Abolish the Monarchy: Why we should and how we will

Product Information

This is a very timely reminder of the constitutional absurdity of our taxpayer-funded Royal Family that is at war with itself. Whether you're in favour of abolition or a more slimmed-down monarchy in keeping with modern Britain, Graham Smith puts the case for reform eloquently and forcefully. Robert Verkaik, author of Posh Boys I was startled awake with the familiar story of the forced evacuation of the Chagos Islands not requiring any reference for an overview from Parliament and how the process is available to be repeated. And possibly has been because these need not be reported. 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”.

Republic and The Gilded Acorn bookshop at the LSE are proud to sponsor the launch of Abolish The Monarchy: Why We Should and How We Will. But are monarchs good for the countries that they rule, now that they’re competing with parliaments and presidents rather than Norsemen in longboats? What is the evidence? 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.

Should We Try to Live Forever?

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. 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. But Toynbee says that in countries like Ireland, presidents have a different but equally as dignified role, showing that a king isn't required. What is wrong with a system like Ireland's, Moore is asked. ​ What I was realising in reading this is that Graham Smith is dealing with a much bigger topic than simply #NOTMYKING. 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.

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. Over the recent years there have been many debates as to whether the monarchy should be abolished. The monarchy has been part of the British constitution for centuries and it symbolises the unity and traditional standards of the nation. However, having a monarchy merely hinders the modernisation of the society and the traditional values are seen to be outdated. This essay will look at the arguments which are in favour of abolishing the monarchy. These include the fact that the monarchy is very costly, the monarch does not exercise formal powers herself, but it is exercised by ministers. Having a monarch creates social and class divisions. The hereditary privilege which the royals are ultimately born in to is no guarantee that the person in office is fit by birth to be head of state. 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.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. At the start of June 2022, we could see the Queen very publicly celebrating the jubilee. Yet just four weeks later, as the constitution, at the centre of which lies the Crown, was in crisis [because Boris Johnson's government ministers had nearly all resigned yet he still clung on as PM], the Queen had vanished. Not a word from the palace. No reassuring comment or useful clarification of the constitutional position offered. One moment we see the monarch, and are told of her great virtues, the next she is nowhere to be seen, as we're told that under no circumstances can the Queen be 'dragged into' doing her job. For a long time, it was possible to argue that the monarchy should be retained because abolition would involve major constitutional upheaval. But leaving the EU has already opened the door to “root and branch” reform of how Britain governs itself. Even Scottish independence and Irish unification are now realistic prospects—foreshadowing, perhaps, the breakup of the British state. In this context, abolishing the monarchy alongside other constitutional reforms can be seen to make a great deal of sense, especially if the UK is to fragment into two or more entities.

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. It is simply not the case that the monarchy’s role is powerless and “emphatically detached from political partisanship”. The powers are real, even if not usually exercised. The recent revelations of the process of Queen’s consent further undermine the notion of being free from partisanship and independent of the political process. I found myself saddened that I waited so long to join groups like Smith's Republic. I should have done this years ago. Elizabeth was not doing the good work I thought she was, and in all this time, the royal family have definitely wielded power. But it isn't that any of them did anything bad, per se - although Smith points out that at times they definitely did - it is that there is no moral, economic, political or even historical reason why we need to keep this corrupt institution in place. Indeed, if anything, it is imperative we get rid of them as soon as possible. The monarchy, Smith argues, is hindering our democracy. Polly Toynbee is right. The future of the monarchy is worthy of a full-blown inquiry. It will take time to reach its conclusions, but who seriously thinks that hereditary peers is a feature we should be happy with in the 21st century, and will there ever be a more suitable monarch to be the last? It is time to start the process. 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”.Moore says no, because the proportion of public spending is so small. In any case, he says that places like France - which abolished the monarchy - ended up with a character like the president who "lives in great grandeur" but isn't a very unifying figure. ​