The power of the crown to harmonise

On the eve of the Queen's golden jubilee celebrations, THES writers examine why European monarchies endure and look at royal dynasties around the world.

Europe's monarchs have survived by ceding political, but not social, influence, writes A. W. Purdue.

Speaking to Parliament at the beginning of the celebrations for her golden jubilee, the Queen spoke of the need for the monarchy to adapt to changes in society. It was, no doubt, her response to persistent critiques of the monarchy as being somehow too grand and not "modern" enough. Yet all European monarchies have changed considerably over the past two centuries and, despite immense social changes and revolutions and wars, eight of the states of western Europe are monarchies. Few countries have abandoned monarchical systems because of the positive appeal of republicanism but several have become republics because of the failures and mistakes of monarchs.

Divided royal houses and incompetent monarchs led to republics in Portugal and Spain in 1910 and 1931. Failure in war and the repercussions of wars have, in particular, proved to be a great threat to thrones: the first world war proved fatal for the monarchical system itself in Germany and Russia and to both the monarchy and the state in Austria-Hungary. After the second world war, the Italian monarchy paid the price for its compromise with Mussolini. That war, however, demonstrated the degree to which kings and queens carried the idea of the nation with them, whether they stayed and suffered with their peoples or, as in Norway and the Netherlands, went into exile. The east European monarchies were steam-rollered out of existence by the Soviet Union, yet, half a century later, ex-king Simeon II has been elected prime minister of Bulgaria, and it is almost certain that, were the present regime to allow it, ex-king Michael would be elected king/president of Romania.

Each surviving monarchy bears the stamp of a specific national history and culture. The major features of adaptation have been: an ever-closer association with the national identity of their subjects; an acceptance of a diminution of political power in the face of the growth of representative democracy; and the capacity to take on the leadership of civil society as well as the symbolic leadership of the state. The degree to which different monarchies have been successful in such adaptation largely explains why some have survived and some have not.

The move towards an association of monarchy and nation was, in some ways, paradoxical. European monarchy was traditionally based on a relationship between rulers and subjects with sovereigns often ruling over a heterogeneous collection of territories and nationalities. The survival of the Austro-Hungarian Empire into the early 20th century was largely due to this older concept of the emperor as being above the national question. Britain was in the vanguard of a new sense of national identity in which a German royal house was an essential ingredient. On a visit to Germany, Queen Victoria remarked how odd it was to hear ordinary people speaking German. It seems clear that she regarded the language as almost peculiar to the extended family that made up European royalty. Even in the high tide of nationalism, new states such as Bulgaria, Romania and Greece found it natural to import their kings from the multiplicity of German dynasties and from Denmark. Those such as Serbia and, later, Albania, which made do with home-grown dynasties, were in the minority. What is surprising is that the transplants took so well. Even so, the first world war pitted relative against royal relative, and for the British monarchy put an end to any emphasis on the cousinhood of European royalty. The House of Windsor was not just a brilliant public relations stroke but was entirely in keeping with the views of George V, who said: "I'll be damned if I'm an alien."

The residual influence of the idea of monarchy as being above nationality, awkwardly combined with the idea of monarchy as representative of the nation and its culture, has resulted in a powerful synthesis: the concept of the monarch as guardian of national tradition, yet above "blood and soil" nationalism. Ex-king Simeon II could, in his address to Bulgarian electors, appeal to the spirit of the nation and to all his countrymen, "regardless of ethnic origin", in a way no ordinary politician could do.

Few monarchies welcomed the loss of political power that was their experience from the mid-19th century on, but those that agreed to it have survived and found their positions strengthened. The concept of the monarch as a neutral figure above the political fray has been influential in post-Franco Spain. In Belgium the monarchy is an important force for unity in a state deeply divided by national and linguistic animosities. The last service the House of Savoy rendered to the Italian people was to provide the one figure, a king, who could dismiss Mussolini.

There are considerable differences in the constitutional positions of the ruling houses of Europe. The king of Sweden is a purely symbolic head of state, while the Belgian, Dutch and Spanish sovereigns have important political roles, such as a crucial duty in the process of government formation when no political group has a clear majority. The decline of the political power of monarchy has been paralleled by an increase in social influence. The British monarchy has been called the "welfare monarchy" with royalty taking on the roles of heads of charitable and public-spirited organisations, while other monarchies have developed their own ways of encouraging civic endeavour and charity.

Monarchs have become the leaders of civil society. They have also taken on the characteristics and tastes of their nations, with the British monarchy more ceremonial and magnificent than its continental counterparts. Northern Europeans cherish a cosier relationship with their sovereigns, though it is a myth that one is likely to meet Scandinavian or Dutch royalty in supermarkets. Such differences have more to do with national characteristics than the institution of monarchy.

Monarchy defies the demands for mechanistic logic and symmetry but the case that these make for effective institutions is a weak one. Monarchy ensures continuity and legitimacy. Those countries that have maintained monarchical systems tend to be those that live in harmony with their pasts, while the experience of Spain suggests that those with traumatic pasts can find divisions healed by monarchical restoration.

A. W. Purdue is senior lecturer in history, Open University, and is preparing a comparative study of monarchy in the 20th century.