2.1.1 – The nature and sources of the UK Constitution
It has long been a principle in the UK that discussion of the Royal Family, particularly criticism of them, is off limits in the House of Commons. Erskine May, often described as the ‘bible’ of parliamentary practice, is explicit on this point:
“Unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the Sovereign, the heir to the throne, or other members of the royal family.”
This rule exists for a number of reasons. First, the UK is a constitutional monarchy. This means that the Monarch “reigns but does not rule”. The role is now largely ceremonial and symbolic. As part of this constitutional model, the political neutrality of the Monarch is sacrosanct. Debates and discussions about the Royal Family in Parliament may compromise that neutrality.
Secondly, the Sovereign is not personally accountable to the House of Commons and, constitutionally, as the Crown-in-Parliament, is a part of the legislature. Open criticism in debate therefore raises complex constitutional issues.
Beyond these formal principles, it has long been a respected convention that the Royal Family should not be routinely discussed in Parliament. For example, the 1990s was a very difficult period for the Royal Family. The Queen famously described 1992 as her annus horribilis. There were three royal divorces or seperations, growing scrutiny in the press – particularly over royal finances – and a fire at Windsor Castle that damaged or destroyed 115 rooms. On 31 August 1997, Diana, Princess of Wales, died in a car crash in Paris, bringing unprecedented public and media scrutiny upon the Royal Family, particularly regarding its reaction to the tragedy. Even during this extended period of intense criticism, Parliament largely honoured its conventions regarding discussion of the royals.
Yet on Tuesday 24 February, during a Liberal Democrat Opposition Day, a debate was held simply titled Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. During this debate, the character of the man formerly known as His Royal Highness Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleagh, KG, GCVO, CD, ADC(P), was excoriated. As part of the motion, the Liberal Democrats presented a Humble Address. Similar to that used in relation to the Lord Mandelson papers, this was a request for the Government to hand over any documents relating to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment as UK Trade Envoy. Tellingly, the Government did not oppose the motion. It is hard to imagine that, had such a motion been put in the past, the Government would not have resisted it on the grounds that it risked politicising the monarchy.
Following 1992, the nature of the monarchy in the UK began to change. The Monarch started paying income tax and capital gains tax, and later, the system of royal financing was fundamentally reformed. It may be that the current crisis surrounding the Royal Family will provide the impetus for more significant changes in how the institution operates – if indeed it has a future in its present form.