How Does the Monarchy of 1811 Compare with that of Today?

A Brief look at the British Regency (1811-1820) vs ​the Modern Monarchy

At a time when the British monarchy has taken up so much of the recent news feeds, I thought it might be interesting to take a look at the royal family today compared to George IV’s Regency period (1811-1820). In some ways they faced familiar issues with a war on the continent, financial concerns at home, and controversy surrounding the royal family.

•      How did the current Constitutional Monarchy evolve?

England’s original monarchy was overthrown by its people in 1649 and the king was executed. After years lacking clarity of leadership, the monarchy was restored in 1660, but King Charles was constantly at war with Parliament, and his successor, his Roman Catholic brother James, was overthrown in favor of Protestants William and Mary in 1688. That crisis led to the formation of what we call the constitutional monarchy, limiting the powers of the sovereign, who remained the head of state, but had no power to pass laws.

• ​       Monarchy in the 21st Century

​Elizabeth II attained the throne upon the death of her father, and she strove to operate within the imposed limitations, including as stated on the royal website: the sovereign "has to remain strictly neutral with respect to political matters." Her duties included bestowing honors, appointing the Prime Minister in a non-political manner, and serving as head of the British Armed Forces. The royal family recognized its duty to provide a visible head of state through attendance at various international meetings, public addresses, and public good works. The Royals have not been without controversy, but it rarely involved the late Queen. She set the tone for dignity in her personal and public life, was beloved at home, and was respected throughout the world.

---

•  *      Monarchy under George IV, Price Regent

In contrast, George, Prince of Wales, who was later to be George IV, became Prince Regent in 1811 due to the permanent madness of his father King George III. England was at war with France, on the verge of war with America, and a large split existed between the wealth of the upper classes and the abject poverty of those less privileged. “Prinny” had the capacity to ignore it all unless pressed by his ministers. He brought little respect or dignity to the office—although he loved the pageantry—and was more interested in lavish dinners, parties, and fashion than he was in governing. He built and decorated with abandon, running up huge debts both government and personal that he expected Parliament to pay, had scandalous love affairs, and was only a willing participant in government affairs that were in his interests or to the advantage of his "favorites," a circle of cronies who were similarly inclined to an indulgent lifestyle.
When forced to marry, he banished his wife as soon as she produced a child, and he openly flaunted his mistresses—of which there were many—producing an unknown number of illegitimate children (at least two with his favorite mistress, Maria Fitzherbert). He was a colorful and controversial figure -  popular with some for his affable personality, his taste for culture - and equally despised for his flamboyant lifestyle and indulgent spending.
Despite his flaws, there were great strides during his reign, especially in fashion and the cultural arts which prospered from his fiscal extravagance, but governing the British countries primarily fell to the efforts of the Prime Minister and Parliament. 

• What were their effects on the longevity of the monarchy?

During the Regency, Prinny was not beloved by the masses. His extravagances frequently led to rumbles of violent revolution, talk of overthrowing the monarchy again, but when those voices got too loud, they were suppressed or persecuted by his privileged supporters, who, like Prinny, rarely gave a thought to the law- they were above it. The monarchy survived George IV but perhaps not on its merits.
With the recent death of Queen Elizabeth II, voices once again are asking if England needs a monarchy, if it has any relevancy in the modern world. But those voices are not proposing a violent uprising or an execution of the monarch. Nor are those voices being threatened or thrown into jail. Whatever happens to the monarchy appears rooted in fiscal concerns—not outrage with the sovereign—and its future will be decided by a nation that is guided by the rule of law.
I can’t help but wonder how today’s United Kingdom would have dealt with the likes of the spoilt and extravagant George, Prince Regent.

---

---