ENGLISH MONARCHY.

Dunstan Times, Issue 3383, 18 July 1927, Page 2

ENGLISH MONARCHY.

One of the outstanding effects of the Great War was the collapse of a number of European, monarchies, and the establishment of republics in place of them, (says the “Age”). The Hohenzollern dynasty disappeared into exile when the Imperial throne of Germany was shattered, and the Hohenzollerns involved in their ruin the ruling houses of a dozen German kingdoms and principalities. The Romanoff regime in Russia was overthrown by revolution, and extinguished by murder; the representatives of the Haps burg dynasty, who are the heins to the overturned throne of Austria-Hungary are in exile; Greece has got rid of its king; and Turkey has exiled the Sultan. To-day Europe consists of" sixteen republics and only ten monarchies, and several of these remaining monarchies rest on trembling foundations. Among the combatant and neutral countries of Europe, Great Britain is the only one in which the foundations of the throne have been strengthened by the Great War. The reason for this firm foundation is to be found in the adaptability of the monarchical system as it exists in Great Britain, to the march of progress, and in the adaptability of the Royal Family to those changes in the life of a nation which great events in the march of civilisation produce. The reigning house in Great Britain is more a part of the life of • the people than the reigning house in any other monarchy in Europe. But it was not always so. The history of the monarchy in Great Britain during the past hundred years reveals how the monarchy has changed as the outlook of the nation has changed, and that the effect of changes in the nation and the monarchy has been to bring them closer together. A hundred years ago the monarchy was deservedly unpopular, and was the subject of much caustic criticism. The occupant of the throne was George IV., who has been described as a bad son, a bad husband, a bad father, a bad subject, a bad monarch, and a bad friend.” Ho was a drunkard and a gambler, and on more than one occasion his debts had to be paid out of the public purse. He had a succession of mistresses as Prince of Wales, and his treatment of his wife resulted in a series of scandals that degraded the throne. He was succeeded as King by his brother William, who reigned only seven years. Then came the long reign of Queen Victoria, who purified the atmosphere of the Court, and by her example and her rigid rules in regard to presentation at Court, raised the moral tone of the nation. In these days we are accustomed to condemn the narrowness, of the Puritanical limitations of social and domestic life in England during the reign of Queen Victoria, and to fail to recognise to what an extent these changes represented a great advance on the loose moral standards and social scandals that were prevalent in an earlier generation. But it cannot be said that the respect and admiration, verging on reverence, which Queen Victoria won from her people made her a popular monarch, in the sense in which we in these days understand popularity. To a great extent she kept herself aloof from the life of the people. She believed that Royalty would lose its hold on the people if they were allowed to come in frequent contact with the occupant of the throne. For tliis reason she seldom appeared in public except on State occasions; when driving through the streets of London on unofficial occasions she usually had the blinds of her carriage drawn in order to conceal herself from Tie public view. She even objected to participating in State functions and she frequently complained in querulous terms of the way in which her Ministers insisted on her opening Parliament in State. In the second series of her letters, published in volume form last year, the editor, Mr George Buckle, mentions that tho best friends of Royalty regretted the Queen’s letters written by the Queen protesting against having to appear in public. In one of these letters, which was written four years after the death of tho Prince Consort, to the Prime Minister, Lord Derby, the Queen (who always wrote in the third person to her Ministers), said: “The Queen must say that she does feel very bitterly the want of feeling of those who ask the Queen to go to open Parliament. Tiiat the public should wish to see' her she fully understands, and has no wish to prevent—quite the contrary: but why this wish should be of so unreasonable and unfeeling a nature as to long to witness Hie spectacle of a poor broken-hearted widow, nervous and shrinking, dragged in deep mourning alone in State, as a show, where she used to go supported by her husband, she cannot understand. and never could wish her bitterest foe to be exposed to.” On a later occasion she wrote: “The Queen is driven almost to desperation by the waul of consideration shown by. the public for her health and strength, and she foresees ere long a complete breakdown of her nervous system. It is very wrong of the world to..say that it is merely her distaste to go out and about, as she could when

;he had her dead husband to support her

wlien the fact is that Iter shattered nerves and health prevent her doing so. ►Still whatever tho poor Queen can do she will but she will not be dictated to or teased by public clamour into doing what she physically cannot.” King Edward VII did much more limn Queen Victoria to bring the throne into touch with the people. He was a man uf

'.he world, who took a keen interest in the pleasures of life. It is true that his fond ness for horse rating, his choice of friends among men who wore prominent in sport and Ids cultivation of the society of actresses famed for their beauty, exposed him to criticism in same quartern; but tho nation as a whole looked somewhat leniently on the failings of a man who combined with Kingship the attractive qualities ol

an English gentleman. On three occasions lie, won the Derby—the classical event of the English turf—and this achievement, which had never been equalled, increased his popularity among a people who have always been renowned for sportsmanship. In the ordinary affairs of life ho carried out ids Kingly duties with a thoroughness wild hj brought him into close con tact with all classes of the community. He thereby added to bis personal popularity with the people, and to Hie popular itv of the throne.

The leversa! of the policy of seclusion which Queen Victoria laid down for the g- id iiicc of Royalty has had happy results. and has 'Strengthened the roots of loyally in the hearts of the people. The practice of going about among the people and participating in their sports and pleasure, winch King Edward adopted has been followed by King Kcorgo and Queen .Mary, and they have extended the share of Royally in tiie life of the people in many other directions. They are constantly \biting the homes of the people with almost an entire absence of ceremony: they have aided by their presence, as well ns their patronage, scores of charitable efforts on behalf of the poor. They have repeatedly visited hospitals to cheer the sic!; and the suffering: they have gone into the slums in the East End of London to inspect municipal schemes for better housing accommodation for the poor. They have visited the humble cottages of miners on (he coal fields, and the cottages of fishermen on the coast. These tilings have brought the people into closer personal relationship with the throne than they have ever been in any previous reign. And the King and Queen have had the wisdom and foresight to extend to the overseas Dominions the personal relationship between the people and the j Royal family. The visits of the Prince

of Wales to ,Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India, have given millions of people the opportunity of realising what Royalty means on its personal side. The great personal charm which the Prince has exercised over all who have come into contact with him has added, not only to his widespread popularity, _ but to the popularity of the Royal family and the monarchy.