should the british monarchy be abolished essay

The Case For and Against Abolishing the Monarchy

Leon Wheeler argues in favour of the British monarchy's abolition, whilst Adam Arnfield highlights its contributions to the UK.

The Case For the Abolition of the Monarchy – Leon Wheeler

When Charles I was beheaded in 1649, a fundamental tenet in his belief, and in the belief of his supporters, as to why he should be King was the view that the English monarch was divinely appointed by God. Ultimately, when the monarchy was restored in 1688, the exposition of the divine right of Kings to rule died out – there was an appreciation that with the advancement of science, such an argument was less persuasive. However, although our current monarchs no longer rule us – instead holding a symbolic role of superiority – this notion that some are ‘divinely’ appointed to stand above the rest of us ‘common folk’ remains an underlying basis for the continued reign of the British Royal Family.

In the wake of the coronation, in which the country was very nearly asked to pledge its obedience to the new King, I’m forced to confront the reality that the very concept of the monarchy – especially in the form it takes in the UK – is an afront to the principles of democracy, equality, and individual sovereignty that our country has proudly boasted of.

The UK claims to be the home of parliamentary democracy, but can it really claim to be a democracy when we have an unelected head of state? The principles of democracy argue that those governing and in positions of power should only do so with the consent of the governed. A principle that is significantly undermined when the main signature needed to ensure a law is enacted is that of someone whose sole requirement be that they were born to the right person in the right order.

Furthermore, when we as citizens (not subjects) vote for MPs and for the government, we expect them to create legislation that applies equally to everyone, that doesn’t favour those from a particular class, creed, or race. We certainly don’t expect individuals who play key roles in our constitutional system to make use of their position to ensure that what legislation is produced is favourable specifically to their family.

Since 1967, the Queen, and now the King, has had exemptions written into over 160 different laws – the Royal household is exempt from employees of the monarch pursuing sexual or racial discrimination complaints, the monarchy is exempt from the 2010 Equality Act, police and environmental officers are banned from accessing the Royal families’ private properties without first attaining permission, the monarchy is not required to pay income or capital gains tax (not even on private interests), and the monarchy is exempt from paying inheritance tax. This is only compounded by the fact that the Royal family has the right to inspect legislation that may affect them – and request alterations – before it becomes public.

As such, we have a situation where a select group of individuals, born into their positions, are able to intervene and exempt themselves from the democratically constructed law. When those in positions of power separate from the legislative body can so freely interfere with the making of laws, can we then truly label the UK a democracy?

…the very concept of the monarchy – especially in the form it takes in the UK – is an afront to the principles of democracy, equality, and individual sovereignty that our country has proudly boasted of.

This point about the Royal family being exempt from multiple laws feeds into my next point. Very clearly, the monarchy is a contradiction to the belief that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. When a select group are not only unlikely to be prosecuted for a breach of the law, but have illegal acts made permissible for them by the law itself, any illusion of equality must be thrown out of the window. The mere fact that one family in this country are born not just into great wealth, but into positions of national power and importance, indicates that we are not all equal – there are some of us born with more rights. This is a direct call back to the divine right of kings that once separated the monarchy from everyone else.  

It is often argued that the monarchy plays an important role in representing the UK abroad. Royal visits are seen as a way in which the UK can advance its interests by soft power – giving the Royal family a valued diplomatic role. I argue that this is mistaken. At its zenith the British Empire ruled over roughly 25% of the world’s surface. It therefore seems bizarre to argue that the best way to endear the UK to other countries, especially members of the commonwealth, is by sending over the direct descendants and representatives of the individuals and institution that sanctioned and endorsed the colonisation, looting, and desecration of the nations in the first place. Proof of this can be seen in William and Kate’s trip to Jamaica in 2022. Prior to their arrival Jamaica indicated its intention to transition to a republic. Furthermore, an open letter signed by one hundred Jamaican academics, politicians, and cultural leaders branded the royal visitors as “direct beneficiaries of the wealth accumulated by the royal family…from the trafficking and enslavement of Africans”.

The Royal Family’s position as representatives of the UK not only harms chances at bridging diplomatic gaps, but it also contributes to a negative portrayal of the UK internationally. When the scandal over Prince Andrew’s ties to Jeffery Epstein emerged, it directly harmed the Royal Family’s reputation. And because the monarchy is the head of state, this directly harmed the UK’s reputation as well. Similarly, issues with Prince Phillip making ‘problematic’ (racist and sexist) gaffes when abroad, and the scandal over Charles’ affair with the now Queen Camilla, further harm the reputation of our country. In this way the monarchy’s position as representatives and figure heads is a large negative for the interests of us all.

So what’s the alternative? Many argue that were the position of head of state to be elected, it would bring in a political element and constitutional crisis that the current system avoids. This view, though, is premised on a mistaken assumption of the monarchy’s apolitical nature. When the Royal Family’s net worth is estimated to run into the billions, when the entire family was born into luxury and wealth, and when they are predominantly white and upper class, they cannot help but represent traditional, conservative values, the status quo, and the advancement of the wealthy.

By contrast, a duly elected head of state with the same duties and removed stance from the levers of power would act merely as some kind of ‘chief diplomat’. An individual who could be relied upon to perform just their duties and could be unelected at the end of their term or at the arrival of scandals of the like that are becoming common with the Royal Family.

To conclude, if we truly value democracy, if we care about the reputation of the UK, and if we believe in the equality of all – then we have no option but to oppose the monarchy.

Responses to the case for abolition – Adam Arnfield

• Many of the exemptions which the Royal Family have from laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act, are exemptions they have because they are a family before they are a business, the laws often containing the words ‘in [his] private capacity’. Moreover, the Queen voluntarily paid tax, despite not being required to do so. Of course, some of the exemptions, such as from sexual and racial discrimination complaints, should not exist, but these can simply be removed alongside Charles’ modernising agenda – abolition is not required.
• If we were to bar all people with morally questionable ancestors from diplomatic roles or other public offices, I’m not sure we’d have any diplomats or public figures left in Britain.
• The monarchy clearly does more good for Britain’s reputation than it does harm. The outpouring of affection from across the world at the late Queen’s death and the vast number of international visitors to her funeral are surely signs of that.

The Case Against the Abolition of the Monarchy – Adam Arnfield

‘Not to be served, but to serve’. Those were the words that we heard repeated over and over again throughout the coronation on Saturday. Although the coronation brings to mind a monarch in a golden carriage, waving to adoring crowds, at its core, Britain’s monarchy is not about taking but about giving.

As much as royal duties may seem like the family repeatedly setting off around the world, tooting their own horns, the reality is very different. Royals do not make up their calendars as they please, but accept the invitations of the hundreds of organisations that desire and value their presence. Republicans might think the respect that the British people have for the Royal Family is misplaced and unhealthy. The suggestion here is that republicans know what’s best for the British public, better than the British public themselves. This patronising attitude mirrors the paternalistic ethos which republicans so often rail against when protesting the monarchy.

As Stephen Fry points out, the monarchy can have a positive effect on government. The Prime Minister must meet the monarch on a weekly basis, discussing national affairs and explaining their decisions. Regularly meeting with a figure who symbolises the British people is a check on the Prime Minister’s ego and a disincentive against corruption. Note that most of Boris Johnson’s most outrageous scandals occurred during the 15 months wherein COVID prevented his meeting the Queen. Without a monarchy, would our leaders go even further off the rails? Of course, at elections the people can punish bad government. But elections happen only twice a decade, while the King meets with the Prime Minister every week to hear of their work. Patriotism might be stirring to some, but surely meeting with an embodied monarch inspires more fear than a mythic ‘King Arthur’. Do we really imagine that Donald Trump, for example, feels a sense of duty towards Uncle Sam? A Prime Minister without a King is like an Oxford student without a tutor. And usually a PPE student at that!

The personal effect on the Prime Minister is clearly not the only political benefit monarchy brings. As I have written for the Oxford student previously , the Royal Family provides Britain with a national icon that it can honour and trust, without the toxic effects of giving a politician such power. I doubt I need to give examples of cults of personality leading to political overreach and disaster. A monarchy is a guard against popular politicians going too far. By contrast, the idea of a President Thatcher or a President Blair is not a comforting one. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, half of the world’s twenty most democratic states are monarchies, and monarchies regularly score highly on Transparency International’s absence of corruption index.

Despite regular complaints of ‘taking taxpayers’ money’, having a monarchy actually saves Britain money. Brand Finance estimates that the royal family generates a net surplus for Britain, costing £292M, but generating £1.766B! Moreover, were republicans to have their way, even if we didn’t add presidential campaigns to our election cycle, campaigns would certainly become more personalised and expensive. On top of those recurring costs, there would be an incredibly complicated and expensive process of untangling the Royal Family from the British political system, the two being intimately intertwined. The opening of parliament, the investing of power in the Prime Minister, the process by which bills become law, the welcoming of foreign diplomats to Britain, the management of Crown properties, and the symbols on various government services would all need to be reformed or replaced, to name but a few aspects of the process.

Do we really imagine that Donald Trump, for example, feels a sense of duty towards Uncle Sam? A Prime Minister without a King is like an Oxford student without a tutor.

The most important part of a republican Britain, however, would be the codification and entrenchment of a British constitution. Britain’s political system currently functions on the basis of convention, and its structure puts the politically neutral monarch at its head. Therefore, the removal of the monarchy would need to be accompanied by the creation of a new constitution, as the duties of the head of state are vested elsewhere. Firstly, this process is likely to provoke the wrath of parliament: enshrining a certain set of laws as foundational and unchangeable could easily be considered a threat to ‘parliamentary supremacy’. Secondly, the process would naturally become very partisan very quickly. Britain took nearly four years to negotiate Brexit with the EU, formalising rules about one part of its foreign policy. Imagine how long Britain would take, and how difficult it would be, to negotiate the rules of the entire political system. And remember we’re talking about a negotiation not between two trading partners, but between two bitterly opposed political parties. The exact nature of various political processes, including the selection of the Prime Minister, the calling together and dissolution of parliament, and the relation of the Supreme Court and other institutions to parliament, would all need to be hashed out.

Of course, none of these positive effects are simply institutional. The Kings and Queens that have served Britain are not mere figureheads with no substance – they are real people with real personalities, and of course, they must come with real flaws. I do not want to pretend that King Charles, or past monarchs for that matter, are without sin. However, the monarchy has been able to recognise its role in the mistakes of Britain’s past, with King Charles supporting research into the connection monarchy has had to slavery, calling it “the most painful period of our history”. And as Britain steps into the future, it is led by a King who has been ahead of his time in climate advocacy, showing that the monarchy can have a positive influence despite being above politics.

Responses to the case against abolition – Leon Wheeler

• Although the weekly meetings between the monarch and the PM represent a chance for the PM to be grilled about their achievements and conduct, to assume that this represents a check on their power or intentions is wrong. The monarch has the right to make suggestions or criticise conduct but not only does this display the fact that they do have a political stance, but it also has little effect. An Oxford tutor can impose some limited sanctions – a monarch cannot.
• As for the apparent issues surrounding Parliament, the codification of the constitution, and the place of an elected ‘president’, I believe my opponent exaggerates them. There seems no need to me for any part of the UK’s uncodified constitution to become entrenched – not even parts pertaining to a new head of state. Parliamentary sovereignty could easily be maintained in a republic, and I believe that in many cases the role of the monarch in the Parliamentary system could very easily be replaced by that of a president with very little alteration.
• From a republican standpoint, to engage in a debate over whether the monarchy is a net financial positive or negative is a mistake. Such a debate is premised on the idea that if only the monarchy can reach a certain level of financial profitability, its existence is justified.

Image credit: Katie Chan at Wikimedia Commons .

Image description: The carriage of King Charles III en route to his coronation. 

Liked this article? Why not share it?

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

• House of Commons Latest
• War in Ukraine
• Levelling Up
• Scottish Independence
• Cost of Living
• Latest Opinion Polls
• Write for us
• Drawing for Politics.co.uk
• Creative Politics
• Terms of use

Politics.co.uk

• Conservative Leadership
• Autumn Budget

British Monarchy

Do the public support the monarchy.

The argument that the UK should abolish the monarchy and become a republic remains at the fringes of mainstream political debate. The British monarchy as an institution generally retains a large degree of public support.

According to a YouGov poll just prior to the coronation in April 2023, 58% said they supported the monarchy compared to 26% who said they would prefer an elected head of state.

This compared to a poll a year earlier at the time of the late Queen Elizabeth II’s 2022 platinum jubilee, where 62% of Britons thought the country should continue to have a monarchy in the future (down from 67% in October 2020), with only 22% saying the country should move to having an elected head of state instead.

While over-65s were the most likely to be supportive of the monarchy at 78%, those aged18-24 were the least likely:only 32% backed the monarchy. This younger group was more likely, at 38%, to prefer an elected head of state, although the remaining 30% didn’t know.

In 2023, support for the monarchy was strongest among those over 65 (78%).  By comparison, only 32% of those aged 18 to 24 backed the continuation of the monarchy.

The 2022 poll showed support for the monarchy was highest amongst conservative voters (84%) compared to 48% of labour voters. Support for the royal family remains almost identical amongst different social classes, albeit there were regional variations. In 2020, just 58% of Londoners supported the continuation of the monarchy.

The case for a constitutional monarchy

The most frequent arguments made in favour of a constitutional monarchy revolve around:

Am impartial and symbolic head of state A constitutional monarch is one who is above party politics or factional interests. The monarch is thus said to be a focus of national unity. Supporters of a constitutional monarchy stress the benefits of the head of government (the prime minister) being separate from the role of head of state.

A constitutional monarch is also able to give impartial, non-political support to the work of a wide range of different types of organizations and charities that would not be possible in the same way for a political figure.

This unifying non-political role of the royal family is something that spreads through the monarch’s annual Christmas Broadcast, attendance at ceremonial events like Trooping the Colour, and the dispatch of congratulatory telegrams to centenarians and couples marking their Diamond Wedding anniversary.

The Royal Family‘s Annual Report in relation to the Sovereign Grant in 2019/20 detailed how in that year, some 139,000 guests were welcomed by Queen Elizabeth II and other Members of the Royal Family at Royal Residences for events such as garden parties and investitures.

Queen Elizabeth II was said to have undertaken 296 official engagements in the year 2019/20, as part of 3,200 official engagements undertaken by members of the royal family.

A link with history A constitutional monarch represents a constant and lasting connection to the country‘s past, with links that date back through history. The British monarch is also the Head of State of 15 other independent countries, as well as the head of the commonwealth of 53 Nations.

A powerful global representation of Britain The international recognition of the British monarchy, with its associated foreign tours and state visits, is said to help support the influence of Britain around the world.  This is said to bring notable benefits in terms of security, influence, and trade.

The Consultancy Brand Finance has estimated that the gain in trade, resulting from the Royal Family’s ambassadorial role could be worth as much as £150m a year.

A magnet for tourism The Royal Family are said to represent a strong draw for tourists to visit Great Britain. The Organisation Visit Britain estimated that tourism linked to royal  residences such as Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, and Balmoral Castle adds up to 2.7 million visitors a year.

The consultancy Brand Finance estimated that the Royal Family drew in £550 million of tourist revenues a year. Such figures are questioned by others, but supporters of the Royal Family pose the counterfactual question as to how many tourists would not visit Britain if the monarchy was abolished.

An asset to Britain’s ‘soft power’ Soft power is the ability to influence others without resorting to coercive pressure. This is generated from the extent of a nation’s cultural appeal, the strength of its diplomatic network, the global reputation of its higher education system, and the quality of the country’s political institutions. In a nuclear age, traditional methods of ‘hard power’ like brute force and threats are far less effective tools for achieving sustained influence – strengthening the importance of a nation’s soft power.

According to Brand Finance’s global soft power index 2023, the UK had a global rank of second (just behind the US). In its report, Brand Finance highlighted the importance of the monarchy in Britain’s impressive level of soft power, saying that Queen Elizabeth II’s “spectacular” funeral in 2022 “reminded the world of Britain’s greatest Soft Power assets”.

The case for abolishing the monarchy

The most frequent arguments made for the abolition of the monarchy are:

Democracy It is argued that in a democracy, the public should be able to exercise democratic control over the Head of State. This relates to both electing the post, and having the instruments to check or even impeach whoever holds that role. None of this is possible if the head of state is a hereditary monarch.

Campaigners for the abolition of the monarchy, such as the campaign group, ‘Republic’, have argued that a monarchy is fundamentally undemocratic. They argue that only an elected head of state can change the political culture and the relationship with those in power.

The group also attack what they perceive as the Royal Family‘s use of their privileged status to regularly involve themselves in the country‘s politics. This is said to be evidenced by the volume of private letters written by the  former Prince of Wales to government Ministers on a regular basis.

The Established Church The continuing existence of the royal family also attracts criticism because of the way in which the monarch is both the head of the church and the head of state.

It is argued that having an established church, in the form of the Church of England, discriminates in favour of one religion above all. It is said that this is a piece of religious discrimination which is a dangerous anachronism in a multi-cultural, mainly secular society.

A similar argument is advanced around the automatic right of  Bishops  to sit in the House of Lords.

Costs Campaigners for reform of the British royal family have pointed to the cost of the Royal Family.

At over £80 million per year, they argue that the British sovereign is the most expensive monarch in Europe. In comparison, the Spanish monarchy is said to cost £6.15m, and the Swedes reportedly pay £11.6m for their monarchy.

A forward-looking Britain Campaigners for the abolition of the monarchy argue that having an elected head of state would give a global boost to brand ‘Britain‘. It is argued that such a change would project the image of a modern, confident, and forward-looking country abroad.

They also argue that the existence of hereditary power at the top of the country’s political, military and religious institutions, perpetuates a mentality which they describe as being defined by social class.  This criticism is frequently tied to criticism of the honours system.

The role of the British monarch

The British monarch, King Charles III, is the sovereign and head of state of the UK and its overseas territories. The monarch, referred to in the abstract as ‘The Crown’, is the formal source of all legislative and executive power.

However in practice, the British political system is a ‘constitutional monarchy‘: the supreme power held by the monarch is largely ceremonial and formal, with actual political power exercised by others.

In the United Kingdom, the monarch has the following constitutional duties: the state opening of parliament; the appointment of the prime minister; the approval of parliamentary legislation; the approval of official appointments; the approval of secondary legislation through the privy council; representational duties as head of state such as paying and receiving state visits to and from other heads of state; receiving the credentials of foreign ambassadors; and regular confidential audiences with the prime minister.

In addition to these constitutional duties, the monarch is also the head of the armed forces; the head of the judiciary; and the head of the civil service. Since Henry VIII, the British monarch has been Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

The monarch is also the fount of honour, and all honours are awarded in his or her name (although, with notable exceptions, most are awarded on the advice of the government).

The British monarch is also the Head of the Commonwealth, and the head of state in 15 of the other 53 Commonwealth member countries.

How much does the royal family cost?

Direct funding to meet the monarchy’s official expenditure is now provided through what is called the ‘Sovereign Grant’. This replaced the Civil List and ‘grants in aid’ from the government in 2012. The grant is reviewed every five years.

In 2019-20 the Sovereign Grant was £82.4 million. These figures have risen from £47.4 million in 2017-18, largely to cover the refurbishments and reservicing required at Buckingham Palace.

Supporters of the monarchy and related royal duties equates to £1.23 a year for every person in the UK.

Separate to the Sovereign Grant, the Royal  Family’s security bill is picked up by the Metropolitan police in London, while the costs of royal visits are borne by local councils.

Senior members of the royal family have private incomes from their private landed estates and financial assets. In 2016-17, Queen Elizabeth II received revenue of £19.1 million from a landed estate called the Duchy of Lancaster. In the same year, then Prince Charles earned £22.5 million from his estate, the Duchy of Cornwall.

Under the 1964 Continental Shelf Act, the Crown Estate was given the rights to the seabed around the UK, which allowed the royal family to earn £193 million from 2013 to 2023 according to a report by Prospect . The money was generated from the crown estate leasing seabed sites to energy companies for offshore wind.

Queen Elizabeth II voluntarily paid income and capital gains tax since 1992 on her private income and the revenues not used to finance her official work.  King Charles III has also voluntarily paid income tax on his income from the Duchy of Cornwall since 1993.

According to the April 2023 You Gov poll on the royal family, 54% of the 4,592 UK adults surveyed said that the monarchy represents good value, compared with 32% who thought it represents bad value.

“The monarchy is so extraordinarily useful. When Britain wins a battle she shouts, God save the Queen; when she loses, she votes down the prime minister.”. Winston Churchill

“The events that I have attended to mark my Diamond Jubilee have been a humbling experience. It has touched me deeply to see so many thousands of families, neighbours and friends celebrating together in such a happy atmosphere”…”I hope that memories of all this year’s happy events will brighten our lives for many years to come. I will continue to treasure and draw inspiration from the countless kindnesses shown to me in this country and throughout the Commonwealth. Thank you all.” The Queen‘s Diamond Jubilee Message – June 2012

“No. I am not a royalist. Not at all. I am definitely a Republican in the British sense of the word. I just don’t see the use of the monarchy  though I’m fierce patriot. I’m proud proud proud of being English, but I think the monarchy symbolizes a lot of what was wrong with the country”. Actor – Daniel Radcliffe

“Canadians should realise when they are well off under the Monarchy. For the vast majority of Canadians, being a Monarchy is probably the only form of government acceptable to them. I have always been for parliamentary democracy and I think the institution of Monarchy with the Queen heading it all has served Canada well”, Former Canadian Prime Minister – Pierre Trudeau

The history of the British monarchy

Monarchy is rule by an individual who is royal, and the system is usually hereditary. The term monarchy derives from the Greek, monosarkhein, meaning ‘one ruler’.

King Charles III can trace his lineage back to King Egbert, who united England in 829. The only interruption to the institution of the Monarchy was its brief abolition from 1649 to 1660, following the execution of Charles I and the rules of Oliver Cromwell and his son, Richard.

The crowns of England and Scotland were brought together on the accession of James VI of Scotland as James I of England in 1603. The 1707 Act of Union joined the countries as the Kingdom of Great Britain, while the 1801 Act of Union joined this with the Kingdom of Ireland, to create the United Kingdom.

Over the last thousand years, political power in Britain has passed from the Monarch, who reigned and ruled by virtue of the ‘Divine Right of Kings’, to Parliament. Parliament began as a body of leading nobles and clergy that the Monarch consulted in the exercise of power, which gradually assumed more and more power at the expense of the Monarch – particularly during the upheavals of the 17th Century, which culminated in the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1689. The 1701 Act of Settlement, critically, passed the power to decide on succession to the throne to Parliament.

By the beginning of the 20th Century, power had passed almost entirely to Parliament. However, Parliament and the Government exercise their powers under ‘Royal Prerogative’: on behalf of the Monarch and through powers still formally possessed by the Monarch.

In 2011, the British Monarchy agreed an end to the primogeniture rule for descendants of the Prince of Wales. This means that if the first child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge had been a girl, she would succeed to the throne ahead of any brothers that she may have.   The current line of succession is Prince William, and then Prince George.

It was agreed to abolish the rule which says that no-one who marries a Roman Catholic can become Monarch. However, the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England because he or she is the head of that church.

The early 2020s have seen the British Royal Family endure their most difficult period in the media spotlight since the divorce of then Prince Charles and Princess Diana in the early 1990s.

In early 2021, Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markel gave a TV interview with Oprah Winfrey in America. In the interview, Markel claimed that Harry had been asked by an unnamed family member “how dark” their son Archie’s skin might be.   The comments came at a bad time for the Royal Family, with Prince Andrew facing regular questions around his relationship with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

In 2021, Queen Elizabeth II’s husband Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, died aged 99.  He had acted as royal consort between 1952 and 2021, making him the longest ever serving royal consort.

Queen Elizabeth II died on 8 September 2022.

Queen Elizabeth II was  history’s longest reigning Monarch, having been Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand for 70 years between 6 February 1952 and 8 September 2022. Between 1952 and 2022, Queen Elizabeth II gave Royal Assent to more than 3,650 Acts of Parliament. Over her reign, Queen Elizabeth II appointed 15 Prime Ministers and 7 Archbishops of Canterbury.

Only five other kings and queens in British history have reigned for 50 years or more. They are: Queen Victoria (63 years), George III (59 years), Henry III (56 years), Edward III (50 years), James VI of Scotland (James I of England) (58 years).

There were seven Archbishops of Canterbury during Queen Elizabeth II’s reign: Archbishops Geoffrey Fisher, Michael Ramsey, Donald Coggan, Robert Runcie, George Carey, Rowan Williams, and Justin Welby.

King Charles II was coronated, alongside Queen Camilla, the Queen Consort, on 6 May 2023 which focused on the importance of service. “I come not to be served, but to serve,” the King said in his first prayer after reaching the abbey. It was reported that the coronation was watched by more than 18 million people.

Honours System

Please read our privacy policy and terms of use before signing up.

Editor's picks

Opinion Former

Data Visualisations

Powered by Polimapper

Stay on top of the stories that matter with our essential lunchtime briefing:

• The Week in Review (every Saturday AM)
• The Commons Today (Mon - Thurs PM)
• Sunday Spotlight (every Sunday AM)
• Politics@lunch (every weekday lunchtime)

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Monarchy — Should the British Monarchy Be Abolished

Should The British Monarchy Be Abolished

• Categories: Great Britain Monarchy

About this sample

Words: 554 |

Published: Sep 1, 2023

Words: 554 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

The case for abolition, preserving tradition and national identity, modernizing the monarchy, conclusion: navigating tradition and progress.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Geography & Travel Government & Politics

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1650 words

1 pages / 424 words

3 pages / 1261 words

2 pages / 1081 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Monarchy

Should the British monarchy be abolished is a question that has sparked debates and discussions for decades, often evoking contrasting viewpoints on the role, relevance, and impact of the monarchy in modern society. This essay [...]

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes lists three types of common wealth: aristocracy, democracy and monarchy. The commonwealth is a political community, with a sovereign as the soul to administer litigious and non-litigious affairs, such [...]

Queen Elizabeth I, often referred to as the "Virgin Queen," is one of England's most iconic monarchs. Her reign, which lasted from 1558 to 1603, is known for its stability and the flourishing of the arts. Yet, one intriguing [...]

The life and legacy of Princess Diana, often referred to as the "People's Princess," remain subjects of intense discussion and debate. Her untimely death in 1997 left a global audience in mourning, but also ignited critical [...]

Henry VII faced many threats during his reign, with the majority being at the beginning of it. The three main threats came from Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck and the de la Pole family; especially Edmund de la Pole. The threat [...]

During seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe, democracy and absolutism were two incredibly controversial forms of government. However, absolute monarchy are not only more beneficial to the people in that they were not [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

What are the pros and cons of the monarchy?

Majority of Britons still favour having a royal family but support is waning

• Newsletter sign up Newsletter

1. Pro: popular with public

2. con: cost to taxpayers, 3. pro: ‘soft’ power benefits uk, 4. con: no place in equal society, 5. pro: boosts national unity, 6. con: undemocratic.

Spare: the leaks, the quotes, the damage King Charles coronation: all the details and who’s attending Queen Elizabeth II: stories from an extraordinary life

As King Charles III’s coronation approaches, the role of the monarchy in modern Britain is under renewed scrutiny.

Supporters argue that the monarchy provides a sense of national identity and stability, but critics insist it is an outdated institution that perpetuates elitism and inequality within British society.

Efforts to modernise the coronation ceremony, including a proposed “Homage of the People”, have triggered further debate. The invitation to swear allegiance to the King has met with reactions ranging from approval to “mild bemusement” or “plain disgust”, according to The Guardian .

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

The royal family has been mired in a series of controveries in recent years. Prince Andrew’s friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein triggered a PR disaster that was exacerbated by his car-crash Newsnight interview in 2019. And the reported rift between Prince Harry and other senior royals including his brother William continues to be a headache for the monarchy.

Here are the arguments for and against keeping the centuries-old institution.

The monarchy as a whole “has long enjoyed broad, albeit declining, support among Britons, even if several of its individual members have not”, said Time magazine. Despite fears, Prince Harry’s scathing biography, Spare , “did little to dent the royal family’s popularity” – although his own ratings fell to a record low.

Support for retaining the monarchy in the UK increased briefly to 67% following the death of Queen Elizabeth in September, up from 62% at the time of her Platinum Jubilee in May 2022, according to YouGov polling.

But as of last month, support had dropped back down to 62% – significantly lower than a decade ago, when backing for the institution was as high as 75%.

Today, attitudes to the monarchy differ dramatically by age, with only 36% of younger Britons in favour of keeping the monarchy, compared with 79% of over-65s.

The “first and most obvious challenge” for King Charles will be to “maintain popular support”, said Robert Hazell, professor of government and the constitution at University College London. “Modern monarchy no longer depends on divine grace, but the consent of the people,” he wrote in a guest paper for the Institute for Government last December. He warned that if public support “does start to dwindle”, the government might come under pressure to reduce funding for the royals, as has happened in Spain.

The monarchy is supported financially by UK taxpayers via the Sovereign Grant, which covers central staffing costs and expenses for the monarch’s official households, maintenance of the royal palaces in England, and travel and royal engagements and visits.

Accounts for the Sovereign Grant, released in June, showed that this cost £102.4m in 2021/22, an increase of 17% from the previous financial year.

“At a time when all we keep hearing about is the cost-of-living crisis and our bills rising, the thought of the monarchy costing us over £100m last year is eye-watering,” said Rhiannon Mills, royal correspondent for Sky News . To be fair, said Mills, a lot of their engagements have focused on people struggling financially. But they will “inevitably always face the criticism of ‘how can they understand?’ when their family is one of the most privileged in the country”.

The cost of the coronation of King Charles III has not been confirmed, but was predicted to be “around £100m”, according to the London Evening Standard .

The funding sources for the coronation include the sovereign grant and the UK government, according to a Buckingham Palace spokesperson, but that the bill will be footed at least in part by the taxpayer has sparked public concern.

A YouGov poll carried out around two weeks before the crowning on 6 May found that more than half of respondents did not believe the government should fund the coronation, compared to around a third who did.

Many critics have called for more transparency and clarity on the final total.

The Queen was a source of British “soft power” and diplomatic influence throughout her 70-year reign, making countless state visits and foreign tours that brought benefits for national security, influence and trade.

A 2017 report by consultancy agency Brand Finance said that the monarchy generated an estimated £150m worth of trade for the UK each year. And combined with contributions including surplus revenues from the Crown Estate, which go to the Treasury, and money from tourism, the total estimated gain for the UK economy was almost £1.8bn.

“Measuring the wealth-generation of a brand is no easy task, especially when it comes to the royal family,” noted Sebastian Shehadi at Investment Monitor , but their influence on the UK economy “spans the likes of trade, tourism, media, real estate and heritage sites, foreign investment and much more”.

Critics of the monarchy argue that having a system of hereditary power at the top of the country’s political, military and religious institutions perpetuates class divisions and inequality.

Political journalist and author Eve Livingston argued in The Independent that the royal family “exist as a glaring symbol of the unearned privilege and inequality that pervades the roots of British society”.

And it is not just in Britain that the monarch’s role as head of state is increasingly under scrutiny. Elizabeth’s reign was “bookended by periods of great uncertainty about Britain’s role on the world stage”, said Foreign Policy . She “was coronated in 1953 as the sun was beginning to set on the British Empire, and her death comes as the country reexamines its place in the world”. There are increasing calls for the UK to “reckon with its colonial history”, said the magazine, while republican sentiment is gaining traction in the Caribbean.

Supporters of a constitutional monarchy say it “represents a constant and lasting connection to the country’s past” and they stress the importance of having a head of state who is “above party politics or factional interests”, said Politics.co.uk . This neutrality means “the Crown can help secure smooth and peaceful handovers of political power and restrain abuses of authority”, said The Telegraph .

The royal family’s official website added that the monarch provides “a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service”.

Martin Kettle in The Guardian described Elizabeth’s seven decades on the throne “as a low-key but extremely effective unifying force”. But he warned that it was one “her heirs cannot assume they will be able to replicate”, especially if the now-King Charles “fails to earn the breadth of respect that Elizabeth enjoyed”.

Campaign group Republic and other anti-monarchists argue that “hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle”.

Calling for the monarch to be replaced with an elected head of state, the group said that because the public cannot hold the royal family to account at the ballot box, “there’s nothing to stop them abusing their privilege, misusing their influence or simply wasting our money”.

The monarch “can only ever act in the interests of the government of the day and does not represent ordinary voters”, according to the campaigners, who insist that “the monarchy is a broken institution” that should be scrapped in favour of an elected head of state who “could really represent our hopes and aspirations – and help us keep politicians in check”.

Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox

A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com

  Sorcha Bradley is a writer at The Week and a regular on “The Week Unwrapped” podcast. She worked at The Week magazine for a year and a half before taking up her current role with the digital team, where she mostly covers UK current affairs and politics. Before joining The Week, Sorcha worked at slow-news start-up Tortoise Media. She has also written for Sky News, The Sunday Times, the London Evening Standard and Grazia magazine, among other publications. She has a master’s in newspaper journalism from City, University of London, where she specialised in political journalism.

Cartoons Wednesday's cartoons - loving thy neighbour, an HR matter, and more

By The Week US Published 23 October 24

Speed Read The former New York City mayor must turn over his apartment and other possessions

By Peter Weber, The Week US Published 23 October 24

Speed Read Mike Jeffries ran the brand during its heyday from 1992 to 2014

By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published 23 October 24

Talking Point Communicating directly with the public lets the royals circumvent the media machine but it comes with its own perils

By The Week UK Published 21 September 24

Speed Reed Early Years project has been the 'cornerstone' of Catherine's charitable work

By Arion McNicoll, The Week UK Published 18 September 24

Speed Read The former Kate Middleton shares rare glimpse into family life as she marks milestone in her cancer treatment

By Arion McNicoll, The Week UK Published 10 September 24

Talking Points While the artist hoped to portray the 'magic' of the monarchy, critics have lambasted the 'spooky' work

By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published 15 May 24

Speed Read Duke of Sussex will not see his father during London visit 'due to His Majesty's full programme'

By Hollie Clemence, The Week UK Published 8 May 24

Under The Radar Outer royal 'never expected' to do duties but has stepped up to the plate

By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK Published 28 March 24

speed read The first official image of Kate Middleton since January has been retracted

By Peter Weber, The Week US Published 11 March 24

The Explainer Monarch's responsibilities could be carried out by a regent or the counsellors of state

By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK Published 6 February 24

• Contact Future's experts
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Advertise With Us

The Week is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site . © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.

• Ethics in Culture

Should Monarchies Be Abolished?

On September 8th, 2022, Queen Elizabeth II of England died at the age of 96 . She held the crown for 70 years, making her the longest reigning monarch in the history of Britain. Her son, now King Charles III, will likely be coronated in mid-2023 .

The death of the British monarch has drawn a number of reactions. Most public officials and organizations have expressed respect for the former monarchies and sympathy towards her family. However, others have offered criticism of both the Queen and the monarchy itself. Multiple people have been arrested in the U.K. for anti-royal protests . Negative sentiment has been particularly strong in nations that were previously British colonies – many have taken to social media to critique the Crown’s role in colonialism: the Economic Freedom Fighters, a minority party in South Africa’s parliament released a statement saying they will “not mourn the death of Elizabeth,” and Irish soccer fans chanted that “ Lizzy’s in a box. ” Professor Maya Jasanoff bridged the two positions , writing that, while Queen Elizabeth II was committed to her duties and ought to be mourned as a person, she “helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged.”

My goal in this article is to reflect on monarchies, and their role in contemporary societies. I will not focus on any specific monarch. So, my claims here will be compatible with “good” and “bad” monarchs. Further, I will not consider any particular nation’s monarchy. Rather, I want to focus on the idea of monarchy. Thus, my analysis does not rely on historical events. I argue that monarchies, even in concept, are incompatible with the moral tenets of democratic societies and ought to be abolished as a result.

Democratic societies accept as fundamentally true that all people are moral equals. It is this equality that grounds the right to equal participation in government.

Equal relations stand in contrast to hierarchical relationships. Hierarchies occur when one individual is considered “above” some other(s) in at least one respect. In Private Government , Elizabeth Anderson distinguishes between multiple varieties of hierarchy. Particularly relevant here are hierarchies of esteem . A hierarchy of esteem occurs when some individuals are required to show deference to (an) other(s). This deference may take various forms, such as referring to others through titles or engaging in gestures like bowing or prostration that show inferiority.

Generally, hierarchies of esteem are not automatically impermissible. One might opt into some. For instance, you might have to call your boss “Mrs. Last-Name,” athletes may have to use the title “coach” rather than a first name, etc. Yet, provided that one freely enters into these relationships, such hierarchies need not be troubling. Further, hierarchies of esteem may be part of some relationships that one does not voluntarily enter but are nonetheless morally justifiable – children, generally, are required to show some level of deference to their parents (provided that the parents are caring, have their child’s best interests in mind, etc.), for instance.

The problem with the monarchy is not that it establishes a hierarchy of esteem, but rather that it establishes a mandatory, unearned hierarchy between otherwise equal citizens.

To live in a country with a monarch is to have an individual person and family deemed your social superiors, a group to whom you are expected to show deference, despite your moral equality. This is not a relationship you choose, but rather, one that is thrust upon you. Further, the deference we are said to owe to, and the higher status of, monarchs is not earned. Rather, it is something that they are claimed to deserve simply by virtue of who their parents are, who in turn owe their elevated status to their lineage. Finally, beyond merely commanding deference, monarchs are born into a life of luxury; they live in castles, they travel the world meeting foreign dignitaries, and their deaths may grind a country to a halt as part of a period of mourning.

So, in sum, monarchies undermine the moral foundation of our democracies. We value democratic regimes (in part) because they recognize our equivalent  moral standing. By picking out some, labeling them as the superiors in a hierarchy of deference due to nothing but their ancestry, monarchies are incompatible with the idea that all people are equal.

However, there are some obvious ways one might try to respond. One could object on economic grounds. There is room to argue that monarchies could potentially produce economic benefits . Royals may serve as a tourist attraction or, if internationally popular, might raise the profile and favorability of the nation, thus increasing the desirability of its products and culture. So perhaps monarchies are justified because they are on the whole beneficial.

The problem with this argument is that it compares the incommensurable. It responds to a moral concern by pointing out economic benefits.

My claim is not that monarchy is bad in every respect. Indeed, we can take it for granted that having a monarchy produces economic benefits. However, my claim is that it undermines the moral justification of democracy.

Without a larger argument, it does not follow that economic benefits are sufficient to outweigh moral concerns. This would be like arguing that we should legalize vote-selling due to its economic benefits – it seems to miss the moral reason why we structure public institutions the ways that we do.

Another objection may be grounded in culture. Perhaps monarchies are woven into the cultural fabric of the societies in which they exist; they are part of proud traditions that extend back hundreds or even thousands of years. To abolish a monarchy would be to erase part of a people’s culture.

While it’s true that monarchies are long traditions in many nations, this argument only gets one so far. A practice being part of a people’s culture does not make it immune to critique. Had the Roman practice of gladiatorial combat to the death for the sake of entertainment survived to this day, we would (hopefully) think it ought to be eliminated, despite thousands of years of cultural history.

When a practice violates our society’s foundational moral principles, it ought to be abolished no matter how attached to it we have become.

Finally, one might argue that abolition is unnecessary. Compared to their status throughout history, monarchies have fallen out of grace in the 20th and 21st centuries. Of the nations with monarchies, few have a monarch which wields anything but symbolic power (although some exceptions are notable ). This argument relies on a distinction between what we might call monarchs-as-sovereigns and monarchs-as-figureheads. Monarchs-as-sovereign violate the fundamental tenets of democracy by denying citizens the right to participate in government, while monarchs-as-figureheads, wielding only symbolic power, do not, or so the argument goes.

The issue with this argument is that it underappreciates the full extent of what democracy demands. It does get things right by recognizing that the commitment to democracy arises from the belief that people deserve a say in a government that rules over them. However, it is just not that all citizens deserve some say, but rather, that all citizens deserve an equal say. One person, one vote.

Part of the justification for democracy is that individuals ought to be able to shape their lives, and thus deserve a say in the institutions that affect us all.

Although individuals may vary in their knowledge or other capabilities, to give some greater say in our decision making is to give them disproportionate power to shape the lives of others. No one individual should automatically be someone to whom we all must defer. We might collectively agree to, say, regard someone as an expert in a particular matter relevant to the public good and thus defer to her. However, this only occurs after we collectively agree to it in a process where we all have equal say, either by voting directly for her, or voting for the person who appoints her. Unless we have a parity of power in this process, then we diminish the ability of some to shape their own lives.

On these grounds, perhaps a monarchy could be justified if the citizens of a nation voted the monarch into power. This would simply be another means of collective deferment. But since electorates are constantly changing, there would need to be regular votes on this to ensure the voters still want to defer to this monarch. Yet current monarchies, by elevating the monarch (and family) above others while leaving this outside the realm of collective decision-making, violate the moral justification of democracy – some are made superior by default in the hierarchy of esteem. The establishment of democracy and abolition of all monarchy are proverbial branches that stem from the same tree. Our recognition of human equality should lead us to reject monarchy in even innocuous, purely symbolic forms.

The Ethics of Money as Speech

“Freedom” Is Good for Democrats, Bad for Democracy

Should You Bully a Nazi?

Naming Names: Should Canada Reveal Potential Traitors?

Receive a weekly digest of our best content!

New Times, New Thinking.

• The NS Debate

Is it time for Britain to abolish its monarchy?

Toxic relic or political necessity? Tanya Gold, Robert Hardman, Andrew Marr, Tanjil Rashid, Anna Whitelock and Gary Younge debate the value of the royal family.

By New Statesman

On 22 April, six speakers – Tanya Gold, Robert Hardman, Andrew Marr, Tanjil Rashid, Anna Whitelock and Gary Younge – assembled at the Cambridge Union Debating Chamber for the New Statesman Debate at Cambridge Literary Festival , chaired by the NS Britain editor Anoosh Chakelian. Two weeks before the coronation of King Charles , they were there to debate the motion: “This house believes it is time for Britain to abolish its monarchy.” Drawing on arguments about class, accountability, soft power and stability, their opening remarks throw light on an issue that goes to the heart of what it means to be British.

Anna Whitelock: “We can’t be the nation we want to be while ruled by an unaccountable relic”

Tradition, splendour, pomp, pageantry, national unity, soft diplomacy, tourism, even professors of the history of modern monarchy: these are all oft-cited reasons (perhaps not the latter) for the merits, indeed, necessity of retaining and celebrating the British monarchy. They are all reasons that to some extent I do, or did, have some sympathy with.

My research of more than 20 years has focused on the monarchy, its rituals, rights and roles; its kings and, in particular, its queens. It is, as some would have it, a golden thread through British history . But all of that is in the past. The question here is about the future.

Having been for a long time rather on the fence, over the last few years I’ve become increasingly convinced, with some regret, that the monarchy should no longer head modern Britain. I’m going to reserve my remarks to Britain, as that’s the focus of the debate, but of course the British Crown is also head of state in 14 other realms, not least nine in the Caribbean, and they are making their position increasingly and rightfully clear.

Once perhaps it might have been said that the monarchy represented the best of Britain – I think that’s debatable – but now, surely, that is no longer true. It doesn’t – indeed, it can’t – represent modern Britain, modern British values and beliefs, not least in equality, diversity and inclusivity.

The Saturday Read

Morning call.

Now, some of you, perhaps, might be Guardian readers. If so, you would have seen the fantastic “cost of the crown” series , in which the Guardian has sought to ask reasonable, necessary and long overdue questions. In fact, such scrutiny has long eluded the media, who have been stuck in something of a deferential 1950s time warp when it comes to their reporting of the monarchy. The Guardian has asked questions about how much is paid for working royals; for royal engagement; how much is the King worth; the cost of the coronation to the British public and so on – and they’ve done previous work and inquiries into the legal position and constitutional influence of the monarchy as well. Now, to all of those questions – and I’ve spoken to the reporters involved – Buckingham Palace responds: “Ask someone else”, “Work it out yourself”, or “You have no right to know.”

Similarly, if you go to the National Archives and call up documents there, seemingly innocuous ones, many return a computer message that says simply “the file’s closed” and invites you to make a freedom of information request. The royal family is exempt from that. So, when you put a request in the response comes back “no”, and I’ve put in some very recent freedom of information requests and that has been the response. So, we have entrenched secrecy, we are kept in the dark. Yes, we citizens in a celebrated democracy are unable to give our informed consent because we don’t know. Criticism or debate of the royal family is prohibited in parliament . The royal archives are effectively closed. There is no financial disclosure and, when there has been investigation, the findings are pretty disturbing. We know about crown consent, sovereign immunity. So, scratch the surface, and it is just the surface, and it doesn’t look good.

Crown consent is when parliament asks for consent when bills affect the crown’s interest. The Guardian revealed that more than 1,000 laws were vetted by the Queen and Prince Charles during her reign, relating to matters such as justice, social security, race relations, and so on.

In 2006 the Queen was given an exemption for an act which prevented mistreatment of ani m als . The exemption meant that inspectors couldn’t enter her private estates. Perhaps most concerning and surprising, the royal household is exempt from the Equality Act of 2010, which protects people in the workplace from discrimination. Buckingham Palace, when asked about that, didn’t deny the exemption; they just said they’ve got their own process.

And then there’s sovereign immunity. This holds that the monarch can’t be prosecuted or subject to civil legal action under the law. Effectively, we have a monarch unable to be tried for criminal behaviour. On a number of cases, the Crown is being granted legal immunity in respect of its private estate, such as Sandringham and Balmoral. Are we all OK with that?

Then there’s finance. The King has been estimated to be worth £1.8bn . He pays some income tax voluntarily, no inheritance tax, no corporation tax. So, what do we have here? We have an institution which resists scrutiny, at the apex of society, which, by its very survival, reinforces hierarchy. A sense that some people by birth, not merit, are better than others. And let’s be clear: this is about white inherited privilege and an institution that has profited much from colonial injustices.

The monarchy has had its time. It has run out of road. We need to begin a gradual, respectful transition to abolish it. We can’t be the British we think we are, and the Britain we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren, while we have this powerful, unaccountable relic defining us.

Anna W h itelock is a historian, author and professor of the history of monarchy at City, University of London

[See also: Charles is proving a political king – and we should be grateful ]

Robert Hardman: “In an era of soft power, it would be a monumental folly to get rid of the monarchy”

As somebody who writes about the monarchy a lot, all I can say is: it is probably the most scrutinised institution in this country, if not the world. I have been scrutinising it pretty closely for a very long time. Listening to the points made on the other side, I am reminded of King Farouk of Egypt’s famous maxim: “Soon there will be only five kings left – the King of England, the King of Spades, the King of Clubs, the King of Hearts and the King of Diamonds.” He said that in 1948, four years before his own throne went south. But, 70 years on, he is not quite right, because there are still about 25 monarchs kicking around, leading 43 of the roughly 200 countries on Earth. So, yes, it is a minority sport, but it is an enduring one. I’m not going to defend absolute and authoritarian leaders, but about half of those are constitutional monarchies, like our own. So, how have these breaks on progress, these backward, infantilising institutions clung on into the 21st century? How has that happened? If you listen to the abolition argument, it essentially boils down to two things: it’s time we all grew up, and they cost too much. So, let me deal with those points first.

Yes, royalty costs. Of course, it does. Heads of state cost. But we have the only head of state in the G7 who does not have his own presidential jet – he borrows an RAF jet when he goes abroad (and he certainly doesn’t have the purpose-built baguette oven that President Sarkozy had installed in Air France Un at considerable expense). Of course we pay. We pay the sovereign grant to our head of state – but we are always going to have a head of state. It’s about £50m, which is 15 per cent of Crown Estate revenues, plus another 10 per cent on top to refurbish Buckingham Palace. Heads of state are variable – some cost more, some cost less. The Irish have a very cheap model, the Italian one costs a good deal more and is a lot more opaque. And bonus points for anyone who can name more than two Italian presidents.

Break on progress? Some of the most progressive, forward-thinking countries in the world – Norway , the Netherlands – have monarchies. And where does that leave poor, old Japan – in the corner with a Dunces’ cap, because it’s got a fully-fledged Emperor? Except it wasn’t quite like that last time I was in Tokyo. The reality is much more nuanced than that, but I’ll offer three main points why we should not abolish the monarchy – why we are in fact extremely lucky to have it.

One is its blocking power. When the monarchy is there, no one can get their hands on the armed forces, the honours system, the judiciary, the civil service . Now, of course, there are breaches of that, but overall it is very effective. When gaining independence from the British, realms had a choice: do you want a president, or do you want to hang onto this model? So many of them chose the Crown, not because they liked Charles’s mother, but because they saw it as a bulwark that protects the people from overmighty despots. And when push comes to shove – and it does occasionally, as in Spain in 1981, when the king faced down a coup, or as this country did in the Second World War – having that sort of solidity counts for a great deal.

Number two: monarchy is a pressure valve. It means that we have two forms of politics. We have the combative, punchy stuff – politicians do that – and we have a benign force that reflects the nation to itself. When, in France, the head of state lays a wreath, half of the people standing by hate the person laying the wreath. In Britain when the Queen or King lays a wreath nobody has a problem with it. Having been around the world with the royal family for many years, I have seen that the stability and the continuity we get is something we take for granted. In eastern Europe in the Nineties, for example, they were bowled over to see the Queen. For them she was the ultimate symbol of stability – and our monarchy still is, by the way.

Finally, soft power. When I was writing my latest book, I was lucky enough to interview Professor Joseph Nye of Harvard University, the man who codified the whole concept of soft power. He said: “Your country has two absolutely unsurpassed, unrivalled national, soft power assets. One is the English language – Shakespeare , etc. The other is the monarchy.” And I find that wherever I go, people want to see the Queen. She was a bucket-list head of state – and the monarchy still is, with her passing. In one of President Obama’s great speeches reflecting on the whole notion of post-war leadership, he singled out two people that inspired him the most: Nelson Mandela , and Queen Elizabeth II. Time and again that comes through. I was in Germany the other day with the King. When he spoke to the Bundestag, the impact he had was far in excess of that of any British politician or diplomat.

We live in an era of soft power. Of course the monarchy is irrational. So are a lot of things: so is the boat race, wedding dresses, turkey at Christmas and hot cross buns. But the fact is, it has served us incredibly well, and it would be an act of monumental folly and self-harm to get rid of it. We might never have invented the monarchy if we were starting a new country, but we are where we are – and we are lucky to have it.

Robert Hardman is a writer and broadcaster specialising in the monarchy. His most recent book is “Queen of Our Times: The Life of Elizabeth II” (Macmillan)

[See also: With Spare, Prince Harry has broken the royals’ code of silence. It’s about time ]

Gary Younge: “The monarchy embeds class privilege at the heart of Britain”

When I was a child my mother used to put on the song “Young, Gifted and Black”, by Bob and Marcia, put my feet on hers and then dance us both around the living room. “They’re playing our song,” she’d say. It was the early 1970s, she was barely 30 and I was the youngest of three boys she was raising alone. Even as she struggled to believe there was a viable future for her children in a country, when racism was on the rise and the economy was in the tank, we danced around the living room, singing ourselves up: imagining a world in which we would thrive, for which we had no evidence, but great expectations.

My presence in this chamber would have been as unlikely to my mother as anything else she hoped I might achieve as we padded around our living room. I am the child of, among other things, aspiration.

On 6 May, in a ceremony viewed by millions, we will get a new king. No imagination was necessary to determine whether he would get this job. Aspiration didn’t come into it. This was preordained. He was literally born into it. His qualification for the role was pretty straightforward: he was the eldest son of the eldest daughter of the only son who would do the job. If he ever needed a CV – and he wouldn’t because there would never be an interview – that would be it. His CV is his DNA.

And that’s the problem. The royals are a class act. The monarchy establishes inherited privilege at the heart of government and embeds patronage at the centre of power. It enshrines the idea that it’s not what you know, do or think that will get you on in life but who you are.

For all the talk of modernity and meritocracy, the message from the top remains that no matter how hard you graft, sacrifice, innovate and invest you will never make it to those snowy, white peaks, which are reserved for those who were born there.

That message says talent and ability do not matter. That is not only toxic, it’s dangerous. I was recently diagnosed with a heart condition. I was referred to a cardiologist. Certificates hung on his wall. I asked him where he’d trained, what areas he had specialised in, how long he had been practising. He told me about his career. Imagine if the only picture on his wall was of his mother and when I asked about his credentials he’d pointed at it and said. “Well, I don’t have any formal training but my mum was a cardiologist, so I reckon we’ll be OK. And she got the job because her dad was cardiologist, so you really are in good hands.”

I wouldn’t do it to my body and I don’t want it in my body politic.

Those who insist the role of our monarchy is merely symbolic miss the point. It symbolises something extremely corrosive that persists in the present. It enshrines the hereditary principle in a system that increasingly enriches the privileged and privileges the rich; a system that favours not democracy but deference; where the poor know their place and the rich have their power. We should abolish the monarchy now because all of those trends are getting worse now.

The gene puddle from which the elite siphons its ranks has become shallow and fetid. The tendency towards oligarchy is growing. A 2019 Sutton Trust report into social mobility portrays a nation of entrenched and calcifying class stratification where the 7 per cent who went to private school occupy 39 per cent of the elite and the 1 per cent who went to Oxbridge occupy 24 per cent of the elite. Meanwhile after decades of stagnation real wages of working people are falling. We are going backwards.

That is not the monarchy’s fault. But that is what the monarchy represents. I am not only a child of aspiration. I am also a child of free school meals, student grants and urban revolt. I danced here not only on my mother’s feet but on other people’s dreams. The monarchy was not just absent from those dreams for a more equal and inclusive society. It was the antithesis of them. The monarchy says, “Don’t dance: bow.” The monarchy says, “Don’t sing: hold your tongue.” The monarchy says you are not a citizen but a subject. This country does not belong to you but to those who were born to rule over you. I commend the motion.

Gary Younge is a journalist, author, broadcaster and academic whose most recent book is “Dispatches from the Diaspora” (Faber & Faber)

[See also: Have a little sympathy for Prince Harry’s hacking claims ]

Andrew Marr: “We are far too fragile to abolish the monarchy now”

I should start off by saying that I am partially here under false pretences. Because, although I am on this side of the chamber, I am not in fact a monarchist. I don’t actually believe that anything based on bloodline and heredity, in the modern world, given all we understand, is sustainable in the long term.

My opposition to the motion is based on my understanding of politics and power, the British culture, and the implication in the motion “it’s time to abolish the monarchy” that it’s time now . Because I would put to you that we are as a country in an incredibly fragile and dangerous position.

I was in Scotland during the Scottish independence referendum and I have never seen so much fury and acrimony and anger on doorsteps; people having their windows smashed, flags torn down – it was a really unpleasant period for anyone who went through it. People who are involved in that campaign are still shouted at in the street. And that was the dry run for, dare I say it, Brexit. Brexit ripped us apart as a country and we are only slowly recovering from that.

We are, as Gary Younge said, going backwards in many ways. We have appalling growth , our rivers and our beaches are cesspits and sewers, our public services are in terrible trouble. And he is absolutely right: the elite, the ruling class, have done a rotten job over the last 15 years. But I would put it to you that that is the fault, above all, of the Conservative Party and the private schools .

The monarchy’s responsibility for that is pretty marginal, or minimal. We have heard from other speakers about the deferential nature of the media and the deferential nature of the country. I see a different media and I see a different country. By far the most devastating assault on the financial situation of the current King was made not by the Guardian but by the Sunday Times in a series of reports over the last few months.

I don’t think we are a deferential country at all, I think we are an admirably stroppy, undeferential and quite difficult country and if the monarchy is there to make us bow and scrape it hasn’t done very well. I speak as somebody who would never take any kind of honour from the royal family, which I believe that journalists should stand to one side from.

My main argument is that we are too fragile. I don’t want to go through another Brexit. You couldn’t abolish the monarchy without a referendum. Any referendum, at the moment, would be incredibly divisive. And all those people who felt that they were cut out by the so-called Westminster elites in the past will feel it even more so on this subject. I can see a really nasty, corrosive, divisive process. It wouldn’t be easy, it wouldn’t be comfortable, it would be very unpleasant indeed. I think, given the parlous nature of the country right now, this is the wrong time to do it. The time may very well come and in due course, one day, I hope it does, but it’s certainly not now.

One other point. I think republicans have this very, very attractive, naive, rather gentle belief that if there was a presidential system – because there would have to be – the president would be somebody like them. I put it to you, given the last ten or 15 or 20 years, that Gary would have been living under first President Boris Johnson and then President Nigel Farage , or some version of that. We are in the process in this country of importing our very angry American-derived culture war . I don’t think we need a culture war of any kind but it seems to me that the prospect of a really unpleasant period in our history, when we are on our backs already, followed by the exactly wrong kind of person as president, is too high to risk at the moment. When I was asked in the old days, “Who would I like as president”, I would always say Alan Bennett, but I know perfectly well that I wouldn’t get Alan Bennett, I would get somebody much, much darker than that. And those are the reasons that, despite the personal stories and the moving eloquence from the other side, I remain against the motion.

Andrew Marr is a broadcaster and the New Statesman’s political editor

[See also: Royals exist in a different realm from the rest of us ]

Tanya Gold: “The British monarchy is a tapestry of ruined lives”

I believe that sacred monarchy infantilises us, as if Gandalf and Frodo were characters in our national life. I believe in the truism that the larger your dreamworld – and monarchy is a dreamworld – the smaller, sadder and more brittle is your real world. I think this is reflected in our politics, which are not imaginative, or functional, or even particularly reactive.

Due to the power of this dreamworld, we do not have a transparent and accountable system of government. We have, rather, a gaudy merry-go-round that, with the rising crises in the world, seems odder by the year. Britain feels necrotic and undynamic. Our fancied exceptionalism feels less exceptional these days.

I believe too that monarchy is parent and press officer to the class system: the ever present hum that will tell a child from a deprived background that some things are not for them, and never will be. If you don’t believe the class system is a tangible evil come to my home in west Cornwall and I will show you bright children wasted, thwarted, destined for minimum wage jobs because the elite of our country are chosen at birth.

Far from being truer patriots than republicans, monarchists seem to have so little faith in our country that they dare not look beyond one family for a figurehead to embody us. Do they embody us? Are they patriots? Why not send their children to state schools? Why not have their children in NHS hospitals? Why ask for exemptions from laws? Why not pay inheritance tax? I refuse the idea that monarchy, with its magic, protects our democracy: if it does, it isn’t doing a very good job of it. I refuse its insistence it is apolitical because it seeks to preserve its power: that is a political position.

I’m not going to talk further about what monarchy does to us. I want to talk about what it does to them. It’s not a very comfortable place to be I think: a deity in the age of mass media; something to stare at; something to feast on.

They are, as the late Hilary Mantel wrote in her superb essay “Royal Bodies” , like pandas: “Pandas and royal persons alike are expensive to conserve and ill-adapted to any modern environment .” It is typical that the then prime minister, David Cameron , on being told of the contents of Mantel’s essay, condemned it without – I am certain – reading it. She called the way we talk about monarchy “a discourse empty of content, mouthed rather than spoken”.

It is easier to count the victims of monarchy than to count those made happy by it. I’ll paraphrase Oscar Wilde now: one unhappy royal is an accident, two is carelessness. We have, generation to generation, a tapestry of ruined lives.

There is Margaret, the late Queen’s sister, forbidden to marry Peter Townsend because he was divorced. She could have insisted but would have lost her royal title. If you have been taught only to be a princess, it must be hard to leave, and she didn’t.

There is the Duchess of York, whose intimate life was put on the front pages of newspapers. Prudes will say she deserved it, as an adulteress, but less titled women are allowed to make mistakes. Her pain was monetised by the fourth estate. You could listen to the King’s intimate conversation with the Queen by ringing a phone line. The shame is ours.

There is Diana , plucked as a virgin from a suitable class to provide an heir for a man who loved someone else. A mistake, for sure, and now she is dead and called mad by her husband’s allies. She fought back, that’s all. The dehumanisation of royal women – dehumanisation and canonisation are not polar but related; canonisation is another way of unseeing – is as common as air. It is normal.

The monarchist newspapers – on their knees with bared fangs – called Kate Middleton “Waity Katie”, as if it is pitiable to love someone. Now, post child bed, she is a saint of course. Her mother, a former air stewardess and self-made woman is called “Doors to Manual”.

This cruelty to royal bodies – and those close to them – is not nebulous. It is endemic, systematic. Meghan Markle ‘s relationship with her father – a delicate thing – was destroyed for money in the days before her wedding. A newspaper suggested that her wedding flowers might have poisoned Princess Charlotte – yes indeed, if she had eaten all of them – and that, by eating avocados, she threatened to destroy the world.

In his memoir Spare , Prince Harry chose to tell the truth of his life in this family, and he has been traduced for it. No one likes to have their dreams shattered.

He doesn’t understand class, of course. I had a brief fantasy that he would give up his dukedom and become a tree surgeon but, as I have written, having projected on to him for a lifetime, I can’t stop now . I see him as a whistle-blower, and the story he tells is of a family fractured by monarchy and what it demands of royal people. When people tell you the truth of their lives you should believe them. He was not looked after. He was not happy. His brother and his friends chased him with guns: when his father told him Diana was dead, Charles patted his son’s knee and left him.

They walked behind the coffin together to please the public. That Harry has PTSD from media intrusion seems so obvious there is almost nothing left to say. You need to be adamantine to survive this. Few are and no one should be asked to be.

We are told that, without the magical spell of monarchy, we will fall to a greater evil: a troll, or a Farage, as if no elected head of state has ever been fit for the task but a Mountbatten Windsor. It’s another element of the fairy tale we have chosen to substitute for a healthy national life, which we might see under a republic: one that is fair and vigorous; forward-looking and vital; filled with hope.

Tanya Gold is an award-winning journalist who has written extensively on the royal family

[See also: Prince Harry’s war on the Windsors ]

Tanjil Rashid: “For those of us who are here as the flotsam of empire, the monarchy offers us an anchor of familiarity, safety and trust”

Since today is the Muslim festival of Eid, let me begin by quoting from a lecture delivered thirty years ago at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies: “Islam is part of our past and present, in all fields of human endeavour. It has helped to create modern Europe. It is part of our own inheritance, not a thing apart.”

The person who spoke this truth has many obscure titles. He is for one the patron of the aforementioned Islamic centre.

He also happens to be the King.

So in the  United Kingdom  we appear to have a head of state who recognises Muslims as integral to Europe when, across the rest of Europe, states are making it clear that Muslims are indeed “a thing apart”, with bans on Islamic clothing, on minarets, and prime ministers who call Muslims “invaders” (these examples all taken from republics).

Criticism of Britain’s monarchy is being framed in terms of its irrelevance or detriment to minorities. I belong to such a minority. It’s because I do that I’m sceptical of abolitionist claims.

Get rid of the monarch, and we don’t get rid of kings; we make kings of politicians. So, between the elected politicians who would be king in a republic and the unelected British monarchs of modern times, who inspires greater confidence from ethnic minorities? For me, the monarchy.

I don’t just mean Charles III’s outspokenness in favour of immigrants – a longstanding commitment on his part – or indeed that of Elizabeth II, with her fondness for her Commonwealth “family”, as she called it. I would trace this tendency back at least to the Proclamation of 1858, when against the wishes of the prime minister and political establishment, Queen Victoria insisted on Indians “being placed on an equality with the subjects of the British Crown”. That principle was flouted by the politicians who ran empire, but it was, as Gandhi put it, our Magna Carta, and it came from the monarchy.

Now, there are only so many ways that a polity can realistically be organised. Let’s look at republics – specifically those we have in Europe, which Britain might conceivably resemble.

We could easily become what most of the continent is: a democratic, republican nation-state, like Poland or Croatia. These societies are always nationalistic ones; their raison d’etre is as a homeland for a particular nation – a concept that virtually always plays out as a synonym for ethnicity.

In such republics, if you don’t belong to that ethnicity, there will be questions over your loyalty, your suitability. If you’re Jewish in Hungary, your government is constantly casting aspersions on you because, “Can you be a real Hungarian?” If you’re a German from the Turkish diaspora, it’s an ordeal getting a German passport – less than half of German Turks have one – because, “Are you a real German?”

[See also: The making of Prince William ]

An alternative model is the ideological republic. This is what you have, for instance, in France, where, yes, you might be black, you might be Arab – but so long as you sign up to the values of the republic, you’re allowed to be French. Over there, education, and a good deal of legislation, is about bludgeoning people with those values. “Strengthening respect for republican values”: that’s the name of some recent legislation under President Macron. Woe betide anyone who may disagree with the values of the state (that goes especially for Muslims).

Now let’s turn to our peculiarly British constitutional monarchy. What is its organising principle? We have no state ideology. And we aren’t a nation-state either – Britain loosely claims four home nations, but the term “British” can encompass Indians, Ghanaians, Singaporeans. People like myself tend to favour that term because it means we don’t have to be English.

No, what unites us all, legally and politically, is the King, mere loyalty to whom makes us all British. That’s the organising principle. Our oath of allegiance is to “Charles III, his heirs and successors”: not to any ideology, not to any ethnicity, not to any nation, just to some random, weird, ultimately powerless, symbolically significant family.

My mother wears a hijab, doesn’t speak much English, and was very fond of the Queen. She’s unimpeachably British in a way that is impossible in any comparable European republic. In France, her clothing would be against the values of the republic. In Germany, she most likely would not have a German passport, which is harder for those without German blood. But in the United Kingdom, no such authoritarian demands are made of her – except a pledge of allegiance to the King (and even that is not really insisted upon).

Black and Asian people can say – many of us at least – that our ancestors have been subjects of the same British Crown for three centuries. It’s as subjects of that Crown that we were allowed free movement to come here legally, and it’s because we remain such that politicians have a hard job trying to make us leave.

So for those of us who are here as the flotsam of empire, the monarchy offers us an anchor of familiarity, safety and trust.

Tanjil Rashid is a journalist and filmmaker. He has recently produced documentaries on the war in Ukraine, Isis and US politics, and writes for publications including the Financial Times, the Times and the Washington Post

You can watch this debate until 29 May 2023 at the Cambridge Literary Festival website. The NS Debate takes place annually at Cambridge Literary Festival , run in association with the New Statesman

[See also: King Charles III’s Secret Kingdom ]

Content from our partners

Investing in a new cohort of energy pioneers

Securing more tree-lined communities

Why we need essential skills

Labour has become a weapon in Trump’s campaign

Mark Logan: How the Tories hounded me out of office

Angela Rayner’s renaissance