should the royal family be abolished essay

• UK Politics
• News Videos
• Paris 2024 Olympics
• Rugby Union
• Sport Videos
• John Rentoul
• Mary Dejevsky
• Andrew Grice
• Sean O’Grady
• Photography
• Theatre & Dance
• Culture Videos
• Fitness & Wellbeing
• Food & Drink
• Health & Families
• Royal Family
• Electric Vehicles
• Car Insurance Deals
• Lifestyle Videos
• UK Hotel Reviews
• News & Advice
• Simon Calder
• Australia & New Zealand
• South America
• C. America & Caribbean
• Middle East
• Politics Explained
• News Analysis
• Today’s Edition
• Home & Garden
• Broadband deals
• Fashion & Beauty
• Travel & Outdoors
• Sports & Fitness
• Sustainable Living
• Climate Videos
• Solar Panels
• Behind The Headlines
• On The Ground
• Decomplicated
• You Ask The Questions
• Binge Watch
• Travel Smart
• Watch on your TV
• Crosswords & Puzzles
• Most Commented
• Newsletters
• Ask Me Anything
• Virtual Events
• Betting Sites
• Online Casinos
• Wine Offers

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in Please refresh your browser to be logged in

Abolishing the monarchy is an important step towards building a fairer society

The way protesters have been treated, and the way that prince andrew’s reputation is carefully being restored, is indicative of the deep inequality in our country.

Article bookmarked

Find your bookmarks in your Independent Premium section, under my profile

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inbox

Get our free view from westminster email.

Our public sphere is being stifled. Multiple arrests for the mildest of public protests against King Charles’s accession; wall-to-wall positive media coverage with barely a single republican viewpoint; parliament adjourned at a time of desperate worry for working-class families; major sporting events cancelled, and even kids’ football halted.

It is clear that there are many people throughout the country mourning the Queen’s death. It is right that they are afforded opportunities to do so. But there is also a sizeable section of the population – including a large and growing number of young people – who do not believe in hereditary privilege, don’t consent to King Charles’s accession, and want a different kind of political system. We deserve to have our voices heard.

We are in the middle of a crisis – not just of living costs, but of inequality. Energy bills are squeezing families’ budgets, as energy corporations rake in billions in profit. Wages are squeezed by growing inflation as billionaires get richer by the day. The accession of a very wealthy aristocrat to monarch, with parliament adjourned at a time when solutions to the cost of living crisis are desperately needed, is a feature of this crisis, not an interruption of it.

Being a king, atop an unequal and unjust economic system, means you have your own rules. Charles III, for example, will pay no inheritance tax on his mother’s private wealth , whereas the public have to pay 40 per cent on anything inherited over a £325,000 threshold.

The monarch is also immune from dozens more laws: King Charles will be exempt from having to comply with various workers’ rights, health and safety, and pensions legislation, while the police are effectively barred from entering his private estate to investigate crimes without the crown’s permission. Shockingly, royal household employees are unable to raise sexual and racial discrimination complaints .

This story is one we know well – because it’s not exclusive to the royal family. For the past 40 years, we have lived under an economic system that has given increasing power to the wealthy at the expense of working people. The welfare state has been vandalised, housing has become prohibitively expensive, workers’ rights have been eroded – and the rich have got richer because of it.

The news that dozens of King Charles’s staff have been made redundant , in the middle of an incredibly busy work period and a cost of living crisis, reflects an experience that will be familiar to many workers across the country. A spokesperson for Clarence House, the King’s London residence for nearly 20 years, said they were “working urgently to identify alternative roles for the greatest possible number of staff”.

In this context, the monarchical regime and its basis in hereditary privilege must be up for debate. The monarchy ’s role in British colonialism is a good place to start. August marked the 75th anniversary of the partition of the Indian subcontinent , when a British civil servant carved up the territory after spending 10 weeks in the region. More than a million people died as a result.

As Pakistanis struggle with the reality of climate collapse, it’s clear that the legacy of empire is an ongoing disaster for many. The unimaginable wealth of the royal family is built on the forced transfer of wealth and resources from the global South to Britain’s coffers. Our country needs to help build a new system that delivers justice for all – but this can only happen if historic wrongs are recognised as part of our national story.

Just as silence reigns when it comes to Britain’s colonial past, we are also told that silence is the only respectful mode amid the death of one monarch and the accession of another – even in a time of deep national crisis. There is a tone that needs to be struck when some are mourning, but it is wrong to suspend politics entirely.

Parliament has been adjourned, and Keir Starmer has told Labour MPs that the only media-related activity they can perform is paying tribute to the Queen in their local paper. The impending rise in bills in October: silence. The shooting of an unarmed Black man in London : silence. These issues cannot wait. People in this country desperately need a government that is taking decisive action to help them – not a self-imposed recess, however respectful the intention.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

There are some who have bravely decided to put forward their republican beliefs, by standing with placards or by shouting slogans at official events. They have either been quickly moved on, or arrested by police. My party’s leader, a human rights lawyer no less, questioned the “respect” of the protesters and refused to criticise the heavy-handed policing. With dissent criminalised, his disregard for the democratic right to protest at a time of deep economic and political turmoil is deeply concerning.

But there is a wider point here, too. The way protesters have been treated, and the way that Prince Andrew’s reputation is carefully being restored, is indicative of the deep inequality in our country. You’ll get arrested for shouting “Andrew, you’re a sick old man,” but receive the full protection of the British state if you’re a prince and American prosecutors want to question you about child sex offences.

Which brings us back to the most important principle in the argument for reviving the republican movement. Our country suffers greatly from inequality – that is, from ordinary people getting shafted while the rich and powerful get away with whatever they want. It follows naturally from this that no one person should possess the divine right to represent our nation as its head of state.

Democracy matters. Without it, there is no accountability and no justice. In our political institutions, in our workplaces, there must be mechanisms by which we can hold powerful people to account, and have our voices heard. These are the principles that must define our country, and our world.

Sonali Bhattacharyya is a representative on Momentum’s executive and an award-winning playwright and screenwriter

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

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.

The Week Recommends Unassuming taqueria in business since 1968 joins fine-dining spots in guide's first Mexico edition

By Rebecca Messina, The Week UK Published 22 May 24

Speed Read Immigration Enforcement officer was accused of gathering information on dissidents in the UK

By Arion McNicoll, The Week UK Published 22 May 24

The Explainer Social care costs are rising – here is how much you could end up paying

By Marc Shoffman, The Week UK Published 22 May 24

Talking Point 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 From Spain to the UAE, royal families have often been besieged by negative events

By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published 27 February 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

Speed Read Monarch 'remains wholly positive about his treatment', during which senior royals are expected to stand in for him

By Arion McNicoll, The Week UK Published 6 February 24

Speed Read The timing of the two royal medical announcements was said to be an 'unavoidable coincidence'

By Richard Windsor, The Week UK Published 18 January 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.

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)

• 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.

Eurovision, Israel, and the Responsibility for War

AI in Documentary Filmmaking: Blurring Reality in ‘What Jennifer Did’

Originalism, Hypocrisy, and the Role of the Judiciary

The SAT and the Limitations of Discrimination

Receive a weekly digest of our best content!

• 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

• Parliamentary Candidates
• Covid Inquiry
• Election Manifestos

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. Must-read news and exclusive analysis

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

Support 110 years of independent journalism.

• 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.

• Administration / Office
• Arts and Culture
• Board Member
• Business / Corporate Services
• Client / Customer Services
• Communications
• Construction, Works, Engineering
• Education, Curriculum and Teaching
• Environment, Conservation and NRM
• Facility / Grounds Management and Maintenance
• Finance Management
• Health - Medical and Nursing Management
• HR, Training and Organisational Development
• Information and Communications Technology
• Information Services, Statistics, Records, Archives
• Infrastructure Management - Transport, Utilities
• Legal Officers and Practitioners
• Librarians and Library Management
• OH&S, Risk Management
• Operations Management
• Planning, Policy, Strategy
• Printing, Design, Publishing, Web
• Projects, Programs and Advisors
• Property, Assets and Fleet Management
• Public Relations and Media
• Purchasing and Procurement
• Quality Management
• Science and Technical Research and Development
• Security and Law Enforcement
• Service Delivery
• Sport and Recreation
• Travel, Accommodation, Tourism
• Wellbeing, Community / Social Services

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

What you need to know about private markets

Work isn’t working: how to boost the nation’s health and happiness

The dementia crisis: a call for action

The biggest risk facing Labour

What will Labour’s campaign look like?

Why Conservatives are furious with Rishi Sunak

With the royal succession complete, some Britons renew their calls for the abolition of the monarchy

LONDON — It may have felt like the United Kingdom was brought to a supportive standstill after the death of Queen Elizabeth II , but not everyone in these isles agrees that a hereditary monarch should remain the unelected head of state in a modern democracy.

Polls suggest that a significant minority — millions of Britons — want to abolish the monarchy. Many of these people kept quiet last week, out of respect for the queen, but a few braved the crowds to bring a defiant message for their newly ascended sovereign: "Not my king."

These republican rumblings are not new. But many campaigners believe King Charles III presents a unique opportunity: They think most royalism was actually fondness for the widely loved queen, and he — a new, less popular king — won't inherit this support.

The debate has made for some febrile scenes.

As thousands crammed into the historic streets of Edinburgh to see Charles being proclaimed monarch in Scotland on Sept. 11, a small group of naysayers booed, held anti-royal placards and turned their backs while declaring “no consent.”

One woman, who held a sign saying “F--- imperialism” was arrested for a breach of the peace. And all were met in turn with boos, followed by chants of “God save the king!”

“We wanted to make it clear that there’s more than one viewpoint about the monarchy in this country,” said John Hall, 33, one of a half dozen protesters. “I wanted to be here and mark the fact that I did not consent to this pageantry.”

The anti-royalist crew outside Edinburgh's St. Giles' Cathedral was among a smattering of protesters who dotted the United Kingdom, popping up in London, Wales and elsewhere. They often drew an angry reaction from the mourners and spectators who had come out to see the queen make her final journey from Balmoral Castle , in the Scottish Highlands, where she died, to Windsor Castle , west of London, where she was buried Monday.

Many of the activists interviewed by NBC News across the country said they didn't want to disrupt the mourning period, and that they would not be protesting at events commemorating the queen specifically. But they felt they had no choice but to make their voices heard because Charles' ceremonial appointment — a highly political event, they argue— was happening at the same time.

The crux of their argument is that the lottery of birth has no place deciding the head of state of one of Europe's largest economies. They also say the monarchy costs the British taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds a year. (This is disputed by monarchists, who say the royal “brand” brings in a net gain from tourism and culture.)

Then there are those who disagree with the message it sends.

While anyone, in theory, can be president of the United States, only a select few people can be Britain's head of state. For critics, this is part of a rigid class system that tacitly tells Britons: No matter how hard you work, it still matters who your parents are.

These views are not as fringe as suggested by the mass crowds and the wall-to-wall coverage of the queen's passing.

The monarchy is widely but not universally popular. Around 62% of people in Briton support it, but 22% — translating to more than 10 million British adults — want to see it replaced with an elected leader, according to a poll by YouGov in June.

Abolitionism has gradually grown since the 1990s, according to the National Centre for Social Research , a London-based institute that has conducted surveys on the monarchy over the past 30 years.

Royal popularity has been rocked by events such as Charles' divorce from Princess Diana , and his family's perceived coldness after her death in a car crash, the institute said, as well as allegations of sexual assault against Prince Andrew , which he denies, and the decision by Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, to move to California amid their allegations of racism against the royal household.

“The monarchy is not as relevant today,” said Tracy Borman, a royal historian and the author of “ Crown & Sceptre: A new history of the British monarchy, from William the Conqueror to Elizabeth II .”

“But it might have less to do with the monarchy itself and more with a younger generation who have grown up in a very different world, a world where the monarchy is not going to be on par,” she added.

The royals definitely are less popular among youths, according to the National Centre for Social Research. However the gap between the young and the old has remained almost the same as it was in 1994, it said, suggesting that, as the previously republican youngsters have grown up, they've become more monarchist.

Charles will present a new challenge for royal legitimacy.

As the Prince of Wales, he had been peppered with allegations of trying to interfere in politics, on issues from architecture to homeopathy. This is a big taboo for Britain's constitutional monarchy and strikes at the heart of why many republicans are relishing his reign.

Though the British crown has lashings of soft power — a figurehead every president, sheikh and dictator wants their photograph taken with — by design, it has little direct political power.

This power began to transfer from the monarch to the Parliament in the 1600s. The English Civil War resulted in the beheading of King Charles I, before the "Glorious Revolution" saw English elites effectively choose a new monarch who gave lawmakers more rights.

Today, the U.K. has what's known as a constitutional monarchy. In theory, the monarch appoints governments, reopens Parliament after recess and approves new laws. But those are all rubber-stamping ceremonial tasks; so far, there has been no question that the crown might try to intervene.

Charles' record of activism has led many to question whether it will present a new constitutional headache for the apolitical crown.

“We’re supposed to be democrats and this is an anti-democratic institution,” said Graham Smith, chief executive of the London-based anti-monarchy group Republic. “It’s an institution that fails on all principles — they misuse public money, use their privilege to lobby the government and they interfere with politics.”

Charles has said he will take a different approach now that he is king.

As he was proclaimed king in London , he told an audience inside the ancient Westminster Hall that “I cannot help but feel the weight of history which surrounds us, and which reminds us of the vital parliamentary traditions" that define the nation.

Some observers agree that Charles should be viewed in an entirely new light now that he is king. “We’ve all got to look at him in a totally different way now,” royal historian Andrew Roberts said.

If he does clip his own politicking wings, it will be another example of the royal family's adapt-to-survive ability that has allowed it to exist for more than a millennium, the historian Borman said.

“The monarchy knows statesmanship is about knowing to give up what you can no longer keep,” she said.

Alicia Victoria Lozano is a California-based reporter for NBC News focusing on climate change, wildfires and the changing politics of drug laws.

Alexander Smith is a senior reporter for NBC News Digital based in London.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Clearly Britain loses more than it gains from the monarchy. Let us be brave and end it

The royal jubilee would be a cheerful end to a state of affairs that cannot be allowed to continue. Time to return sovereignty to the people

T he Queen should abdicate: this is the right time. Not because another scandal has broken out, with police probing allegations of Saudi cash-for-honours donations to the Prince of Wales’s charity. Not because of Prince Andrew’s disgrace .

Nor should she abdicate for the reason given this week by my friend and colleague Simon Jenkins: he calls for her to withdraw gently from public life to spend her declining years in dignified tranquillity, and allow a “planned transfer” to Charles. In other words, let there be no perilous moment when people ask themselves why no one asked them first. Allow no possible pause for thought between her last breath and the shout of “ vivat rex ”. Make sure it’s a fait accompli with his royal posterior already cemented to the throne.

It is indeed a good time to bow out gracefully, as this platinum jubilee celebrates her 70-year reign with all the pomp of a four-day bank holiday and a new pudding . But let it mark an end to monarchy itself, those feudal centuries drawing to a peaceful close. The Queen has held the monarchy together skilfully through tempestuous scandals, from the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and the divorces of three of her children to the flight of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, once heralded as royals for the Black Lives Matter and #MeToo era.

This jubilee would make a cheerful ending to all the royal folderol. What better time to return the sovereignty promised in Brexit to the people to whom it belongs. Elizabeth the Last should get a historic send-off, her golden coach and crown retired and her six palaces opened as fine museums. (No, tourism is no excuse for monarchy: Versailles gets many more visitors, and so does Legoland down the road from Windsor Castle).

In death or abdication, her passing will be an emotive memory marker in every family, the last link to the second world war, to remnants of empire and to that old black and white world of Pathé newsreels with their jolly jingo voices. “Thank God for the Queen”, proclaims the Sun’s front page today, absurdly. It’s doubtful she returns any thanks to Rupert Murdoch, whose lèse-majesté arrival here shattered that old reverence for royal mystique.

The crown and constitution are no longer abstract debates. The need for an elected president has become urgent now Boris Johnson’s arrival in Downing Street tests conventions, laws and civil rights beyond their limits. John Major expressed that constitutional outrage eloquently on these pages, listing Johnson’s abuses: deliberately breaking international law; tearing up the ministerial code; ordaining police stop and search “without any cause for suspicion”; removing British citizenship at whim, while waging war against the civil service and the BBC, those national safeguards.

The Commons Speaker turns out to be powerless against lies told to his face. There is no voice to admonish, check or protect against elective dictatorship by a wrecker of a prime minister with a strong majority. His MPs are shockingly derelict.

Until now, monarchy was defended as dignified and powerless, a harmless decoration that never interferes with parliament. Embarrassing lapses – the Guardian’s revelations of the Queen’s consent preventing laws that may reveal her wealth or Charles’s “spider letters” leaning on ministers – are relatively trivial. The constitutional problem is not the monarch’s power, but powerlessness. Presidents around Europe protect constitutions and guard against overmighty politicians breaking basic law. A president would have stopped Johnson illegally proroguing parliament: it takes the authority of election to take action as a vital backstop in a constitutional emergency.

Our monarchy has handed all royal prerogative to the prime minister with no check or balance, bar a House of Lords almost as weak as the monarch for the same bad reason – lacking the authority of election. Look how Johnson engages in voter suppression: his proposals for compulsory photo ID and abolishing colleges registering their students will deliberately deter the young and poor from voting. Look how he moves to curb the electoral commission’s power to prosecute illegal political donations protecting his own party’s pelf. There is no brake on an errant prime minister in a country without a written constitution, where a warped electoral system denies fair representation and there is no effective head of state to guard against law-breaking. The unelected Queen must do what the prime minister tells her to.

Monarchists speak with revulsion of who an elected president may be. The royal historian Robert Lacey, in a recent debate, asked in tones of horror, “President Lineker? President Street-Porter?” But, urges Graham Smith, CEO of the Republic pressure group, look around Europe at dignified presidents who understand their ceremonial duties and the political limits to their role, while acting as constitutional guarantors. Former politicians take on a presidency with as much independence as our Speakers in parliament. Look across the Irish Sea at Michael D Higgins, Mary McAleese or Mary Robinson and ponder why British voters are too wild or daft to be trusted to make equally sensible choices.

Support for this antique dysfunction wanes with each generation and it has become fragile . A majority of under-25s expect it to be gone in 25 years . Monarchy is a cast of mind blocking reform. Monarchy is a feudalism of the imagination that stamps approval on inheritance, inequality and privilege, all growing rampantly right now.

“Take but degree away, untune that string, And, hark, what discord follows!” Shakespeare has Ulysses warn , eulogising “degree, priority and place” in Troilus and Cressida: no one knows if this deep conservatism aligning the planets with aristocratic order was his own view. The point is this: that string is untuned already. The crown decorates a riot of constitutional disorder. Abolishing it would open windows into every aspect of how we choose to be governed and how we think of ourselves.

Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist

• Republicanism
• Queen Elizabeth II

Most viewed

Should the monarchy be abolished?

Yes, we should abolish the monarchy, the monarchy is wasting valuable taxpayer money, the monarchy is undemocratic, the monarchy reinforces the class system in britain, the monarchy is an embarrassment and should go, we should reform the monarchy, the monarchy must sustainably self-fund, no, we should keep the monarchy, the monarchy is a key source of soft power, the royals bring in tourists, the monarchy has cultural value that is worthwhile, commonwealth countries should become republics or have their own monarchy, commonwealth countries shouldn't have a british monarch as their head of state.

The Moral Argument Against Monarchy (Absolute or Constitutional)

• Published: 07 September 2023
• Volume 30 , pages 171–182, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Christos Kyriacou   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1506-1602 1  

254 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

I argue that monarchies, in any possible form (absolute or constitutional), should be abolished once and for all. This is because of the deeply immoral presuppositions such a system of government upholds (implicitly or explicitly). Call this ‘the moral argument against monarchy’ . I identify three basic moral principles that monarchy by definition breaches: ‘the basic moral equality principle’, ‘the basic dignity principle’ and ‘the basic moral desert principle’. Finally, I examine and reply to three objections, including the common objection that constitutional monarchy should not be abolished because it is pragmatically useful.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Monarchy is to be carefully distinguished from autocracy. Nominal democracies can be largely autocratic, as nowadays it is the case with Putin’s Russia, Xi’s China and Erdogan’s Turkey, and nominal constitutional monarchies, such as the UK, Spain, Norway and Denmark, can be fully democratic. For how democracies can die and slip into autocracy or dictatorship, see Levitsky and Ziblatt ( 2018 ).

As of today, 43 sovereign states have a monarch, including 15 Commonwealth states. See Wikipedia entry on ‘monarchy’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy .

Αccording to von Daniels ( 2018 ), political power can be defined as access to executive authority and, therefore, symbolic power is real political power.

I should clarify that although I argue that monarchy as an institution should be abolished, I do not mean to imply that all monarchies (absolute or constitutional) are equally morally unjustified. The oppressive, absolute Saudi monarchy is morally repugnant in a way that makes European constitutional monarchies appear almost angelic. Still, insofar as monarchies are all to some extent based on immoral presuppositions, we have good practical reason to abolish them; or so I briefly argue here. Thanks to an anonymous referee who raised this important point of clarification.

Von Daniels ( 2018 ) and Kaldahal Bottenvik ( 2018 ) also indicate that monarchy is inconsistent with the moral framework of political liberalism and that this poses a puzzle for liberalism.

Saudi Arabia has no constitution, no parties and no elections. Since 1992, the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia has been adopted by royal decree. The Basic Law states that the king must comply to Sharia and the Quran. Thereby, as I understand it, Saudi Arabia is a version of theocratic absolute monarchy.

This is a broadly Parfitian ( 2011 ) point, in the sense that all major moral theories seem to be ‘climbing the same moral mountain from different sides’, if I may use Parfit’s own metaphor.

See Williamson ( 2018 ) for a defense of the abductive methodology in philosophy.

See Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics , (X. ix, pp. 22–23).

It is a good question what the exact meaning of ‘the West’ is. An anonymous referee suggests that the West comprises of the countries of the Organization for the Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). But although most member countries of the OECD definitely belong to the West, not all of them clearly are (e.g. Turkey) and being ‘Western’ cannot just be a matter of membership of an organization. It is, I think, primarily, a matter of culture, values and ethos. In any case, I cannot delve into this difficult matter here.

As Kymlicka ( 1990 , pp. 3–5) points out, ‘every plausible political theory has the same ultimate value, which is equality…the idea of treating people “as equals”…[it] is found in Nozick’s libertarianism and in Marx’s communism’. The notion of equality at play here is what is sometimes called formal equality, and not substantive equality. Compare Nagel ( 1991 , p. 131): ‘Moral equality, the equal primary importance of everyone’s life, does not mean that people are equal in any other respect’, e.g. socio-economic conditions. For an introductory discussion of the history and philosophy of democracy, see Crick ( 1991 ).

Pro tanto equality does not imply that we cannot institute some normatively principled inequality for the purposes of reparational justice, as it happens with affirmative action—this is why it is only pro tanto equality. See Sandel ( 2009 ) for some discussion of affirmative action.

We should note that we assume here what Darwall ( 2006 ) has called ‘recognition moral worth’ and not ‘appraisal moral worth’. Obviously, we are neither morally nor intellectually equal in terms of the latter—unfortunately, most of us are neither a mother Theresa nor an Aristotle.

See Ross ( 1930 ), Audi ( 1999 ), Scanlon ( 2014 ) and Cuneo and Schafer-Landau ( 2014 ) for recent defenses of moral realism: roughly, the view that there are mind-independent moral truths. The ‘fixed points’ term of art is adopted from Cuneo and Schafer-Landau ( 2014 ).

This is one of the basic reasons why democracies die. See Levitsky and Ziblatt ( 2018 ) for discussion.

As Augustine has famously said, lex iniusta, non est lex (an unjust law is not a law). For instance, the Nazi Nuremberg laws of 1935 were not really law because they were unjust, antisemitic and racist laws.

See Kershaw ( 2009 ) and Hawes ( 2019 ) for historical descriptions of the course of events that led to the Nazi consolidation of power and the Nazi violation of basic human rights.

See Clapham ( 2015 ) for some discussion of human rights.

As Hankins ( 2010 ) makes clear, the modern idea of ‘exclusive republicanism’, namely, the idea of a republic entirely free of monarchical rule goes back, at first, to the discursive practice of the concept of ‘respublica’ in the Italian humanist Renaissance of fifteenth century and became prominent only in late eighteenth-century republicanism. Especially important for the establishment of the exclusive non-monarchical understanding of the concept of ‘respublica’ is the work of the Florentine humanist Leonardo Bruni (1370–1444). According to Hankins ( 2010 ), there are no inklings of exclusive republicanism in premodern Roman or medieval texts. Thanks to an anonymous referee that brought to my attention the fascinating history of the concept of ‘respublica’ and how it relates to the rise of modern exclusivist republicanism.

For some discussion of Locke’s ( 1689 /1960) classic critique of Robert Filmer’s defense of the divine right to rule (in the first Treatise of Government ), see Dunn ( 2003 ). For discussion of the Enlightenment’s impact on political governance, see Israel ( 2001 ) and Robertson ( 2015 ).

See Plato’s Meno (94 A-E) for discussion.

See Wierenga ( 1989 ) for some discussion of the Anselmian, classical theist conception of the nature of God.

Siedentop ( 2015 ) has argued that the rise of the modern individual with her rights and liberties is to some extent the outcome of the gradual prevalence of Christianity’s moral values in the West. Waldron ( 2002 ) has argued that Locke’s views on moral equality were influenced by his Christian beliefs.

Compare Locke ( 1689 [1960] p. 142, Ch.1, § 2): ‘His system [i.e. Filmer’s monarchy] lies in a little compass, ‘tis no more but this, That all Government is absolute monarchy . And the Ground he builds on, is this, That no Man is Born free’. And Rousseau ( 1762 [2003], p. 2006 Book II, Ch.4): ‘… the social compact sets up among the citizens an equality of such a kind, that they all bind themselves to observe the same conditions and should therefore all enjoy the same rights’.

At the time, basic moral equality and other rights were understood to apply only to white free men and, therefore, the thesis still had a lot to be desired. But as Singer ( 1981 ) has argued, what Sidgwick called ‘the circle of morality’ has been gradually expanding to include non-whites, non-men, slaves, non-human animals and even inanimate nature.

For moral intuitionism, see Ross ( 1930 ), Audi ( 1999 ), Cuneo and Schafer-Landau ( 2014 ) and XXX.

See Kant ( 2006 ) for the formula of humanity that requires we treat persons as ends-in-themselves, and for the concept of dignity and its history see Rosen ( 2012 ). For a Kantianized form of intuitionism see Audi ( 2004 ).

Feinberg ( 1980 ) has proposed that respect for persons is respect for their rights and liberties. See Rosen ( 2012 , pp. 54–62) also for some discussion.

Indeed, it clearly conflicts with Rawls’s ( 1971 , p. 53) first principle of justice, which reads as follows: ‘First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others’. It conflicts because it restricts the ‘scheme of equal basic liberties’, e.g. ‘commoners’ cannot be part of the core royal family (although they could, in principle, be part of the extended family by marriage) and occupy royal office. Of course, Rawls ( 1971 ) was a critic of moral intuitionism, which is the moral framework assumed here, and I although I disagree with his ‘argument from original position’ that purports to justify the first principle of justice, I think the principle does constitute a moral truth. I have to waive my points of disagreement with Rawls ( 1971 ) here.

Of course, Martin Luther King was referring only to the normatively irrelevant variable of skin color, but his point is easily generalizable to other irrelevant variables. I accessed the famous speech from The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History here: https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/default/files/inline-pdfs/king.dreamspeech.excerpts.pdf .

As Strawson ( 1992 , p. 136) indicates, moral desert is closely tied to moral responsibility.

For some recent discussion of the perennial ‘why be moral?’ question, see XXX.

I have gleaned the Orwell quote from the Internet. There are various sources of this quote on the Internet. Here is one: https://bengould.wordpress.com/2017/08/11/george-orwell-on-constitutional-monarchy/

In 1936, the pro-Nazi Edward VIII abdicated in order to be in position to marry a divorced woman, something unacceptable at the time. I am not aware of the British political climate at the time, but one may wonder how it could have impacted British foreign policy if he had stayed in office.

See Hitchens ( 1990 ) for some critical discussion of the pragmatic argument. Hitchens ( 1990 ) raises concerns even about the very usefulness of constitutional monarchy, but here I accept the usefulness premise for the sake of the argument.

See von Daniels ( 2018 ), Kaldahal Bottenvik ( 2018 ) for some discussion.

Prince Harry ( 2023 ) seems to be a recent example of abdication, as he describes in his book Spare. Prince Harry also seems to make explicit the cost of not being first born in a royal family (in the aristocratic adage of ‘a heir and a spare’). You come second in attention, love and care because what really matters is the continuity of the royal house. Hence, royalty reproduces a traditional hierarchical family structure that leads to treating the non-first born as something of a spare. Japanese royalty is even worse, as it privileges male offspring over female for succession to office. This is another immoral feature of the institution of royalty.

Another moral reason for the abolition of monarchy derives from the point of view of reparations justice. Monarchy is an institution that, arguably, took hold as a form of government via oppression, extortion, intrigue, murder and exploitation. Presumably, it often happened that monarchy was established by brute force, without the voluntary consent of the people, or the subjects. If this is the case, then abolishing monarchy would be one way to make amends to all those that have been historically wronged by monarchy. Another way to make amends would be to invest the public endowment granted by the state to royals to social welfare in support of the underprivileged and people in need, especially in ex-colonies that were subject to economic extraction.

Acknowledgements XXX.

Aristotle. 1926. Nicomachean ethics . Loeb Library. (Trans: H. Rackham). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Audi, Robert. 1999. Intuitionism, pluralism, and the foundations of ethics. In Moral knowledge? , ed. W. Sinnott-Armstrong, and M. Timmons. 101–137. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar  

Audi, Robert. 2004. The good in the right . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Clapham, Andrew. 2015. Human rights . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crick, Bernard. 2002. Democracy. A very short introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cuneo, Terence and Russ Shafer-Landau. 2014. The moral fixed points: New directions for moral non-naturalism. Philosophical Studies 171: 399–443.

Article   Google Scholar  

Darwall, Stephen. 2006. The second-person standpoint . Harvard University Press.

Dunne John. 2003. John Locke. A very short introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Feinberg, Joel. 1980. The nature and value of rights . Reprinted in His rights, justice and the bounds of liberty . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (Trans: William Rehg). New Baskerville, MA: MIT Press.

Hankins, James. 2010. Exclusivist republicism and the non-monarchical republic. Politic Theory 34(4): 452–482.

Hawes, James. 2019. The shortest history of Germany. Exeter , Devon: Old Street Publishing.

Hitchens, Christopher. 1990. The monarchy . Chatto and Windus Ltd.

Israel, Jonathan. 2001. Radical enlightenment . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kahldal, Bottenvik Stale. 2018. The royal elephant in the room. An ethical assessment of democratic parliamentary monarchy. MA Thesis, University of Oslo. Accessed online: https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/63934/Master-s-Thesis-Bottenvikpdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y .

Kant, Immanuel. 2006. Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals (Trans: Mary Gregor). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kershaw, Ian. 2009. Hitler . London: Penguin Books.

Kymlicka, Will. 1990. Contemporary political philosophy . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Levitsky, Steven and Daniel Zilblatt. 2018. How democracies die . New York: Crown.

Locke, John. 1689[1960]. Two treatises of government . Ed. P. Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nagel, Thomas. 1991. Equality and partiality . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Orwell, George. 1944. 2405. London letter, 15th January 1944. Partisan Review . Accessed at https://c2cjournal.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Orwell_PartisanReview_1944.pdf .

Parfit, Derek. 2011. On what matters . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Plato. 1999. Laches. Protagoras. Meno. Euthydemus . Loeb library. (Trans: W. R. M. Lamb). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Prince, Harry. 2023. Spare . Penguin Random House.

Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice . Belknap, MA: Harvard University Press.

Robertson, John. 2015. The enlightenment. A very short introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rosen, Michael. 2012. Dignity . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ross, W. D. 1930. The right and the good . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. (1762/2003). The social contract and discourses (Trans: G. D. H. Cole). London: Everyman.

Sandel, Michael. 2009. Justice . New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Scanlon, Thomas. 2014. Being realistic about reasons . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Siedentop, Larry. 2015. Inventing the individual . London: Penguin Books.

Singer, Peter. 1981. The expanding circle . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Strawson, Peter. 1992. Analysis and metaphysics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Von Daniels, Detlef. 2018. On monarchy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 21: 456–477.

Waldron, Jeremy. 2002. God, Locke and equality . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wierenga, Edward. 1989. The nature of God . Cornell University Press.

Williamson Timothy. 2018. Doing philosophy . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Dept. of Classics and Philosophy, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

Christos Kyriacou

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christos Kyriacou .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kyriacou, C. The Moral Argument Against Monarchy (Absolute or Constitutional). Res Publica 30 , 171–182 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-023-09627-x

Download citation

Accepted : 18 July 2023

Published : 07 September 2023

Issue Date : March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-023-09627-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Moral fixed points
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• royal wedding

Harry and Meghan’s Wedding Is a Reminder That Britain Doesn’t Need the Royals

T o hear pundits talking about the royals this spring, you’d be excused for thinking “The Royal Family” is a prime-time soap opera, with viewers obsessing over new characters, story lines and how it’s doing in the ratings. Bets were placed on what Prince William and Kate Middleton’s new baby would be, while commentators eagerly discussed whether the new character of Meghan Markle would manage to “save” the Royal Family by marrying Prince Harry. The answer to all this for most people around the world is simply: Who cares?

The way Britain is celebrating Harry and Meghan’s wedding is a curious reminder that the monarchy is rarely evaluated in terms of its actual purpose, which is to provide Britain with an effective head of state. Few pundits seem sure of what that role entails or even why it’s needed, because unlike in the U.S., our head of state’s role is ceremonial rather than political. And so when a royal wedding happens—Will and Kate’s reportedly cost $34 million , paid for by British taxpayers—the debate usually hinges on two questions: popularity, and cost.

On the first, we’ve seen a sea change in public perception. Twenty years ago, the monarchy was seen as rich, expensive and out of touch—particularly during the post-Diana crisis of public confidence, when Queen Elizabeth’s apparently cold reaction to her death was met with widespread anger. In response, the royal family invested enormous amounts of time and taxpayers’ money to rewrite the script. They put on glitzy campaigns around the 2011 royal wedding, the 2012 Golden Jubilee and stage managed announcements around the birth of Kate and William’s children—while at the same time playing hardball with the media, and demanding official secrecy and control over their public image.

This rebranding effort has allowed royalists to justify the cost to the public purse on the grounds of “value to the economy.” But the story of the royal family’s value to the British economy was simply dreamed up by smart PR professionals to save an institution in crisis. In reality, according to our research, British taxpayers lose about $468 million a year just to have a head of state—a lot more than the official figure released by Buckingham Palace, which was $58 million last year. In fact, our monarch is one of the most expensive nonpolitical heads of state in Europe, at least 12 times more expensive than Ireland’s elected equivalent.

Even if it were true that the royals represent an investment by the British people, why should the royals spend taxpayers’ money with no checks and balances? That, after all, is why the monarchy costs so much—not because it’s expensive to run the office of head of state, but because the royals spend tens of millions of pounds on their palatial apartments, security and luxury vacations. Brits increasingly resent this—a recent poll we commissioned shows that 57% believe the royal family should pay not only for the wedding but also for police costs.

Any claim about how the royals boost British tourism, trade and retail sales needs to be set against the high costs. Pundits claim events like Harry and Meghan’s wedding will trigger huge spending sprees—but in 2012 Pew Research showed most Americans said they did not follow news of the British royals, while a November YouGov poll showed more than half of Brits were indifferent to the news of Harry and Meghan’s engagement. Any imagined or real spike from royal weddings is so brief and infrequent as to make no difference to British prosperity.

The discussion about the value of the monarchy misses the most important point of all: the damage it does to our democracy. The Crown is the centerpiece of Britain’s rotten constitution, giving us a head of state who lacks independence or purpose, who can only do what she’s told by our Prime Minister. The costs of the monarchy are considerable; the gains fleeting, mythical or the stuff of PR fantasies. While Britain may not be a nation of republicans yet, it’s certainly no longer a nation of royalists.

Smith is the CEO of Republic, a group that advocates for the abolition of the British monarchy

More Must-Reads from TIME

• Javier Milei’s Radical Plan to Transform Argentina
• The New Face of Doctor Who
• How Private Donors Shape Birth-Control Choices
• What Happens if Trump Is Convicted ? Your Questions, Answered
• The Deadly Digital Frontiers at the Border
• Scientists Are Finding Out Just How Toxic Your Stuff Is
• The 31 Most Anticipated Movies of Summer 2024
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

Here's what would happen to the royal family if Britain abolished the monarchy

• King Charles' coronation on Saturday was watched by royal fans and anti-monarchy protesters. 
• Recent polls suggest that interest in the royal family is declining. 
• If the monarchy were to be abolished, the royal family could follow Harry and Meghan's example.

King Charles III was crowned at his coronation ceremony on Saturday, making history as the oldest British monarch.

The ceremony at Westminster Abbey was celebrated in London and around the world, as thousands of people hosted street parties in honor of the new king, Sky News reported .

But not everyone was overjoyed by the celebrations. Among the crowds watching the coronation procession were anti-monarchy protestors who held signs that read "Not my king" and "This country is ours," Insider previously reported .

Graham Smith, leader of the UK's anti-monarchy group Republic, tweeted that he was arrested along with five other individuals while on their way to protest along the procession route. Smith said the incident showed there is "no longer a right to peaceful protest in the UK" and criticized Charles for not issuing a public apology .

Buckingham Palace did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment regarding the incident and Smith's comments. A spokesperson for Metropolitan Police issued a public statement on Monday, saying they "regret" the arrests and that no further action would be taken against the six individuals.

Additionally, recent figures suggest there is less public support for the monarchy than in previous years, particularly among young people. Just under 40% of UK citizens between the ages of 18 and 24 would prefer an elected head of state rather than a monarch, according to an April 2023 YouGov poll of 4,592 adults for the BBC's "Panorama." 

While the overall results showed support for the monarchy, with 58% of all people polled preferring the institution to an elected head of state, the support among Gen Z remained significantly lower, with just 32% of people aged between 18 and 24 saying they support the monarchy, according to YouGov.

Meanwhile, the live coronation broadcast was watched by far fewer people than Queen Elizabeth's funeral, BBC News reports . The coronation was watched by an average of 18.8 million people in the UK compared to 26.5 million people who watched the funeral service in September, according to the outlet.

Tiwa Adebayo, a journalist and royal commentator, told "Good Morning Britain" that the coronation was likely "the last thing on a lot of people's minds" due to the cost of living crisis in the UK . She added that recent polls suggest there is a "crisis of indifference" toward the royals.

That poses the question: What would happen if the UK abolished the monarchy? 

While some countries, including Greece and Bulgaria, abolished their monarchies through public referendum , royal commentator Marlene Koenig said the process is more complex than people think.

"It would take legislation, an act of Parliament, and signed by the Sovereign to end the monarchy," Koenig, a royal expert for History Extra, previously told Insider.

Nonetheless, that's not to say things couldn't one day change if there were to be a greater call for Britain to consider the future of the monarchy.

The king would give up Buckingham Palace — but he wouldn't have to give up all of his royal residences 

Buckingham Palace has been used as the official working and living headquarters of Britain's monarchs since 1837. It has 775 rooms (many of these are for private use) and is used by the king to host state banquets and engagements with world leaders and government officials. 

It's also a prime location for many milestone events, including royal wedding receptions, and, soon, the king's Trooping the Colour birthday parade each year.

In previous years, the palace opened to visitors in the summer while the late Queen Elizabeth II vacationed at her Scottish holiday home, Balmoral Castle . However, it could become a permanent tourist attraction if the king were to officially move out. 

The palace is property of the Crown Estate, which the late Queen Elizabeth was the owner of while she was the monarch. However, this would change if the new king was no longer Head of State, according to the Crown Estate's official website.

"The Crown Estate is not the private property of the King. Our assets are hereditary possessions of the Sovereign held 'in right of the Crown'. This means they belong to the Sovereign for the duration of their reign, but cannot be sold by them, nor do revenues from the assets belong to them," the website states.

Related stories

Other residences that are Crown-owned include Windsor Castle (the royal Easter residence), and the Palace of Holyroodhouse (the Edinburgh residence). 

As pointed out by Koenig, the monarch also privately owms Balmoral Castle in the Scottish Highlands and the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk, where the royals spend every Christmas and New Year. Therefore, it's likely one of these could be chosen as a new permanent residence if the monarchy was abolished.

This isn't an unusual circumstance for royal families from abolished monarchies, according to Koenig. 

"Most of the former German royal families stayed in their homes," she said. "Some property was confiscated, others received compensation, including the Kaiser's family."

Prince William and Kate would follow Prince Harry and Meghan's lead and pursue financial independence

At the age of 74, it's possible that Charles would retire from public life if the monarchy was abolished. 

It's more likely that the younger generation of royals, such as Kate Middleton and Prince William, would follow Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's lead and try to shape their own careers. 

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex said during their Oprah interview that the royal family had cut them off financially at the beginning of 2020, meaning the couple had to rely on Harry's inheritance from Princess Diana. 

Since then, the Sussexes have secured major deals with Spotify and Netflix . In 2022, Meghan launched her podcast, "Archetypes,"  and Harry and Meghan released a Netflix docuseries about their love story and step back from the royal family.

Meanwhile, Harry released his debut memoir, "Spare," in January 2023. The book was a major success, and sold 1.4 million copies on the first day of release , making it Penguin Random House's fastest-selling non-fiction book of all time.

Of course, it's a matter of speculation as to whether Kate and William would take on similar work to Harry and Meghan if they were forced to pursue private careers. 

They do have similar skill sets to the Sussexes. They currently run their own charity , The Royal Foundation, where they often give speeches at charity dinners and events. And in October 2021, Prince William teamed up with David Attenborough for a five-part documentary series about the environmental challenges facing our planet which aired on BBC One in the UK and Discovery in the US.

As Koenig said, it's unlikely the monarchy will be abolished

All that being said, it's worth remembering that royal experts say the likelihood of the monarchy being abolished is pretty low. 

Although royal author Nigel Cawthorne previously told Insider that the monarchy will be "severely damaged in the long term" by Harry and Markle's royal exit in 2020, most experts suggest that things will not change.

"The monarchy as an institution is all about the monarch and her direct heirs," royal editor Robert Jobson said . "The Sussexes are popular, but their involvement in matters of state are negligible."

Koenig echoed Jobson's comments. "The only members of the royal family that have a constitutional role are the Sovereign and the heir apparent," she said.

Meanwhile, royal commentator Victoria Arbiter told Insider that polls about the royal family should be taken "with a pinch of salt" and that it's worth remembering that many people still support the monarchy.

"Always before a big royal event, the polls say nobody cares. But on the day, millions of people show up," Arbiter said. 

"When you look back, historically, the younger generation is always a bit less enchanted with the royal family and this changes with age as they see the benefit of a politically neutral head of state. It's nothing new. It doesn't mean the royal family can rest on their laurels, but the response the royals receive at engagements speaks more than a poll," she added.

Charles and Camilla were greeted by thousands of people on the streets of central London as they made their procession from Westminster Abbey to Buckingham Palace on Saturday. Many people camped overnight in dreary weather to secure their place on the procession route, Sky News reported .

Although Charles has encountered protesters, he has also received encouraging words of support from the public at engagements since he ascended the throne. At his first appearance outside Buckingham Palace after the death of Queen Elizabeth in September, well-wishers sang "God Save The King" and "Long Live The King," Insider's Maria Noyen previously reported .

Therefore, while it's unclear what the future holds for the monarchy, it's clear the royal family would still be able to survive — whether from private property or corporate deals — if the institution no longer existed.

Buckingham Palace did not respond to Insider's request for comment.

Watch: How much does the British royal family cost?

• Main content

DEBATE: Should the monarchy be abolished?

By: Nadine Batchelor-Hunt and Zaki Cooper

• Facebook Share on Facebook
• X Share on Twitter
• LinkedIn Share on LinkedIn
• WhatsApp Share on WhatsApp

Zaki Cooper, Co-Founder of Integra Group says NO

The Royal Family have an enduring importance in Britain, in our lives and our hearts. Every day, they champion important organisations at the heart of our communities. The family is an ancient institution which has adapted subtly over the ages and must continue to do so to cater for the needs of today.

Over the last year, the Royals have been a key point of leadership. “We will meet again,” was the Queen’s message of hope in the first lockdown. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge donned masks in an effort to get Brits’ across the country do the same. 

Their role is charitable and international. It is thanks to them we have the Duke of Edinburgh Award and the Prince’s Trust, two key charities who play a vital role in Britain. 

The Queen is head of the Commonwealth and is an important figurehead for the 54 nation bloc. 

Abolishing the Monarchy would damage a key centrepiece of modern day Britain which provides us with solace, reassurance and guidance.

Nadine Batchelor-Hunt, political correspondent at JOE.co.uk says YES

British establishment has been left reeling following the bombshell revelations from Meghan and Harry’s interview with Oprah. The explosive allegations, including Royal Family members asking how dark the couple’s children would be, were disturbing for all manner of reasons.

The Royal Family are increasingly becoming an anachronism within modern British society. Whether it’s the interview with Meghan and Harry, or the Prince Andrew affair, or the growing awareness of the wrongs of colonialism, with which the monarchy is inextricably linked, they are becoming increasingly out of place in contemporary society. 

There is also the very real question of what are we paying for? The Royal Family does not come cheap. A report from the Sovereign Grant, which funds the Queen, shows the monarch cost the taxpayer £69 million in 2019-20. Yet, it increasingly fuels toxic public discourse and makes Britain vulnerable to scandals such as the controversies swirling around Prince Andrew’s involvement with Jeffrey Epstein. 

The time has come: let’s abolish the monarchy.

Subscribe to the City A.M. newsletter to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Your news your way

Subscribe to get the essential daily news updates from City A.M's top stories to your inbox.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

As a King Is Crowned, Some Britons Ask Why the Monarchy Persists

As long as there has been a monarchy, there have been questions about its legitimacy. But for many people, it would be difficult to disentangle the royal family from British identity.

By Sarah Lyall

Sarah Lyall reported this article from London, where preparations for the coronation of King Charles III are underway.

In a scene in the 1975 movie “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” King Arthur roams around the English countryside attempting to gather knights for the Round Table. When he declares, “I am your king!” to a deeply unimpressed peasant , her response is both absurd and blindingly obvious.

“Well, I didn’t vote for you,” she says.

As long as there has been a monarch in this country — for more than a 1,000 years — there have been questions about the legitimacy of the monarchy. As the nation prepares for King Charles III’s coronation on Saturday , in an elaborate ceremony billed as an effort to bring modern flourishes to an ancient ritual, it is worth asking the question:

Why, when nobody voted for the monarchy and half the population under the age of 50 doesn’t think it should exist , does Britain still have one?

“One of the reasons that the monarchy persists is that we don’t often have serious conversations about why we have a monarchy,” said Alastair Bellany, a historian at Rutgers University specializing in 16th- and 17th-century Britain. “I think we should. I think a serious country has to look in the mirror. It’s a lazy assumption that the monarchy is our message to Britain and the world that this is who we are.”

Of course, for many people, it would be difficult to disentangle the monarchy from Britain’s general sense of itself, as hard as that might be to articulate.

“It’s just part of our lives, our tradition and our culture,” said Penny Convers, a 64-year-old teacher who was interviewed as she enjoyed a few moments of rare London sunshine this week. “Most of us just see them when they come on the TV,” she said of the royal family, “but they are part of our British way of living.”

Not for Jude O’Farrell, a 24-year-old pub manager from Southampton, England, who was visiting London for a job interview. He grew up in a house where his father often played “God Save the Queen” — the Sex Pistols’ version . (Sample line: “She ain’t no human being.”)

“The monarchy doesn’t really fit into my life at all,” he said. “It just exists. It doesn’t really do anything.”

Still, you can’t walk around Britain for more than five minutes without running into or experiencing something that shouts “monarchy”: stamps, coins, bank notes, street names, pub names, consumer products bearing official royal insignia, the national anthem.

The Royal Albert Dock in Liverpool; the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary; the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama; the Glasgow Royal Concert Hall; “The Crown”; the royal holidays. The list goes on.

Sure, there are implacable anti-monarchy campaigners like the Republic group, whose members regularly demonstrate at royal events. Recently, too, there have been increasing complaints from the former British colonies, which are demanding that the royal family finally face up to its colonial past by formally apologizing and making reparations.

But while the critics regularly surface with plausible grievances — the monarchy was built from the spoils of enslaved peoples; it is too expensive; it is racist, sexist, classist and out of touch; it automatically bestows power on people who can be shockingly unimpressive — those arguments have not gained serious political traction.

Neither of the two main political parties, known as “His Majesty’s government” and “His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition,” supports ending the system.

“The real question is not why they’re a monarchy, since, obviously, the royal family isn’t letting this go — they’re the wealthiest and most powerful monarchy that still survives,” said Brooke Newman, an associate professor of history, specializing in early modern Britain, at Virginia Commonwealth University. “The question is, why does the public continue to support them?”

“It boils down to emotional reasons,” she continued, “that people feel this intense pride in having a historic family with an unbroken chain through history.”

One way the family has retained its power and aura, Ms. Newman said, is by obscuring the extent of its past connections to colonialism and slavery. “There are a significant population of people in the U.K. who are opposed to talking about this,” she said.

Craig Prescott, an expert in U.K. constitutional law and politics at Bangor University in Wales, said one of the monarchy’s main functions is to transcend politics.

Even at a time of national turbulence, in which four Conservative prime ministers in seven years have presided over a fractious country rived by issues like Brexit, immigration and funding for the National Health Service, the monarchy can float above the fray, providing a kind of scaffolding that holds the system together.

“It creates a space for politics which is separate from the state, beyond the touch of day-to-day politicians,” Mr. Prescott said. “That means that no matter how feral and nasty politics can get, it’s not about the state; it’s about the government.”

“Politicians are here today, gone tomorrow, but” he added — and here he sounded almost as if he were describing Jeff Bridges’s iconic character, the Dude, in “The Big Lebowski” — “the monarchy persists.”

The monarchy is, in fact, tied to the will of the people, albeit indirectly through the money flowing to the crown via Parliament, Mr. Prescott said. Parliament’s political supremacy over the crown was established in the 17th century, when the beheading of King Charles I set the stage for a short-lived republic. When the monarchy was restored 11 years later, Parliament curtailed the crown’s power through a Bill of Rights that ushered in a constitutional monarchy.

“It’s said that an ideal monarchy should always be changing and always be the same, maintaining tradition and keeping up with the times,” said Tracy Borman, the author of “Crown & Sceptre,” a history of the British monarchy, and the joint chief curator of the Historic Royal Palaces.

“I think it has evolved to make as much sense as it possibly can,” she added. “That ability to adapt has been a saving grace of monarchy. Monarchies that refuse to adapt fall in dramatic fashion, like the French monarchy.” (See also the Russian monarchy, the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and the exiled monarchies of Greece and other European countries.)

One constant of the British monarchy has been the calls for its abolition, Ms. Borman continued. “Throughout history, it’s been very much a generational thing, with younger people as a whole having less interest than older generations,” she said. “Then, as they grow more mature, they become more interested. It’s cyclical.”

Bob Morris, an expert on monarchies at University College London’s Constitution Unit, said the British royal family helped maintain the nation’s interest by understanding the difference between celebrity and royalty.

“Celebritization is about attracting attention to yourself; royalty is about giving attention to other people,” he said.

In the year before the pandemic, working royals made 3,000 visits across Britain, he noted, drawing attention to civic groups, local organizations and charities.

One way the monarchy holds on to power, said Mr. Bellany, the Rutgers historian, who is British, is through the deft use of pageantry and ceremony, particularly in uncertain times. Charles’s wedding to his first wife, Diana, the Princess of Wales, took place in 1981, providing a spectacular distraction for a weary nation during a period of turmoil and division.

Even knowing that, Mr. Bellany said, he found himself unexpectedly moved last fall as he watched Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral .

“Part of me was annoyed, and part of me was very mistrustful of what I was seeing,” Mr. Bellany said. “But part of me thought: ‘This is very well done. This is powerful theater.’ I think we should never underestimate the power of that theater.”

An earlier version of this article misstated where the Rutgers historian Alastair Bellany was born. He was born in Australia, not England.

How we handle corrections

Sarah Lyall is a writer at large, working for a variety of desks including Sports, Culture, Media and International. Previously she was a correspondent in the London bureau, and a reporter for the Culture and Metro desks. More about Sarah Lyall