In the world today there are two monarchies with global significance, the Roman monarchy of Pope Benedict XVI and the British monarchy of Queen Elizabeth II.
Both incumbents, as it happens, are the same age, 86, and while Elizabeth II this year celebrates her 60th year on the throne, Pope Benedict XVI has only enjoyed seven years since his enthronement to the Papacy.
Apart from the coincidence of age, there are other similarities as well as differences between the two.
The differences are obvious.
The Papacy is fundamentally religious, elective (a position acquired through election) and autocratic. The British monarchy is essentially secular, hereditary and constitutional.
But all the same the two monarchies have important things in common, quite apart from their world-wide status. Even their differences are, in some ways, more apparent than real.
Pope Benedict XVI is, of course, primarily the head of a church with over 1.8 billion members in every part of the world.
But he is also a temporal sovereign. The territory over which he has direct rule, the Vatican State, may be miniscule, but his political reach and influence is wide-ranging, deep-rooted and incalculable. Indeed, it could be said that a pope’s success can only really be measured by his political acumen, not his intrinsic holiness.
You have only to consider Pope John XXIII or Blessed Pope John Paul II – both brilliant politicians - to recognise the truth of this. Wherever he goes the Pope is received as a Head of State. He is represented diplomatically in countries where Roman Catholicism is only a minority faith.
Queen Elizabeth II’s role is, no less evidently, more political than religious. She is the Head of State in the United Kingdom and in a dozen or so other countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Jamaica. She was also Malta’s Head of State between 1964 and 1974.
She is also Head of the Commonwealth, an association comprising 53 nations, including the Republic of Malta, in every continent and with a population approaching two billion.
Yet there is a religious aspect to her, too. She is the titular head, the Supreme Governor, of the established Church of England and of the Church of Scotland. Her office has a quasi-priestly aura deriving from the remote origins of kingship and by no means dependent on the Christian beliefs with which it has been identified for so long. It was, at least until the English Civil War, considered to be a part of the great chain linking divine and human life.
Whereas Popes are elected – by a very small and itself unelected group, the College of Cardinals (to which Malta, despite its centuries-long, and deep, Catholic faith, has only just recently had its second, non-voting, member admitted to it) – British sovereigns owe their position as heads of state in particular countries to inheritance.
But the office of Head of the Commonwealth is definitely not hereditary. Though it has hitherto only been held by the present Queen and her father, King George VI, it did not pass to her automatically on his death in 1952, and will not pass automatically to her successor.
Without being formally elective, since there is no provision for candidatures or votes, the office of Head of the Commonwealth is held by invitation of the 53 countries of the Commonwealth and not by hereditary right. In theory, the Commonwealth might in future decide to choose its head by a different process, or to have no head at all.
It is beyond question that Pope Benedict XVI wields more personal power, in his own sphere, than Elizabeth II in hers. Even when pronouncing on behalf of the Church the Pope has the whip-hand and is the preponderant authority.
On the other hand, the “Queen in Parliament”, in legal terms the sovereign power in Britain, is in reality the power of Parliament with the Queen contributing only a few ritual and largely ceremonial gestures.
Nevertheless, the Pope is not quite an autocrat.
In practice, he normally listens to advice from many quarters before taking a major step.
In any case, the Catholic flock is quite capable of disregarding his ordinances, as it manifestly does almost everywhere in the matter of birth control and a number of other social issues.
The Queen, for her part, has considerable freedom of action “outside Parliament”.
The residue of the royal prerogative in politics, such as inviting a Prime Minister to form a government or dissolving Parliament, is not without importance.
In the appointment of most members of her own household the Queen is not subject to ministerial advice and she can exercise her own discretion in the expression of views not conflicting with government policy or controversies between political parties. She has her own honours patronage system, which includes the prestigious Order of Merit.
Moreover, as Head of the Commonwealth, she is not obliged to take the advice of the British or any other individual prime minister, though of course, as a matter of courtesy and policy, she would never contemplate visiting any Commonwealth country without the approval of its leaders.
So much for the differences – which are more apparent than real – between the Papacy and the British monarchy.
But, above all, they are alike in being institutions of great antiquity, history, riches and splendour.
They both command admiration even when there is no specific allegiance.
They are institutions which appeal to the imagination and our collective sense of history.
The Papacy and the British monarchy share, also, the need to keep their traditions alive by a judicious openness to change.
In this the Papacy has the harder task, since it rests ultimately upon theological doctrines that are facing – indeed increasingly facing – growing challenges.
The British monarchy in the sixty years of Elizabeth II’s reign has shown a remarkable capacity for change, adapting to the end of the British Empire, the evolution of the Commonwealth and accession to the European Union with aplomb.
It has bent more, broken less, and survived.
The Papacy has yet to adapt to modern mores, and this will undoubtedly have to await the arrival of Pope Benedict XVI’s successor.
Will the two monarchies survive?
Undoubtedly.
But they will have to change to remain relevant and, in the case of the Papacy, to change radically.