Does British Monarchy Have Too Much Power?

Does the British Monarchy have too much power? Eight hundred years on from the sealing of the Magna Carta, and concerns are still prevalent. Despite this document curtailing the crown of many powers, some people oppose the monarch’s intervention in the nation’s affairs, or with their seemingly ludicrous wealth. Many want to see the British crown abolished outright. Yet there remains a quieter group- a silent majority- who back the institution completely. Additionally, some even believe in restoring some of these lost powers to the monarchy. This is perhaps an unconventional view, but is not only one that I can sympathise with, but I even argue is a beneficial idea.

Those who advocate the outright abolition of the monarchy tend to argue for

Surely, with unrestrained power, the monarch would likely rule without accountability and therefore only in their self-interest? However, I don't think this poses a problem. To address accountability, the monarch would still have to answer to the people – after all, who pays their wages? A country in shambles would have the monarch to blame, and they may be faced with dissent. After all, what happened to Marie Antoinette, or even King John himself? Naturally, due to the inheritance system, monarchs have further reason to keep a sustainable system. If you were passing on your house to your children, then you would want it to be in a good state. If you were passing on an entire country, then you would certainly want to ensure that it was in the best condition possible to bequeath to your children. This is the hidden accountability in the inheritance system, forcing the monarch to be loyal to the country in their every action. Politicians, conversely, have no such inherent loyalty to the country. Their successors in powerful cabinet roles may well be from opposition parties, giving them no such incentive to leave them a well-polished easy situation to manage. Indeed, many politicians do create difficult situations for their rivals to have to clear up - from interns removing the 'W' from White House keyboards with the incoming George W Bush to Liam Byrne leaving a note for

Control over foreign affairs, at least. As the monarch is politically neutral, foreign leaders would not be immediately isolated due policy disagreements. As they have no political agenda to advocate, they have a superior negotiating position. Secondly, international negotiations are often lengthy, and involving complex deals that are only made harder by having to seek recurrent parliamentary approval, incentivising rushing deals to ensure they are delivered during a government's term. With a monarch, the change will be less frequent. Monarchs can use this extended time to form close, personal relationships with heads of state around the world, making it far easier to try to get deals with them. Furthermore, this means that deals can be done without a stopwatch, instead of having to be sped through within the lifetime of a parliament. While nothing can stop the intricacy of these arrangements, this would, at least, make it easier to accommodate. The oldest active treaty in the world, cementing an alliance between England and Portugal, was signed by two monarchs – Edward III and Ferdinand I. It has been invoked during times of war times since, and has also made trade easier between the two nations. On the flip side, the current (democratic) Greek and German governments promising incompatible financial deals to their respective electorates shows that democratic leaders can struggle to arrive at an