Violence and Power of the Modern British Monarch

Introduction The British monarchy is one of the oldest institutions of power; its roots go back to 829 — to the time of King Egbert. It is older than the British Parliament, and only the institution of the papacy can compare with it in antique, even archaic nature, the level of ceremonial, and the importance of tradition (Polyakova 47). The monarchy of the United Kingdom in the twenty-first century is called parliamentary — the Parliament has a dominant position, the monarch acts as a guarantor of the stability of the internal political system of the state; he or she "reigns but does not rule" ("A Constitutional Monarchy"). Some researchers consider the existence of the monarchy to this day even in this form a paradox — an ancient hereditary institution as a central part of democracy (Hazell and Morris 5) — and explore the "secrets" of its success and longevity. There is also an opinion that to perceive the monarchy in Britain as an anachronism means to consciously ignore its inherent power and influence (Clancy 1–2). Nevertheless, it is difficult not to agree that the British monarchy is one of the most popular and successful in its survivability and adaptability to existence in a democratic state. It is because of this, as well as the long history of the institution, that this article examines the modern British monarchy in the coverage of the last few decades of the reign of Elizabeth II. We can conclude that the monarch is not a figure that, as it seems at first sight, can come under influence, under power. That said, the monarch by birthright (and is it truly the right, not the burden?) obeys the protocol and commits to "serve" the people — "to reign but not to rule". Is violence possible against the monarch, the figure in charge of seemingly everything? The King’s Two Bodies The monarch can be understood directly as a mere mortal who has taken on political responsibilities by birthright and is forced to devote his or her entire life to the service of the people and the state. One conceptualisation of the monarch is the theory about the King’s two bodies. It defines the monarch as a mortal man or woman, and as a sacred political body, possessing the ability to rule because of his or her special status (Kantorowicz 378). In simple terms, the mortal body of the monarch is that of the ordinary man or woman who is born and takes the oath. The second body is political, in modernity more symbolic. It is an artificial entity, which cannot die. Demonstrative rituals are held to confirm its significance (Kantorowicz 83). The monarchy as a corporation was viewed by Kantorowicz from a legal perspective, but let us turn to more contemporary sources extrapolating this vision to all areas in which The Crown exists. Laura Clancy sees the monarchy as a corporation, a firm that is "oriented and historically rooted in processes of capital accumulation, profit-making and other forms of exploitation" (Clancy 15). The monarchy and the monarch here operate on the mechanisms of survival of firms in the market, which have to watch over their "face", reputation, image. Within the framework of my further discussion of the power of the people over the monarch, this aspect will be very important. Returning to the symbolic and sacred, Walter Bagehot viewed the monarchy as a religion. Even now the monarch is the head of the church. Bagehot's concept develops in two directions — the monarch as the head of the Church of England, its protector and guarantor, on the one hand; religion as "faith in something" and in this case "faith in politics", on the other hand (Polyakova 63). Despite the fact that all British politics is carried out without the monarch's intervention, it is carried out in the monarch's name. Therefore, the monarch would in any case have to be held responsible for certain governmental actions. This allows people to have faith in their queen or king. In addition, just as people are subject to God, they have an obligation to obey their monarch (Polyakova 63). From Bagehot's theory, we can move on to the people, the citizens. Is the phrase "faith in politics" all too familiar to us? "Civil religion can be understood as a mythological/historical definition of the state" (Reeh 79). The identity of British citizens is shaped by political and cultural events, rituals, monarchical ceremonies — coronations, weddings, and funerals play a major role in this. In terms of the structure of a parliamentary monarchy, citizens have no opportunity to influence the monarch — indeed, it seems unnecessary, since the monarch does not make significant political decisions. Nevertheless, going back to the definition of the monarch as "the head of the firm", we can note the dependence of the "success of the enterprise" on the opinion of the citizens. The monarchy is a social construct and is supported by people who recognise its importance (Hazell and Morris 101). Tradition, ceremonial, protocol (almost religious) will be understood by us as an institution, referring to Durkheim, whose collective rituals help to generate and maintain social solidarity (Gofman 60). They permeate the monarchy and the daily life of the monarch, making significant adjustments to the way he or she is obliged to behave even in the presence of a minimal number of people (Smith 389). Figure 1: A supporting conceptual framework. Traditions and the Public Now, forming a scheme (fig. 1) from the concepts described above, where the supremacy of one subject over another was mentioned, one can conclude that tradition imposes certain restrictions on the mortal body of the monarch, requiring total subordination from him or her. On the contrary, the sacral entity in this case is supported by traditions and rituals. The involvement of people in these traditions and rituals legitimises the monarch as an unattainable, symbolic, and religious figure who maintains stability and is responsible for what happens within the country. In the early days of television and the tabloids, the mystique and precisely the "inaccessibility" of the monarchy was particularly acute. On the one hand, if the "myth" melted away, citizens would not understand the reasons for the existence of a clearly privileged family. On the other, strong distancing also proved impossible in a democracy where "the people" wanted to know how and on what the symbols of their civil religion lived (Irving 53). The pressure of public opinion was felt more keenly than ever. Public pressure on democratic institutions (the modern parliamentary monarchy and the monarch as part of it can be related to them at a stretch) has changed and intensified in the era of digitalisation, and anyone can now become involved (Delaney 20). This is mainly carried out through lobby groups and the media, which correlates with the crisis of the Crown during the tabloid era described earlier. Delaney writes that the pressure of public opinion on democratic institutions, if one does not know how to assess and work with it, can evolve into violence (27). Finally, we get to the idea of violence. Let us turn to Žižek's theory of systemic violence — "the often catastrophic consequences of the quiet operation of our economic and political systems". The essence of systemic violence is the "destructive, repressive organisation of social space" (Žižek 6). Can we call social discontent, in the form in which it is expressed in relation to the monarchy, systemic violence? The exercise of systemic violence, Žižek writes, "cannot be attributed to specific individuals and their 'evil' intentions" (15) — and indeed, so far we cannot say who exactly, and with what malice, expresses discontent and exerts pressure on the monarch. Žižek's theory, and the application of subsequent theories to analysis rather than conceptualisation, will be examined in the case of the reaction to the death of Princess Diana. The lack of response from the Crown and the Queen in particular to the death of Diana Windsor-Spencer provoked a strong public reaction — the tabloids wrote "Show us you care", "Talk to us ma'am", "Where is our Queen? Where's her flag?" (Addley), citizens on duty outside Buckingham Palace told reporters that they thought the Queen's silence was wrong, and the monarchy's ratings plummeted instantly (Irving 287). Note that it seems that the public demanded a breach of protocol from the Queen's symbolic body and an expression of reaction from her mortal body, to put it in Kantorowicz’s terms. They were waiting for a "human reaction", for sympathy. In the end, under pressure from the public, advisers, Prime Minister Tony Blair and his press office, Elizabeth II, albeit belatedly, complied with the will of the people. On the one hand, we can call the natural mechanism of citizen pressure in a democracy systemic violence, according to Žižek. On the other hand, the monarchy occupies a special position in British democracy, and this case is considered exceptional in its history. Can we discern here a subjective violence beyond the systemic? Weber understood power as "any possibility, whatever it is based on, to exercise one's own will in a given social relation even against opposition" (53). His concept of power is suitable for analysing the interaction between institutions and the individual (Warren 19). One can see an "imposition of the will" of the people on the monarch in our case — the people have a certain power over the queen. Does it constitute violence here? In "Power: A Conceptual Analysis", Ledyaev provides many definitions. It seems to me that coercion fits our situation. "Coercion as a form of power takes place in the case of a clear mismatch of interests between the subject and the object. The source of obedience is the threat of negative sanctions if one refuses to obey a command" (191). Negative sanctions are the decline in the popularity of the monarch, and the threat of the monarchy’s destruction, because, as we remember, the monarchy is supported by the people's faith in its importance. At the same time, Ledyaev notes that a moral assessment associates coercion with violence (193). Thus, the question of whether citizens were violent towards the monarch in the case of Princess Diana's death becomes a moral question and is therefore subject to different responses. Protocol or tradition as a limitation of the monarch's behaviour has been mentioned in this case study, but we will consider its impact on the sovereign in a more generalised sense. On the one hand, devoting one's entire life to the service of the state can be seen as a sacrifice (Smith 43), which would be logical in the paradigm of monarchy as religion. The brutality of this sacrifice stands out especially against the background of the monarch's lack of power as he or she had it in an absolute monarchy. At the same time, contemporary critics of the monarchical system in Britain call for the royal family to stop being seen as birds in a golden cage, perhaps rightly arguing that members of the royal family gain more than they lose (Lewis). Recall also that they have the right to abdicate and step aside (although, not without consequences), as Edward VIII or Harry and Meghan did. It seems to me that restrictions, sometimes painful, resulting in health problems (George VI) or a damaged relationship with a son (Elizabeth II), related to royal duties, can be called the destructive influence of the institution of monarchical tradition, evidence for Žižek’s systemic violence. The Power of the Sovereign and Its Roots In the case of Princess Diana's death, in addition to the influence of the tabloids and people, which in this case are difficult to separate, there is another media-related aspect — the way the situation has affected the image of the monarch and the monarchy. There was a clear contradiction between the image created by the institution of tradition — the immortal body of the king or queen — and the image people wanted to see (probably something close to his or her mortal body). Maintaining the reputation of the monarch turns out to be critical if we go back to Weber and look at the power of the modern British monarch through the lens of his theory. The traditional type of political power, that is, the power of "mores and customs sanctified by an unimaginably ancient recognition and a habitual attitude to conformity" (Alexander 4), inherent in an absolute monarch, seems no longer available to the constitutional monarch. Indeed, at the legislative level the monarch’s power has been almost completely suppressed. At the same time, their power is legitimised through their charisma. Faith in the extraordinary personal gift can be present in a parliamentary monarchy. Political image is a mechanism consisting of qualities, traits, attributes, and attitudes presented to voters (in our case, citizens; Nimmo 34). The image of the monarch, the queen, is closely linked to the image of the political institution of the monarchy in Britain (Ter-Minasova 6). The reaction to Princess Diana's death did damage the Queen's image, and the speech that followed a public demand was an attempt to restore it (Benoit and Brinson 145). The image of Elizabeth II, it seems, is a source of soft power. Soft power is "the ability to obtain preferred outcomes through attraction" (Nye 160). "Attractiveness" is constructed precisely through the prism of four complementary factors: beauty, brightness, goodwill, and wealth (Cook and Searle 2). It is important to note that the sources of soft power are different from charisma in Weber's concept, although one does not exclude the other (Gallarotti 10). It seems to me that soft power theory and Weber's theory of political power types (hard power) complement each other in the case of Elizabeth II. The exclusivity, supernaturalness of the monarch in a parliamentary monarchy refer to sources of charismatic power, while "image" interwoven with the aforementioned beauty, brightness, goodwill, and wealth refer to sources of soft power. I have gone through this whole logical chain to determine whether the monarch does have power after all, and have arrived at a positive answer. How closely associated it is with violence seems to become apparent from the definition of soft power or power which does not involve violence or even sanctions. At the same time, talking about the charismatic type of power, it is to regard the monarch as the executor of God's will and, in a more down-to-earth sense, special, or exceptional (whether for religious reasons or because of what the institution of monarchy itself already gives him or her at birth). It follows that the element of charismatic power in the modern monarch remains to this day. Figure 2: An updated supporting conceptual framework. Here, how "tradition as an institution" — "sovereign" — "citizens" — who "pressures" whom, who exercises power or violence over whom are contextualised. The restrictions imposed by "tradition, ceremony, and protocol" as an institution can be seen as systemic violence according to Žižek. The case has shown that people have the power to impose their will — this power in Weberian terms can be seen as systemic violence within a democratic institution, or as subjective violence, if one delves into the memoir and perceives the sovereign more as a mere mortal who is "forced". The sanction in this case is considered to be a decline in the popularity of the monarch and the monarchy, caused by the "staggering" of his or her image, the image that provoked the "coercion". The media are a separate actor — simultaneously working as a mouthpiece and amplifying the opinions of the public, they influence "the people", but at this stage are beyond the power of the crown (Irving 94). Turning to whether the monarch "rules", the image here is a source of soft power that the monarch sends out to attract attention, as an "invitation" to charity. The charismatic origins coming from the sacred body of the monarch and the very fact of being born into privilege can be a source of hard power. It is not reflected in the scheme, because in the twenty-first century, in its pure form, it is not exercised at all. One can assume that it is probably woven into soft power, giving the image of the monarch a certain "gloss", the "charm" of history and divinity, which was reflected in the reasoning of Cook and Shirl. However, in the scheme (fig. 2) there is traditional power — I have called it dormant and directed at parliament, implying that in the current British monarchy the sovereign has relatively few prescribed powers of authority left, none of which apply directly to citizens. Even their exercise would not be appropriate for a monarch who plans to still keep reigning, so it almost never happens. Conclusion Thus, the answer to the contradictory question, "is violence possible against the monarch, the figure in charge of seemingly everything?" seems to me to be in the affirmative. With a high degree of certainty, we can speak of systemic violence (from tradition and citizens); with a high degree of assumption, we can speak of subjective violence on the part of citizens. Regarding power relations, the range of powers and their sources at the sovereign seems not only broad, but also rather vague and hard to unambiguously conceptualise. Nevertheless, we have tried to outline them in terms of Weber's typology and soft power. Maintaining the image of the sovereign as a corporate mechanism or simply a feature of modern parliamentary monarchy has proved important and, dare I say, key to the existence of not only the monarch but the monarchy as well. References Addley, Esther. "Elizabeth's Detachment Preserved ‘the Firm’ — But Her Pragmatism Saved It." The Guardian 9 Sep. 2022. 25 Dec. 2022 . Alexander, Jeffrey C. "Power, Politics, and the Civil Sphere." Handbook of Politics: State and Society in Global Perspective. 2010. 111-126. Benoit, William L., and Susan L. Brinson. "Queen Elizabeth's Image Repair Discourse: Insensitive Royal or Compassionate Queen?" Public Relations Review 25.2 (1999): 145-156. Clancy, Laura. "The Corporate Power of the British Monarchy: Capital(ism), Wealth and Power in Contemporary Britain." The Sociological Review 69.2 (2021): 330-347. Cook, Richard J., and D.A. Searle. "Queen Elizabeth II's Soft Power and Britain's Place in a Post-Elizabethan Age." e-International Relations (2022). 25 Dec. 2022 . Delaney, Robert F. "Popular Pressures on Government." Naval War College Review (1970): 20-28. Gallarotti, Giulio M. "Soft Power: What It Is, Why It’s Important, and the Conditions for Its Effective Use." Journal of Political Power 4.1 (2011): 25-47. Gofman, Alexander. "Солидарность или правила, Дюркгейм или Хайек? О двух формах социальной интеграции Solidarity or Rules, Durkheim or Hayek? Two Forms of Social Integration." Social Solidarity and Altruism: A Sociological Tradition and Modern Interdisciplinary Studies (2014): 16-100. Hazell, Robert, and Bob Morris, eds. The Role of Monarchy in Modern Democracy: European Monarchies Compared. Bloomsbury, 2020. Irving, Clive. The Last Queen: Elizabeth II's Seventy Year Battle to Save the House of Windsor. Simon and Schuster, 2021. Kantorowicz, Ernst. Два Тела Короля: Исследование по Средневековой Политической Теологии The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology. Gaidar Institute Press, 2013. "Конституционная монархия A Constitutional Monarchy." Lawyer Encyclopedia. 25 Dec. 2022 . Ledyaev, Valery. Власть: Концептуальный Анализ Power: A Conceptual Analysis. ROSSPEN, 2001. Lewis, Clive. "Idea of Monarchy as Symbol of Duty or Sacrifice ‘a Lie’, Says Labour’s Clive Lewis." The Guardian 16 Sep. 2022. 25 Dec. 2022 . Polyakova, Arina. Роль Монархии во Внутренней и Внешней Политике Великобритании в конце XX-начале XXI века The Role of the Monarchy in British Domestic and Foreign Policy in the Late 20th and Early 21st Century. PhD thesis. MGIMO U, 2010. . Smith, Matthew. "Britain May Look United in Grief — But Polling Shows a Growing Generational Divide." The Guardian 16 Sep. 2022. 25 Dec. 2022 . Smith, Sally Bedell. Elizabeth the Queen. Rizzoli, 2020. Ter-Minasova, Daria. Имидж Института Монархии Великобритании Image of the Institution of the British Monarchy. PhD thesis. MSU U, 2007. . Warren, Mark E. "Max Weber's Nietzschean Conception of Power." History of the Human Sciences 5.3 (1992): 19-37. Weber, Max. Economy and Society. New York, 1968. Žižek, Slavoj. О Насилии On Violence. 2010.