QUEENS AS SOVEREIGNS.
There have been, speaking generally, four classes of Queens in history ; and in speaking of them we are speaking of actual Queens - regnant, not of those who were the mere consorts of Kings. There is the weak and somewhat characterless woman, of whom Queen Anne is a type ; a puppet of stronger natures than her own, dominated by favourites, neither capable of ruling nor of forbearing to interfere with those who do rule. There is, next, the energetic woman-ruler, phenomenon so rare, that we usually separate her from her sex, and treat her as a thing apart,—an unsexed creature, almost a freak of Nature. To this class belong such remarkable women as Semiramis, Anne and Catherine of Russia, Elizabeth of England. As women, it is impossible to be attracted by these extraordinary historical characters ; as rulers, it is impossible not to be oat oftentimes in admiration at their political prowess and sagacity. Such women are usually devoid of love, and are profoundly sceptical and Machiavellian. A third Class comprises the women who are strong and full of energy, but who are yet women, who can be tender and affectionate, and whose greatest errors even are dictated by deep moral conviction. Such a woman was Isabella the Catholic, whose personality is so deeply stamped in the history of Spain. The fourth class of Queens comprise those litho, without being weak, are yet womanly, who are well tensed in political affairs, and yet who have no irresistible desire for actual and constant government, who recognise that the will of the people must be supreme and the itatesmen of the popular choice must rule, but who yet re not inclined to forego the privilege of pressure and Persuasion at what is commonly known as the " psycho- °Deal moment." It is of this fourth class of Queens hat the true constitutional Sovereign is made, and there An be little doubt that such a writer as Mr. Freeman is probably right in his contention that such a woman is best fitted by nature for the position of constitutional Sovereign, though we may not be disposed to insist on the Crown being tied up in the female succession. Look at the signal advantages of the constitutional sovereignty of a woman, both from her own point of view and from that of the nation over whose concerns she holds such delicate sway.
The constitutional maxim that the Sovereign "reigns but does not govern," does not mean that the Sovereign is a mere automaton, a mere quantitd negligeable. If he or she is such, that is due to defects of character, not to the necessities of the situation. Because the actual tasks of government are entrusted to the hands of responsible statesmen, it does not follow that the sole function of the Sovereign is to hold receptions and to live in state. The constitutional Sovereign in the modern State does not interfere by direct means in the machinery of government, but does un- questionably exert influence in subtle ways. Now, while nobody could contend for one moment that women can administer or control by direct and outward means with the power and success of men, they are able (and it is the source of the power wielded by their sex) to exert pressure by silent influence in a much higher degree than men can. Therefore, assuming the constitutional Queen to have the good of the State at heart, she can work for that good by more effective means than a King could. He, if he wanted to carry a point, might easily come into too obvious collision with recalcitrant statesmen around him. She would find ways known only to women by which the essential point could be carried without appearing to set her will against that of any of the statesmen around her. Now, this is pure gain to her, for she strengthens her position without offending any one ; and thus, while never for a moment ceasing to act in a purely constitutional way, she yet acquires something of the powerful influence of the actual ruler. If she is wise and prudent, she will come in time to occupy a posi- tion of immense dignity, her counsel will be heeded by her Ministers in all matters which she deems essential, and yet she will never have taken one step beyond the strict limits of constitutional law and precedent. To accomplish this end, she need not have intellect beyond the average ; it suffices that she is endowed with character, good sense, and the Royal art of being pleasing and. gracious.
But if the Sovereign gains in the way we have indicated, the State gains likewise. The Sovereign is, to begin with, far less likely, if a woman, to attempt any interference with direct questions of policy, than if a man. She has so much conceded naturally to her that her mind is apt to be more contented and less restless and ambitious than is the mind of a man. Notwithstanding the Catherines and Elizabeths, singular and abnormal products of Nature, it is clear that to man, not to woman, belongs the art of rule, and con- sequently the love of direct power. A strong King might, even to-day, deflect, if not wreck, the proper course of constitutional government. The virtues for the exercise of which one praises Porfirio Diaz in Mexico would become, if not vices, at least dangerous potencies, if exercised by a King, in England or Holland. The mere possession of a very firm masculine will, combined with the sense of the dignity of his position, but without any marked intellectual power, renders the Austrian Emperor perhaps the strongest ruler in Europe. We acknowledge that he is in his right place in Vienna, but in London he would make havoc of the British Constitution. Therefore, on the whole, a constitutional Monarchy will march much more smoothly with a Queen at its head than with a King ; and there will be less restless jealousy and bitter intrigue among the Ministers of the Crown. The machinery of government will be better oiled, it will creak sad groan less, than under a King, because there will be less chance of any design on its essential principle. In a sense we can scarcely be said to have had complete con- stitutional rule in England until the present reign. William III. was his own Premier and Foreign Minister ; Anne's reign was marked by incessant intrigue and dubious influences ; George I. was only not a great King because he cared more for Hanover than for England ; in the reign of George II. we do see a clearer tendency towards the constitutional system, but the baneful advice, "George, be King ! " caused England, during the reign of George III., to slip back into a dangerous monarchical reaction. The Regency and the reigns of George IV. and. William IV. were characterised by open displays of Royal authority which we could not conceive of now, and that authority was generally directed towards bad or doubtful ends. During the present reign we have experienced true constitutional rule, and if the Queen has exercised any kind of extra pressure, it has always been by wise means and in the direction of public well being, as in the case of the English attitude towards the United States in the Civil War. No man could, with so little friction, have corrected the bellicose tendencies of Pahnerston as did Queen Victoria at that crisis.
In addition to a political there is also a clear moral gain in the fact that the constitutional throne is filled by a woman. It cannot be doubted that the Court of a Queen makes more obviously for humanity and for morality than does that of a King. At the present time, it is true, most of the European Monarchs have a singularly good record, and some of them are clearly on a higher level than the average of their subjects. All are humane men, some are even men of an austere morality, and the Presidents of the two great Republics of the world are embodiments of the homely virtues which are the bulwarks of national strength. But we cannot forget that it has not always been so, nay, that it was not so but a few years ago ; the -world has not forgotten the orgies of Louis Napoleon or of the great galantuomo of the house of Savoy, and it knows that what has been may easily be again. But it is impossible to-day for the "first lady" of any land not to be a force making for morality, it is impossible for her to be other than a woman of purity of life, and so an example to the nation. We pardon Victor Emmanuel's amours (or at least we overlook them) for the sake of his courage and devotion ; but no pardon could or would be extended to a woman on the throne who had lapsed from virtue or had even given reasonable occasion for the tongue of scandal. Who will deny that this is a great gain for the female sovereignty of a "crowned Republic"?
Previous page
