UK in transition: A resilient Crown?

The sad demise of Queen Elizabeth II inevitably invites reflections on the institution of monarchy and its prospects under her successor.

Speculation has been going on for some time, but now we have reached a turning point that cannot be ignored. Monarchy as we know it traces its origins to the Germanic tribes that invaded the Roman Empire and set up states that have endured in recognisable forms to the present day. The kings and chiefs of those tribes were often regarded as shamans, even as descendants of gods, who had special spiritual powers that bound the people together. When they became Christian, those rulers had to abandon such pretensions, but the Church filled the void thus created by claiming the right to legitimise monarchs as servants of Christ, endued by Him with the power and authority to govern their people in secular affairs.

The chief symbol of this was the rite of coronation, first practised in England in 973 and continued ever since. It is legally possible for a king to reign without being crowned, but even today most people sense that this is an anomaly. It is the coronation that sets the seal on his right to rule, and the coronation is an intensely Christian ceremony. It is a reminder that the head of state is ultimately subject to the law of God. In constitutional terms, it is not the state that establishes the Church, but the Church that consecrates the king, and through him, the nation that he governs. A king who defies the Church is unlikely to last long. James II tried it during his short reign (1685-8) and was forced to flee the country. Edward VIII tried it in a different way, and had to abdicate. Charles III will not follow their example, but the hesitations that still surround his suitability to be king, following his divorce and remarriage, are a reminder that the issue is never far away.

The relationship between the monarch and the Church of England is set down in law and will not change anytime soon. The king must pay at least lip service to the Church, and Charles III will certainly do that. What is of interest to evangelicals is whether, or to what extent, that service will reflect a true commitment to the Christian faith. Many are sceptical about that, but we must be cautious before passing judgment. There are examples of people who have attained high office and then discovered their need of spiritual support, and the same may well be true of Charles III. He is the most intellectual king we have had since James VI and I, and that has given him a particular interest in religious matters. He has to tread carefully in a country that has become largely de-Christianised and where recognition of minority faiths is increasingly expected, but as Elizabeth II demonstrated, it is possible for someone in his position to be faithful to Christ without unduly alienating those who do not share those convictions. Let us hope and pray that this will be so for him.

The upcoming coronation will be a good indicator of what to expect. There will doubtless be representation from other faith groups at the ceremony, but will its core Christian content be diluted? Some people hope that it will, but here the Church must resist. How successful it will be in that remains to be seen. Beyond that, the character of our new monarch will become clearer over time. Charles III is already well known as a somewhat outspoken Prince of Wales, but can he successfully transition to the office of king, where his freedom of speech will be severely curtailed? He is also male, which has a subtle but somewhat negative impact on his ability to profess his faith openly. Like it or not, people are generally more willing to tolerate religiosity in women than they are in men. George VI was a pious monarch, but it is his wife and daughter who are remembered for their faith more than he is. Charles III is haunted too by the spectre of Princess Diana, however unfairly. He will also have to be firm with his own family, some of whose members have done the office of monarchy little credit. These are the challenges he faces, and we must pray for him as he does so.

Can monarchy be justified in the modern age? This is another question that is now rearing its head, and it will have to be addressed. One important point to remember is that the king and the Crown are separate concepts. Until 1901, officers of the Crown lost their jobs when the sovereign died – this was called the ‘demise of the Crown’ – but that is no longer the case. In the UK, where the monarch is normally resident, this distinction is blurred and is seldom discussed, but the same is not the case for some of the Commonwealth Realms, where the king is inevitably an absentee monarch. Almost nobody in Britain has heard of the Institute for the Study of the Crown in Canada, a think tank that has been set up to discuss this very question. To celebrate Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee the Institute has published A Resilient Crown (Toronto: Dundurn Press) which examines the institution of monarchy independently of the person of the monarch.

It is a fascinating study, equally applicable to the UK and the other Commonwealth Realms, which should be better known than it is. The Crown is identified as the embodiment of the state that survives the death of its wearer and makes demands both of him and of those who serve him. The ‘honour of the Crown’ is a concept that undergirds the administration of justice and the functioning of government generally. Civil servants do not work for the Prime Minister, but for the Crown, whose honour transcends politics and circumstance. It is a benchmark that defines what is expected of everyone who serves in public life. The monarch must, of course, represent this in his own person, but so must everyone else. An official who fails in his duty, or a government that does not dispense justice, is guilty of damaging the Crown’s honour and must be called to account. This principle is worth remembering, particularly when a Prime Minister tries to pack the House of Lords with his cronies, for example.

The UK needs to discuss this sort of thing more than it has done in recent times, paying less attention to the foibles of the king and more to the resilience of the institution that he represents. The Christian underpinnings of this principle may not be obvious to an outside observer, but to those who penetrate beneath the surface they stand out. Evangelicals should rejoice in this and recognise that the Crown is more constant than any of its individual wearers, and that we are fortunate indeed to be the heirs to such a strong and enduring tradition.

Gerald Bray is Distinguished Professor of Historical Theology at Knox Theological Seminary. He is the director of research at the Latimer Trust at Oak Hill Theological College in London.