Yet, no politician occupies the highest post, as it is reserved for the monarch, who behind the scenes may challenge them, and to whom they may confess.
Certainly, in modern-day constitutional monarchy, the monarchy can serve as a nice wrapping around the dirty work of politics.
The limits those especially limited monarchs put on power are admittedly far from sufficient to secure liberty. However, the likelihood of what would come in the place of those monarchies, being better is low. Yet often, republicans want minimal changes beyond having the monarchy removed. That would limit the potential harm but also the potential gain.
In some cases, republicans argue that removing the monarchy is needed to make way for checks and balances. How realistic it is that the political system will put effective limits on itself, that is another story.
The premier example of checks and balances in our age is arguably the United States. While the American union to some extent does have such checks and balances and limits on politics and government, it le aves much to be desired.
Yet, modern monarchies to a large extent separate national loyalty and unity from politics, which may provide much needed stability. While stability varies amongst republics, replacing a cultural institution in a country with a deep-rooted tradition over centuries is gambling with stability, and could be a perilous experiment.
As Edmund Burke told us, constitutions are grown, not made. (Read more.)