Where Brits love the UK monarchy comes from (and what its critics say)

The love of the majority of the British for their monarch has its own clearer reflection in fion which was created to enter Isabel II’s burning chapel, where thousands of citizens are prepared to spend up to 14 hours in worship to say their final goodbyes to the queen.

In a country without a national holiday, it is royal appointments such as anniversaries or birthdays of the monarch that ultimately occupy this space of exalting British identity, of its idiosyncrasy, of what sets it apart from the rest of the world, say experts consulted by BBC World.

The relationship between the monarchy and the British It culminated with the death of Elizabeth II, where a grieving nation celebrated the life of its queen and, at the same time, its own history.

Where does this majority support come from?

“The British appreciated the fact that they had a different head of state and detached from everyday politics“, constitutionalist Craig Prescott, a professor at the University of Bangor, Wales, told BBC Mundo.

While the House of Commons can become a brutal place, and political confrontation and tension ultimately generate anxiety among citizens, the monarchy – the expert claims – is usually presented as unifying figurewhich represents all British people, regardless of which country they belong to.

“Added to this is the manner in which Elizabeth II has carried out her duties since 1952, her dedication to the service of country and the Commonwealth. She was a very popular monarch, even many republicans agree that he did a great jobPrescott adds.

The reasons for supporting the monarchy are varied, although for some they can be reduced to the old adage “better to know ill than to know.”

Who would replace the monarch – and not so much who currently represents her – generates an uncertainty that not everyone is willing to face. “Many, when they ask themselves who will be president, do not seem to find many good examples in other countries,” argued the constitutionalist.

According to sociologist Laura Clancy, the monarchy has maintained steady support over the years for three main reasons: “First, it has a strong connection to national identity, history and nostalgia. This can be seen for example in how history is taught in the UK, often focusing on monarchs“.

In addition, “the British have developed a strong attachment to certain members of the royal family, mainly the Queen. Finally, the monarchy knew project very well in the media of communication, presenting a certain ideology to the public, such as family values, charity, ideas of service and duty,” Clancy reasoned.

However, the monarchy is not exempt from criticism, despite the fact that the weight of republicanism in the UK has hardly changed in recent decades.

In 1969, 18% of Britons considered themselves republicans. That figure has barely risen by four points to 22% today, according to Ipsos Mori data. Among younger generations, however, it rises to 31% according to “YouGov” data.

For Prescott, “the question is whether these young people will be Republicans when they grow up or whether they will change their minds.”

One of the main arguments against monarchy is that “basically not democratic”argues Graham Smith, president of Republic, perhaps the main pressure group advocating systemic change in the UK.

“The institution is not fit to fulfill its purpose, it is corrupt, misuses public money, etc lobby for their own interests,” says Smith.

Your organization looking for holding a referendumendo in order for the British to choose their system of government, he planned a campaign of protests for the coronation of Charles III, expected to take place the following year.

Another recurring criticism of the monarchical institution is hers price. Calculating real finances is not easy. The sovereign grant, the public budget transferred each year to the royal family to manage their entertainment expenses, topped US$100 million this year.

In return, advocates say, the royal family has become a major tourist attraction for Britain, generating significant revenue.

“Republika” has a different opinion. “The monarchy does not bring money to the country, any estimate of the money they supposedly give is completely misleading. However, this costs us £345 million a year (US$395 million), criticized Graham Smith, whose calculation includes other costs such as security (which are not included in the Sovereign Grant).

For Laura Clancy, who wrote “Running the family business: How the monarchy manages its image and our money” (Managing the family business: how the monarchy manages its image and our money), “the institution anchors a system of inequality and servility“.

The imperial and colonial past of the Crown is also under fire, something Craig Prescott says “the new King and Prince of Wales will have to deal with”.

The scandals in recent decades, including that of Prince Andrew on trial for sexual assault, or the estrangement of Prince Harry and his wife Meghan from the royal family, “have done great damage to the monarchy and generated much more debate about why the monarchy,” Graham Smith said.

Despite the criticism, six out of ten Britons want the UK to remain a monarchy. A figure that has declined over the past decade, but is still significant.

What makes the British have such an attachment to a system contrary to meritocratic principles and modern liberal democracy?

One of the thinkers who tried to explain this British idiosyncrasy was the Victorian essayist and journalist Walter Bagehotone of the first directors of “Economist”.

in “the english constitution‘, published in 1867 and which has become one of the canonical references for understanding the British political system, distinguishes between the effective element of the constitution – the government – and the solemn or ‘dignified’ element of it embodied by the monarchy.

Monarchy, Bagehot admitted, was not rational. But “the mystical reverence, the religious fidelity, which are essential to every true monarchy, are imaginary sentiments which no legislator can fabricate in a people,” he wrote. As the empire declines, he argues, “people have a respect for what we can call community theater show. The culmination of this work is the Queen”, at that time Victoria.

These rituals and ceremonieslike the opening of parliament, the proclamation, the coronation – after all, the theater of which Bagehot speaks – “provides continuity”.

“The participants change, but the ceremonies remain the same. Elizabeth II has had all sorts of governments, Conservative, Labor or Coalition. But for all intents and purposes the ceremonies remain the same, so the changes don’t seem radical. In a sense, the more things stay the same, the more they can changePrescott claims.

The Monarch, explains Andrew Marr in “The Diamond Queen“(Queen of the Diamond), represents continuity: “A constitutional monarchy is designed to represent the interests of the people before they elect that government and after it is changed. Remember. Look to the future, beyond the next election.”

The fact that in the 21st century a democratic country naturally assumes that the credentials of its new head of state are based on his birth certificate may defy logic. but here “logic is not the most important factor”says the BBC’s Mark Easton.

“We are happy to accept eccentricity and extravagance because they reflect an important part of our national character. So in trying to explain the unlikely success of the monarchy, we shouldn’t expect the answer to be based on reason,” Easton explains.

“The British monarchy is valued for being the British monarchy. We are an ancient and complex society that respects the theatrical spectacle of society.’

Don’t forget you can get notifications from BBC News Mundo. Download the new version of our app and activate it so you don’t miss our best content.