Dear Editor,

As we are moving toward the next millennium, more and more people are beginning to ask themselves why the United Kingdom is still a constitutional monarchy, instead of a republic. I am one of them. Of, course, if the British nation is ever to become a republic, the name "United Kingdom" would have to be replaced, because by definition, an UK would need a King or a Queen to reign over it. But I think the main issue here is whether or not we want such a powerful and modernized nation to be a monarchy.

The United Kingdom is a nation where, according to polls, no more than 50 percent of the population support the monarchy. If this information is correct, the nation is evenly divided on the question of the monarchy, but I assume that far from everyone feels strongly one way or the other. But does this mean that people are indifferent to which system of government their country has? Well, it would certainly be best if a majority of the population supported one system of government. Since that is not the case, we will have to find other reasons to explain why many of us would like to see a change soon.

First, a couple of definitions: The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. A monarch is a hereditary ruler; a constitutional monarchy is a state headed by a monarch who rules according to the constitution. In a constitutional monarchy, the sovereign reigns (formally), but does not "rule", i.e. he/she does not have much power. One can ask oneself what the sovereign (in the UK presently Queen Elisabeth II) is good for, considering that the real power in the United Kingdom resides with the Parliament. According to the (unwritten) constitution of the United Kingdom, the Queen’s government gives her advice – which she cannot ignore. That means that, in practice, it is the ministers who make almost all the decisions, and that the parliament is supreme. In fact, the last time a monarch used a veto to stop a proposal from the legislation was Queen Anne, in 1707. This means, in my opinion, that if the monarch tries to block the legislation sometime in the future, the monarchy will be as good as dead. But the monarch also has powers to decide when to dissolve parliament, and who should be appointed Prime minister. In practice, these powers will only be used if the election results are so even that no party has the overall majority. Then the monarch would have to decide by herself, because she would have no ministers to ask for advice. But since this is not very likely to happen either, all the monarch is good for, is that she is a symbol of a united nation, in addition to being the "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" and the "Head of the Commonwealth". But these are also mainly just symbolic titles, and I think it is an awful waste of money to keep having a monarch – which really is nothing but a symbolic title. This is a good reason to discuss the usefulness of the monarchy in the British system – a system in which the head of state is a person who was born into nobility, without having to earn privilege and prestige.

Like I mentioned earlier, an UK would need a monarch to reign the nation. But for how long will we have an UK? I mean, we have seen a development during the past few years, which might lead towards a disruption of the union. Scotland and Wales have voted for their own elected assembly, and Northern Ireland’s place within the Kingdom is uncertain. We can see a similar development in Australia and Canada. On the other hand, we have "never" seen a nation more united than the time after Princess Diana died in a car accident in Paris in august 1997. But Diana was different from the rest of the royal family. She kept her understanding and her humanity, despite an enormous pressure from the media. She got herself involved in controversial issues like fighting land mines, fighting AIDS, and "supporting" the homosexual. She was what many would call "alive", as an opposite to the other members of the royal family. This means that personality and keeping in touch with the people is more important than the pompousness and formality that is a tradition among monarchs. Today, for most people, personality is much more important than heritage. I think this is much of what the British royal family lacks. I think the Norwegian royal family (which is the one I’m most familiar with) is more in touch with the people than the British. I’m not a defender of the Norwegian monarchy either, but I think that the British monarchy has something to learn from the Norwegian. We have, however, seen moves in the right direction since the death of Diana; we have seen a more informal Queen who is not so bound by protocol all the time. The Queen is now 71 years old, and Prince Charles is ready to take over the throne. I will not be surprised, that if the British monarchy still exists after Charles leaves the throne, his and Diana’s son (future King?) William will be more informal and more outspoken than his predecessors, and thereby strengthening the monarchy in the UK.

In the future, I think authority has to earn its respect. A nation, even "conservative" Britain, is defined not only by the traditions of our parents and grandparents, but also by the actions of the nation’s citizens. Because tradition is still very important in the UK (despite the multicultural society we see today), I don’t think Britain will become a republic very soon. But if you ask my opinion, the "Head of the Commonwealth" does not have to be the richest woman in the world. A woman who have inherited all of her wealth, and whose life is "stuck in the past". I do not have anything personal against Queen Elisabeth, but I think an elected president would be a better leader. A monarchy is just an institution that clings to the idea of a society made out of classes. The royal family has little in common with the rest of the population, and has hardly contributed to form the modern society in which the British people live in. I will not miss such an institution, I think, and I think that if they don’t get rid of much of their traditionally strict protocol, the royal family will lose a lot more of the confidence and respect of the people than they have already done.

Yours truly,

John H. Embretsen