I am not a fan of the monarchy.
That has nothing to do with the people involved, excepting those of them who might think they have a divine right to rule.
It's my belief that no one has that right. I do not see any evidence for eugenic beliefs, let alone for basing some of the pillars of government on the shoulders of those who, by implication at least, are assumed better than the rest of the population simply because of the similarly assumed superiority of those from whom they were born.
As a result of this straightforward belief that all are born equal, which I think unassailable, I see no role for hereditary institutions in government, the monarchy included.
Spats between warring members or the royal family, fuelled by the tabloid press in pursuit of their own profit without concern fir the well-being of anyone involved, are not of great concern to me in that case except as evidence for my case that the time has come for royalty to depart its role in the countries of the United Kingdom.
Partly that is in the interests of better government. An Irish style presidency would, I think, serve this country well, just as it has served Ireland well.
I also say this for another reason. I think the burden of monarchy too much for any person or family to bear. Isn't the evidence of the enormous harm it can cause now apparent? Why are we asking people to suffer this burden, randomly and without good reason?
If we were a truly compassionate country we would end this ridiculous, unjust and cruel method of choosing our head of state. If we don't I think it fair to say that we lack that compassion and prefer the spectator sport of royalty instead, and that says remarkably little that is good about us.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Your piece shows indifference to the UK tax advantages enjoyed by the UK monarchy which is a basic unfairness, and also to whether the monarchy itself delivers better outcomes than the alternatives.
Contrast the experience of Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand etc – the monarchy does not get in the way of these places being prosperous.
I think you overstate the importance of tax in this case
Tax is collected on behalf of the monarchy. When Charles became King he made an oath on day 1 to surrender his powers to parliament in exchange for a royal grant. Perhaps people were to busy to notice.
A less obvious disadvantage of the monarchy is the embedded principle of inherited rights and the damage this causes to the efforts of social mobility in UK. This pernicious aspect undermines fairness and is amplified through the 2 tier education system – a well publicised part of the way our royals are presented to the public – and more recently, the 2 tier healthy system.
There is a tax aspect (inheritance, CGT and other unearned income taxes) that leads to a build up of wealth through generations and, as imbalances grow in society, a focus on earned income to fund public services.
Strange thing is, a high proportion of the rabid royalists I know want the HOL disbanding on the basis of it being undemocratic!!!!
The sooner this country gets off its’ knees, has a stroll around and a peek at what the 21st century looks like, the better.
I started to change my view when the Queen agreed to prorogue Parliament for a longer period. The Monarchy has to be neutral to keep public support but they also have a role as a guardian of the constitution. The Queen should, at least, IMHO have asked for time to consult. it was obvious the request was a ploy to avoid scrutiny of the Brexit bill.
If they do not perform this role, what is their point?
I suppose it is possible to have a purely ‘decorative’ figurehead for reasons of tradition and history but one poor personality , in place for years, could discredit the whole institution.
And on the other hand, the episode in Australia in the 1970s when the Governor-General dismissed Gough Whitlam ( who did lose the election which followed) is seen by some as ‘over -reach’.
My feeling is that the majority would still wish to retain the monarchy but the death of the Queen activated many of the old ceremonies which struck me as anachronistic in a way they hadn’t before. I also feel it is a more generational thing and that opinion will slowly move to a different settlement.
I am with you on this, that episode took a lot of credibility from the monarchy (and obviously, also from the Conservative Party). The Queen as Monarch should have had the responsibility to refer a request which she (with her advisors) should have easily been able to recognise as questionable for legal determination by the Supreme Court.
Whether or not the current monarchy gives way to an alternative structure for constitutional Head of State, there needs to be a written constitution which defines the role of the various parties and makes one of the relatively few roles of the Head of State the responsibility to ensure adherence to the constitution by referring uncertain cases for legal determination.
I agree with all your points above.
The problem though is the ‘industry’ that supports it and whose support is I think nothing but self-serving.
We have to get past them first.
Well said. I think royals should go they have no morals. And do not care about the people. Spend loads of public money brag about there Xmas food. While people die.
The monarchy got its fingers badly burnt with the experiences of Edward V111th, Diana, Andrew and now Megan. The obvious racism and sexism in the royal palaces and their propping up the highly divisive class system as you point out, is unacceptable in a modern democracy When will they ever learn?
“Spats between warring members or the royal family, fuelled by the tabloid press in pursuit of their own profit “.. probably goes a bit beyond just profit.
The Windsors (aka Saxe Coburg Gotha’s) are part of the UK’s power structures, used (and as we can see – abused) by both the meeja and politicos. In the case of the former, coverage aims to normalise these power structures within the minds of UK serfs. In the case of the latter, the people/structure provides useful figleafs for politicos – camouflage if you like.
I feel sorry for the ones born into it all – they either conform & thus are little better than drones, or don’t and become entertainment (kno wot I mean ‘arry). Whole thing smacks of child abuse/cruel and unusual punishment.
I totally agree with your conclusions, Richard. The monarchy has no function in modern Britain except to prop up a system of unmerited wealth and privilege and keep the status quo of the class system. It represents the very worst example to the wider world and demonstrates that Britain is a very unfair society. The whole idea of monarchy is outdated and based on nothing more than arrogance and hubris. They live as parasites on the taxpayer and should be expunged.