CZAS PRZECZYTANIA TEKSTU: 7 minut(y) / READING TIME: 7 minutes
The current episode of the review of constitutional scholarly articles dedicated to the broad topic of modern monarchical systems focuses on texts published in 2024 (I have come across two such articles) as well as the first part of an overview of articles from 2023 (since there are significantly more, I have decided to divide the review into three parts). Today’s review discusses articles that take a broader approach to the actual role and significance of contemporary monarchies. We will explore the perspectives of scholars from various academic disciplines—ranging from law and political science to sociology.
To begin with, a highly engaging article by Miles Taylor, titled “Intelligible Government: Rethinking the Meaning of Monarchy in the Age of King Charles III”, published in 2024 in HISTORY OF EUROPEAN IDEAS, presents an interdisciplinary analysis of the British monarchy within the context of contemporary political and constitutional structures.
The author examines the historical and symbolic significance of the Crown and critiques the dominant historiographical approach, which, in his view, often distorts reality by overemphasizing the monarchy’s symbolic aspect while neglecting its actual political functions. Taylor’s central thesis is that contemporary scholarship too often perceives monarchy as mere spectacle, failing to acknowledge its constitutional role within the British political system. He challenges the widely held assumption that monarchy is merely a relic of the past with no real political significance.
The author employs both primary sources (archival documents, historical texts, speeches) and secondary literaturefrom the fields of law, political science, sociology, and anthropology. Furthermore, he provides a critical analysis of how monarchy is represented in the media and popular culture.
Taylor addresses three key themes in his article.
The first concerns critique of the historiography and the “mansplaining” of monarchy. He examines how seminal academic works, such as The English Constitution by Walter Bagehot (1867), The Magic of Monarchy by Kingsley Martin (1936), and The Enchanted Glass by Tom Nairn (1988), have shaped perceptions of the British monarchy. Taylor argues that these works depict the monarchy as feminized, powerless, and purely symbolic. He criticizes the “mansplaining” of monarchy, highlighting that male historians have predominantly focused on female monarchs while simultaneously downplaying their political agency. According to Taylor, this misinterpretation of monarchy’s role and essence is partially rooted in gender bias.
The second central issue explored in the article is the political functions of monarchy through the institution of royal prerogatives. Taylor emphasizes that the monarchy continues to wield significant political influence, primarily through these prerogatives. He examines how monarchs—particularly Queen Victoria and King Charles III—have shaped church appointments, foreign policy, and legislative approvals. Despite often being regarded as largely ceremonial, the monarchy, Taylor contends, still plays a stabilizing role and can serve as a check against executive overreach, particularly in the context of contemporary political crises such as Brexit and the prorogation of Parliament under Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
The third theme explored by the author is the role of monarchy in the era of populism. Taylor situates the British monarchy within a broader global context, analyzing the rise of populism. He identifies monarchical traits in the behavior of contemporary populist leaders, ranging from Donald Trump to Viktor Orbán, noting how they invoke historical symbols of royal power to legitimize their rule. Taylor provocatively suggests that constitutional monarchy may paradoxically serve as a safeguard against populist authoritarianism, as it reinforces parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law.
Miles Taylor concludes his article with a call for greater academic engagement in the study of monarchy and increased transparency regarding its operations—particularly through improved access to royal archives. His analysis encourages a reassessment of monarchy’s significance and purpose in the 21st century—not as an outdated relic, but rather as a dynamic institution with the potential to play a meaningful role amid democratic instability and political polarization.
Against the backdrop outlined by the previously discussed article, the analysis of contemporary Swedish monarchy presented in “Dismantling Monarchy: The Swedish Experience” by Erik Söderman, published in ROYAL STUDIES JOURNAL (2024, vol. XI), offers an intriguing perspective. The author provides a detailed examination of the long and complex process of the Swedish monarchy’s marginalization, which lasted from approximately 1718 to 1974. Although Sweden did not formally abolish the monarchy, its political functions were absorbed by the parliamentary system, and the institution itself underwent a symbolic redefinition within the framework of modern democracy. Söderman adopts an interdisciplinary approach, combining political history, political theory, and cultural analysis to explain how the Bernadotte monarchy adapted to evolving socio-political conditions.
Söderman distinguishes two fundamental phases in the development of Swedish monarchy. The first phase (1718–1918) was characterized by the gradual restriction of its political functions and the loss of real power to parliamentarianism. The second phase (1918–1974) saw the monarchy being redefined as a component of national tradition, rather than a political structure.
One of the key theses of the article is that the dismantling of the monarchy’s political role in Sweden was not a sudden or revolutionary event, but rather a prolonged evolutionary process. This transformation began after the death of Charles XII (1718), Sweden’s last “warrior king”. The following decades saw the gradual limitation of royal prerogatives, particularly after the adoption of the Constitution of 1809, which stripped the monarchy of its actual governing powers and subordinated it to parliamentary rule. A critical moment in the monarchy’s loss of real power was the Industrial Revolution and modernization process, which accelerated after 1848 and culminated in 1918. However, the monarchy was not entirely abolished—instead, it was transformed into an institution that came to symbolize national tradition and democratic values, particularly after World War II.
Söderman highlights that during the 19th and 20th centuries, Swedish monarchists developed two primary justifications for maintaining the monarchy. The traditional approach viewed the monarchy as a custodian of national history, linking the past with the present. The modernist approach, in contrast, framed the monarchy as a protective umbrella safeguarding democracy and the modern nation-state. In this context, the author references King Carl XVI Gustaf, who, as the current Swedish monarch, possesses no real political authority but fulfills a representational function, which, in the eyes of the public, positions him as a symbol of stability in an era of global change.
Söderman argues that the monarchy lacks a singular, fixed identity. Its role evolves depending on historical and social contexts. For example, the Swedish monarchy was not abolished but rather adapted to modern conditions, transforming into an institution rooted in tradition rather than actual political power. At the same time, Söderman challenges the widespread notion that the Swedish monarchy is merely a relic of the past. His analysis demonstrates that monarchy is a flexible and adaptive element of the political system, evolving in response to changing circumstances. The Swedish monarchy—and, as the author seems to suggest, most contemporary constitutional monarchies—is neither a “dead relic of the past” nor a “fully-fledged political actor.” Instead, it represents a living tradition, whose function adapts to the needs of society. Although politically constrained, the Swedish monarchy remains a significant component of national identity and state stability. Thanks to its adaptability, it can continue to play an important role in Swedish politics, albeit no longer as a governing institution but rather as a foundation of national identity.
The next article introduces a new shift in perspective. First, the author is a sociologist, which means the discussion focuses on aspects of monarchy specific to this discipline. Second, while some of the author’s claims align with those presented in previous studies, others diverge or even directly contradict them.
The article “The Meanings of the Monarchy” by Peter Kivisto, published in the JOURNAL OF CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGY (2023, vol. 23, no. 1), offers a unique perspective on the significance of monarchy in the 21st century through an analysis of historical and contemporary interpretations of the coronations of Elizabeth II and Charles III.
The author critically engages with the classical functionalist approach to monarchy and proposes alternative sociological perspectives that consider social pluralism and cultural challenges. He begins his analysis by revisiting the classic work of Edward Shils and Michael Young, who interpreted the coronation of Elizabeth II as a sacred ritual reinforcing social order (The Meaning of the Coronation, The Sociological Review, 1953, no. 1(2)). Their argument was grounded in Durkheimian theory, which views ritual as a mechanism for social integration. According to them, the coronation was a moment of communion with the sacred, reaffirming fundamental social values such as loyalty, justice, respect for authority, and individual dignity.
Kivisto highlights that Shils and Young’s interpretation faced criticism as early as the 1950s. Scholars questioned their lack of empirical evidence for such an extensive claim. Critics argued that British society was not as unified or morally integrated as Shils and Young suggested, and that the coronation was not a universally accepted social ritual. Building on this debate, Kivisto asks whether the functionalist interpretation of monarchy remains relevant in the 21st century, particularly in the context of Charles III’s coronation. He poses a key question: Does the monarchy still serve an integrative social function, or has it become a contested institution subject to multiple interpretations?
Kivisto argues that the monarchy no longer fulfills a singular, cohesive function in the 21st century but has instead become a space for social negotiation, where different social groups attribute divergent meanings to it. No longer a sacred institution cementing social order, the monarchy has transformed into a multidimensional cultural and political phenomenon. The author emphasizes the plurality of contemporary meanings of monarchy and underscores the need to examine it within the context of modern social and cultural divisions.
One of the central themes of the article is the rejection of the functionalist notion of a unified meaning of monarchy. Kivisto asserts that contemporary British society is far more diverse in terms of class, ethnicity, and political ideologythan it was at the time of Elizabeth II’s coronation. Consequently, there is no longer a single, universal meaning of monarchy, but rather multiple competing narratives about its role.
According to recent sociological trends, culture is no longer studied as an integrated system of values, but rather as a realm of meaning-making processes. From this perspective, monarchy is not merely an institution producing social solidarity but rather a site of contestation, where different social groups ascribe varied roles and values to it. The author identifies four key social transformations that have altered British society’s perception of the monarchy.
The first factor is immigration and demographic change. The mass migration from former British colonies has reshaped the country’s social composition. Issues of race and postcolonial identity have become central to the debate on monarchy, particularly in relation to its historical ties to imperialism and slavery.
The second factor is ethno-nationalism and internal dynamics within the United Kingdom. The author points to tensions between Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland and the government in London, arguing that the monarchy is not necessarily a unifying national force. Scottish independence movements and Irish republicanism directly challenge the monarchy as a symbol of a shared national identity.
The third issue concerns neoliberalism and growing social inequalities. The gradual dismantling of the welfare state, which began under Margaret Thatcher’s government, has deepened class divisions in the UK. For some groups, monarchy is no longer a symbol of national unity but rather a marker of privilege and inequality, leading to criticism over its public funding.
The fourth factor is Brexit and national identity. The decision to leave the European Union has further polarized society. While some Britons continue to see the monarchy as a symbol of national sovereignty, others perceive it as an anachronistic institution that no longer fits into contemporary political realities.
Kivisto calls for a new research agenda on modern monarchy, identifying three key areas that should be explored more extensively.
First, the diverse meanings of monarchy among different social groups. Instead of assuming that the monarchy has a single, universal meaning, sociologists should analyze how it is perceived by different social classes, ethnic groups, generations, and regions.
Second, the monarchy’s role in politics and the economy. The monarchy is not merely a symbolic institution—it also has significant influence over the economy, tourism, diplomacy, and domestic politics. Examining this function would provide a more comprehensive understanding of monarchy’s contemporary significance.
Third, the relationship between monarchy and “banal nationalism”. The monarchy is embedded in everyday lifethrough national symbols—banknotes, medals, and public holidays. Kivisto refers to these as “banal” manifestations of monarchy but suggests that they warrant scholarly attention, as they may reveal its impact on shaping national identity.
