The Queen’s funeral is to be held on the 18th of September, whilst Charles was proclaimed King just over a week before on the 10th. It’s difficult to imagine which of these events will be more depressing to watch; thousands of people turning out in the streets to venerate a wrinkled old corpse… or the funeral of an old lady. But the passing of the Queen brings forward questions that have been lingering in the background of public discourse for some time, namely; should we do away with the monarchy completely? Though around 60% of the public supports the monarchy, this figure has slowly but steadily been falling, down from 75% a decade ago. The British public is inherently conservative by nature and fears change. Given the Queen’s role as an icon of stability and continuity, it’s not surprising that any suggestion that a monarchy has no place in modern society, was lazily swatted away with a shrug of the shoulders and an apprehensive “but this is how things have always been.” Well, now this isn’t how things have always been.
It’s possible, maybe even likely, that public opinion will begin to swing against the royals. Elizabeth was popular partly due to her longevity, and partly due to her ability to adeptly manipulate public opinion. This is exhibited in her deals with parliament to avoid scrutiny of her finances or in who she awarded OBEs, MBEs or Knighthoods. Charles, in contrast, is a far less popular figure. In part, this is a consequence of his marriage to Diana, whom he met when she was just 16 and he was aged 29, whilst dating her older sister. Even back then this raised uncomfortable questions around the attitude of the royals to young girls, a criticism re-emerging considering the allegations surrounding Prince Andrew. Charles’s affair with Camilla Parker Bowles and Diana’s status as a cultural icon followed by her untimely death and the royal’s reaction to it only cemented perceptions of Charles as a selfish, spoilt brat. His reputation has not recovered, and Charles exudes neither the regal charm nor the image of strength that the public likes to imagine the United Kingdom still projects to the world. So, there may not be a better time to break with the tradition of the monarchy.
Whenever the issue of abolishing the monarchy is raised, it is inevitably met with the shrill cries of “But tourism! But tourism!”. Whilst these claims have always been dubious, straying into the territory of thought-terminating cliches, and often come from the royal estates themselves, there may have been a grain of truth to them. After all, Elizabeth was a brand as much as she was a monarch, with her face plastered on everything from stamps to coins to T-shirts being flogged outside Oxford Circus. She was recognised by billions across the globe and inspired a bizarre loyalty even amongst citizens of former colonies. The result was tourists visiting the UK to ‘see’ the Queen, which consisted of going to Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle to see which flag was flying.
The royal estates estimate that they bring in as much as £550 million a year to the British economy through tourism. Now, even if this were true, such is my disgust for hereditary hierarchies that I would still advocate for the abolition of the monarchy anyway, but the thing is, it’s not true. It’s impossible to prove exactly how much the royals draw tourists to the UK, but the royal estates' method deliberately inflates their estimated figure. The estates include cultural draws such as Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle and ceremonies like the changing of the guard. These would still exist without the monarchy and are pieces of cultural and architectural history which would still draw tourists regardless of how many self-important, inbred white people sit inside the buildings. Moreover, the family themselves would still exist as a celebrity family (anyone want to help me pitch Keeping up with the Windsors to MTV?), and if royalists from abroad still wanted to come and see them for whatever reason, there would be nothing stopping them from doing just that, and subsequently contributing to the UK’s tourist industry. The tourist argument also conveniently ignores the fact that long-established European republics, such as France or Germany, take in more annually from international tourists than the UK.
There is also the fact that the royals, despite being hugely independently wealthy, (with Elizabeth alone being worth an estimated £327 million upon her death), receive funding from the government to finance their lifestyles of exuberant excess. This figure stands at around £86 million per year, in the form of the Sovereign Grant which has grown from £31 million a year when it was introduced in 2011 and there is minimal scrutiny into how the royals spend this. The real cost is far greater, with the taxpayer forking out for security, infrastructure, and often travel for the royals and their estates. The royals are also allowed to keep the proceeds earned from their estates, visitors paying to enter Buckingham Palace or the grounds at Windsor for example, further taking money away that should be going to the state. Royal ceremonies are also not included in the Sovereign Grant, with events such as royal weddings, jubilees, and other public gatherings all requiring their budgets, which again is paid for by taxes. William and Kate’s wedding cost the taxpayer £7 million in security alone, whilst the recent Platinum Jubilee celebrations cost over £8 million. It’s insulting that a family that is already extraordinarily independently wealthy doesn’t pay for its events. This is further highlighted by Charles avoiding a £40 million inheritance tax bill based on a 1993 agreement that only applies to monarchs. The private estates of the royals should also be turned over to the state. These were once common lands which various monarchs simply took for themselves throughout English history. These should be returned to the public and the profits reaped from them should be put back into the state, and people should once again have the right to explore and ramble on these lands.
The perceptions of the royal family as symbols of stability and tradition have started to wane. Barbados removed the Queen as its head of state in 2021 with 6 other Caribbean Countries intending to follow suit. This is reflective of the uncomfortable conversations around colonial legacies that until now have been avoided by the monarchy but are rightly beginning to be brought up again. The commonwealth itself is a legacy of the British Empire and all that came with it. The monarchy is symbolic of the imperial subjugation and domination of ¼ of the globe that took place during the 18th and 19th Centuries in the name of ‘King/Queen and Country.’ Certain members of society look back on this era of imperial might with nostalgic pride, conveniently ignoring the fact that this period saw the advent of the transatlantic slave trade, the deaths of millions of people in what amounted to a series of calculated genocides against indigenous populations, and the systematic ransacking of the wealth held by countries in Asia and Africa, many of which are yet to recover. Perhaps the most iconic symbol of the royals, the crown jewels, are the quintessential symbols of Britain’s colonial past, and the royals’ flat refusal to return relics like the Koh-I-Noor to India, is reflective of their dismissive attitude towards their family’s relationship with colonialism. Winston Churchill’s role in the famine in India has been swept under the carpet and he’s remembered as a national hero and received a knighthood for his services to ‘king and country’ despite his actions leading to the deaths of tens of millions. More recently, Tony Blair was knighted, despite lying to the public and inventing a mandate to start an illegal war resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of people and the displacement of millions in Iraq and Afghanistan, showing just how little the crown cares about atrocities that have been carried out in its name. Prince Phillip’s constant barrage of racist and sexist comments, while he was still alive, reflects how deeply these colonial attitudes run in the royals, and that any apologies or acknowledgements of colonial issues are superficial at best. The reception of Meghan Markle, with racial slurs, allegedly being directed towards her by members of the royals only illustrates further how deeply institutionalised this racism is in the family.
These legacies are felt closer to home too. The population of the Republic of Ireland has yet to reach that of pre-famine levels, partly due to the deaths incurred by the famine and exacerbated by the policy of the British government to continue to export food out of the country despite knowing of the famine, and partly due to the ensuing economic deprivation leading to a mass exodus of immigrants, only deepening the economic issues. The crown has long been a symbol of imperialism in Ireland even before what is now recognised as the British Empire began to emerge. The current royal family continues to be seen as symbolic of England’s attempts to dominate Ireland, going back as far as the 12th Century. Whilst members of the royal family have acknowledged their historic role in some of these issues, such as Charles acknowledging their role in the slave trade, in a post-colonial society such antiquated symbols serve no purpose and the UK’s reluctance to remove them is an ugly reminder of the unapologetic stance many have regarding the atrocities carried out in the names of the monarch. Removing the royals would be a positive step in acknowledging the historic trauma people of colonised countries suffered and allowing them to move forward from it. It is surely inappropriate for such a position to exist today, let alone be celebrated to the extent that it currently is.
Moreover, the monarchy has become a symbol of the growing inequality in the United Kingdom. It is a living embodiment that hard work is not rewarded, that you can be born into frankly obscene wealth and privilege and hold influential positions for the rest of your life whilst doing very little to merit your position. This is not exclusive to the royals, many people are born into wealth and likewise will never have to worry about work and are granted opportunities and privileges based on who their parents are rather than talent or effort. But the royals are the ultimate encapsulation of this privilege. The monarchy furthers the idea that where you sit within society is deserving and stems from the historical notion that power was god given and was therefore unquestionable. The current royals are a continuation of this narrative and perpetuate the idea of the divinity of wealth, that not only are rich people deserving of their wealth but that they are ‘good’ people because of it. Most people have seen the image of the Queen quite literally sitting atop a golden throne, wearing a jewel-encrusted crown and robe, reading out an austerity bill about how “we’ll all have to make sacrifices.” The farcical irony of this surely cannot have been lost even on her. This is endemic to the wider issue of inherited wealth and privilege that exists under the capitalist economic model, and the British public is not ready to have this discussion. But in a society that professes to be a meritocracy, the existence and veneration of such hereditary power structures undermine the very principles that society seeks to uphold.
Despite their attempts to present themselves as otherwise, the royals could not be further removed from the realities faced by everyday people. Aside from the obvious palaces, servants, and private jets which none of us will ever come close to experiencing, the royals are insulated from the plebs by attending highly selective private schools. William and Harry both attended Eton (£45,000 a year), George currently attends a private primary school costing £8000 a year, and even Kate, who the media referred to as a “commoner”, attended Marlborough College, which costs £42,000 annually for boarders. For a society to have its head of state so far removed from the realities of everyday people is absurd. Again, this raises related issues with our wider parliamentary system with most MPs being privately educated and fundamentally unrepresentative, despite the fact the UK professes to be a representative democracy. But at the very least they are elected and there has been recent progress in making the House of Commons more representative in the past decade. There has been no such achievement with the royals. This is perhaps at the heart of the reactionary defence of the monarchy. The royals are the absolute epitome of all the issues with inherited class, racial, and gender privilege, and any discussion of this forces a naturally conservative population to face up to the uncomfortable realities of society and its positions within it.
People often argue that the monarchy is symbolic and holds no real political power, but there is still an enormous amount of influence and soft power that comes with their position. Elizabeth was adept at manipulating this soft power, using royal visits to help maintain international relations for example, and to her limited credit, she understood that part of the compromise of keeping her role was that she would stay out of politics and avoid making any overtly political decisions. Charles, on the other hand, has actively involved himself in politics in the past, writing over 27 letters to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in 2005 privately lobbying for policy changes. Lobbying is a broader issue in British politics but an unelected hereditary figure trying to influence policy is wholly unacceptable and it is alarming that this person is now the head of state. Furthermore, Charles was implicated in the Cash for Honours Scandal, allegedly offering British citizenship or knighthoods in return for donations to his charity, The Prince’s Foundation which supports heritage projects. Not only does this highlight how facile the royal's charity efforts are, but shows if an unelected head of state is required to go to such lengths to influence policy and gain support for his charities it is best to remove the position altogether. There are royal charities sponsored by members of the royal family like William and Kate or Charles, but these are little more than public relations exercises to justify the existence of the royals, with extremely limited, and in some cases non-existent, social impacts. Furthermore, it’s insulting for an exorbitantly wealthy family that is supported by the state, to fund their charitable exploits not through their finances but through public donations.
Finally, there are the suspect relationships between various and royals disgraced socialites, like Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, both convicted of numerous counts of sex trafficking and sexual abuse. Both had ties to the royals, with Balmoral and Sandringham hosting Epstein and Maxwell, and Prince Andrew’s ties to Epstein being common knowledge. The scandalous sheltering of Andrew by the royals only serves to demonstrate the open disregard they have for the rule of law and the British public in general, as well as the entrenched misogyny and chauvinism of the family and the wider aristocracy.
People ask what would replace the monarchy and this is a salient question. There would need to be legislative changes and a new head of state would need to be established. Exactly what form this would take is difficult to say and there are several possibilities, but an elected president would be most likely, akin to the Finnish, German, or French models. Arguments in favour of abolishing the monarchy also tie into debates around the House of Lords, whether it’s appropriate to allow an unelected body, which also contains hereditary peers, to have a meaningful say in the democratic process, the unrepresentative nature of the British electoral and political systems in general, and the engines of privilege which sustain them. These are discussions and debates for another day, but taking the current opportunity presented to us to now abolish the monarchy is as good a place to start as any.
Comments