The Crown

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  The Crown is a political concept that sits at the heart of every Commonwealth realm, yet no one can agree on exactly what it means. Lord Diplock described it as "the government and all of the ministers and parliamentary secretaries under whose direction the administrative work of the government is carried out by the civil servants." William Wade said it "means simply the Queen." Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson called it "an amorphous, abstract concept" and "impossible to define." Legal scholars Maurice Sunkin and Sebastian Payne admitted that many academics have "no idea what the term the Crown amounts to." So how can one of the most durable institutions in the English-speaking world rest on a concept that its own legal experts cannot pin down? What happens when a king dies if the body politic of the Crown never dies? And how did a single English idea become the governing skeleton of countries across the globe? Those are the questions this documentary sets out to answer.

• 2. A Concept Without a Body

  ›

  When Lord Simon of Glaisdale tried to explain what the Crown actually is, he began with a physical object: "a piece of jewelled headgear under guard at the Tower of London." But he was quick to note that the object is not the concept. What the Crown signifies in constitutional law is the collection of governmental powers that were once wielded by the wearer. Some of those powers come from the royal prerogative; others have been granted by parliament through statute.

  Canadian academic Philippe Lagasse offered one of the more structured descriptions. He described the Crown acting "in various capacities, as such: crown-in-council (executive); crown-in-parliament (legislative); crown-in-court (judicial)." It is at once a single artificial person and a many-sided institution. Frederic William Maitland argued for an even broader reading, treating the Crown as a corporation that embraces the government and the "whole political community."

  The body of the reigning sovereign holds two personas in constant coexistence, an ancient theory known as the "King's two bodies." The body natural is subject to infirmity and death. The body politic never dies. This theory is not merely philosophical; it is the legal engine behind the immediate succession of a new British monarch upon the death of a predecessor. The body politic lives on even as the body natural passes.

  Warren J. Newman put the practical upshot plainly, describing the Crown as "a useful and convenient means of conveying, in a word, the compendious formal, executive and administrative powers and apparatus attendant upon the modern constitutional and monarchical state." That phrase, compendious powers and apparatus, points ahead to just how vast those powers turned out to be.

• 3. Feudal Roots

  ›

  Under the feudal system, all rights and privileges in England were ultimately bestowed by the ruler. Land was granted by the Crown to lords in exchange for feudal services, and those lords in turn granted land to lesser lords. One important exception was land held as common socage: owners of socage land held it subject only to the Crown, without the layered obligations of the feudal chain.

  When such socage lands became ownerless, they were said to escheat, meaning they returned to direct ownership of the Crown, becoming Crown land. A related prerogative called bona vacantia meant that unowned property, primarily unclaimed inheritances, also became the property of the Crown. These were not small or abstract rules. They shaped who controlled territory and wealth across England for centuries.

  The physical crown and the property belonging to successive monarchs came to be separated from the person of the monarch and their private property over several centuries. As parliaments, ministries, and courts grew through the 13th century, the monarch's direct exercise of supreme legislative, executive, and judicial power gradually decreased. The Crown then evolved into a way to differentiate the monarch's official functions from personal choices and actions. Even within medieval England, the doctrine of capacities was already drawing a line between the person of the king and his actions in the capacity of monarch.

  The first formal definition of the Crown as an "imperial" crown came during the reign of Henry VIII, in the Ecclesiastical Appeals Act 1532. That Act declared that "this realm of England is an empire... governed by one Supreme Head and King having the dignity and royal estate of the imperial Crown of the same." William Blackstone, writing in his 1765 Commentaries on the Laws of England, clarified that the word imperial in this context simply meant that the English king owed no subjection to any other ruler on earth.

• 4. The Spread Across Empires

  ›

  The Crown concept spread through English and later British colonisation, becoming embedded in the legal traditions of the British dominions. When the Kingdom of England merged with those of Scotland and Ireland, the concept extended into the legal lexicons of the United Kingdom and its dependencies, overseas territories, and, eventually, all of the independent Commonwealth realms.

  For a long time, the Crown was considered legally indivisible. The sovereign was advised only by ministers in the United Kingdom, and that advice governed everywhere. That changed decisively in the 1930s, when the self-governing dominions gained control over the exercise of the royal prerogative. The Balfour Declaration of 1926 had already recognised the dominions as "autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs." The Statute of Westminster 1931 then gave that recognition the force of law in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, though New Zealand later repealed it under the Constitution Act 1986.

  The 1936 abdication of Edward VIII tested those principles in a concrete and dramatic way. The Irish Free State implemented the abdication a full day later than the United Kingdom and the other dominions. For 24 hours, Edward VIII was king in the Irish Free State while George VI was king everywhere else. The legal fiction of a single, indivisible Crown had cracked.

  The Perth Agreement of 2011 showed the realms working together again. Commonwealth realms cooperated to end male-preference primogeniture, and the changes came into force in unison in March 2015. Historian Vernon Bogdanor has argued it remains constitutionally inappropriate for succession to diverge even as the realms have attained complete independence. Legal scholar Noel Cox traced a transition from "unity of title, and unity of person" in 1931 to a division of responsibility among the realms by 1952, with an ongoing expectation of uniformity on matters like succession.

• 5. The Crown in Court

  ›

  In criminal proceedings across Commonwealth realms, the Crown is the prosecuting party. Cases are designated by the abbreviation R, standing for rex if the current monarch is male or regina if the monarch is female, followed by v and the defendant's name. A case against a person named Smith becomes R v Smith, read aloud as "the Crown against Smith."

  The Crown is, in general, immune to prosecution and civil lawsuits. To challenge alleged unlawful government activity, a case in judicial review is brought by the Crown against a minister of the Crown on the application of a claimant. A high-profile example from the source is R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, where "Miller" refers to Gina Miller, a citizen who brought the application.

  Scotland operates differently. Criminal prosecutions there are undertaken by the Lord Advocate or the relevant procurator fiscal in the name of the Crown, and the abbreviation HMA, standing for His or Her Majesty's Advocate, replaces the rex or regina used elsewhere. The case HMA v Al Megrahi and Fahima is one example of that distinct Scottish practice.

  Australia adds further variation. Most jurisdictions there use R or The King or The Queen, but Western Australia and Tasmania bring prosecutions in the name of the respective state rather than the Crown. Victorian trials in the original jurisdiction use the name of the director of public prosecutions. In civil cases across Commonwealth realms, it is customary to list the body politic or the appropriate government minister as the party rather than the Crown itself. Qui tam lawsuits on behalf of the Crown were once common but became unusual after the Common Informers Act 1951 ended the practice of allowing such suits by common informers.

• 6. Crown in Each Realm

  ›

  Canada offers one of the clearest illustrations of how the Crown multiplies across a federation. One Crown acts separately in each of Canada's eleven governments, one federal and ten provincial. When Crown land is transferred between the federal government and a province, it is the responsibility to manage the land that transfers, not ownership itself. Eugene Forsey put the point sharply in Crown and Cabinet: the provinces are not themselves monarchies. The sovereign is Queen of Canada, not Queen of Ontario or Queen of Quebec, yet is queen in each of those provinces as a consequence of being Queen of Canada.

  The preamble to the British North America Act 1867 expressed the desire of the Canadian provinces to be united "under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." But by 1982, a ruling in Ex parte Indian Association of Alberta settled that obligations of the Crown towards indigenous peoples in Canada were held by the Crown in right of Canada, not by the Crown in right of the United Kingdom.

  In New Zealand, historian Alan Ward defined the Crown in the context of Treaty of Waitangi claims as "the people of New Zealand, including Maori themselves, acted through elected parliament and government." That reading places the Crown as nearly synonymous with the nation itself.

  The Crown Dependencies each carry their own legally distinct version. In the Bailiwick of Jersey, the Succession to the Crown (Jersey) Law 2013 defined the Crown for the purposes of implementing the Perth Agreement as the "Crown in Right of the Bailiwick of Jersey." The Isle of Man similarly defines the Crown in Right of the Isle of Man as separate from the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom. A 2005 ruling by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary in Ex parte Quark settled that the King, in exercising authority over British Overseas Territories, acts in his role as king of each territory, not on the advice of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom.

• 7. Symbols and Contested Names

  ›

  The Crown is represented in heraldry, cap badges, uniforms, and government logos by the image of a crown, and the specific heraldic design has changed with the monarchs who chose it. From 1661 through the reign of Queen Victoria, the image of St Edward's Crown was standard. The early part of Victoria's reign shifted to the Imperial State Crown created for her coronation. A Tudor Crown then began to be used from the 1860s, was standardised in 1901, and continued until 1952 when Elizabeth II restored the heraldic St Edward's Crown. In 2022, Charles III opted for a modified Tudor Crown design.

  Section 4 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 bars the use of royal crown images in trade marks in the United Kingdom, or in any country party to the Paris Convention, without permission. Section 99 of the same Act also restricts business use of crown imagery in ways calculated to suggest an affiliation with the King or the royal family. The Lord Chamberlain's Office governs these uses and maintains a set of images that may be used without infringement.

  The term "Crown forces" carries a very different weight in an Irish republican context. Groups including various iterations of the Irish Republican Army used the term to describe British security forces operating in Ireland during conflicts including the Irish War of Independence and the Troubles. Irish republican Danny Morrison explained the politics of the label: "the term 'security forces' suggests legitimacy, which is why republicans prefer terms like 'the Brits' or 'the Crown Forces,' which undermines their authority." As a result of the Irish War of Independence, the phrase came to represent something the source describes as "abhorrent in the Republican narrative." The single word Crown, then, can stand for opposing things depending entirely on who is speaking and in which tradition they stand.