The Telegraph has reported, not very long ago:
And as I posted those words, I noticed this from the BBC:
The time has come to pull the whole, rotten, eugenically justified edifice of royal privilege down and replace it with:
- A constitution
- An end to monarchy
- An end to the honours system
- An elected head of state
- An elected, regionally representative Senate
- A House of Commons elected by proportional representation
- State-funded political parties
- A ban on corporate donations to any party and strict donation limits from individuals
- Proper regulation of think tanks and lobbyists
- Proper controls on the media
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
That written constitution should also enshrine the right of any member nation to leave the union if its people so choose.
Agreed
We will soon find out how deep seated the Royal Family is in the British psychie. If the monarchy survive this then we’ll know the UK isn’t going to move with the times and a former empire will be left behind on multiple fronts. Decay happens gradually.
We live in interesting times.
Yes to all.
As for the media, in the case of print only ownership by UK citizens, normally living & paying taxes in the UK. Foreign ownership banned.
Agreed
As far as I know, only one MP – Rachael Maskell – has been arguing (for quite some time now) that Parliament needs to do something about Andrew, like remove him from the line of succession. The Government have told her they won’t make Parliamentary time for such a debate! If they can’t even get their heads around doing something about Andrew, what hope is there for the wider constitutional changes that are so clearly needed? Yet another example of the strategy-free-zone that is this Government.
So Charles has authorised this. The police would not be able to act so publicly without his okay. However, even though he removed Andrew’s titles, it’s not possible to arrest and prosecute Andrew without bringing down the whole house of cards. Interesting times!
The commentary on the airwaves this morning is suggesting Charles probably knew in advance, but authorising? If the king is giving permission to the police to act, we’re in a worse state than I thought.
Agreed.
And I fear you might be right.
And remember, he is officially above the law in this country. Technically all prosecutions are by the Drown and he cannot prosecute himself.
By indicating he wouldn’t stop it, he is in effect giving the police permission to proceed. He might not of known exactly when,but he let it be known Andrew wasn’t longer above the law.
I really don’t think he could have stopped it. He could not have survived if he had. He may not, anyway.
I am an unicameralist. If Scotland and Wales can function effectively without a second chamber as do the majority of democratic countries (79–81 systems are bicameral, 107–111 are unicameral) why do we need a second chamber at all?
Who will have supremacy if both chambers are elected? Will legislation have to achieve a majority in both Houses leading to the situation we often see in the USA? Or will the second chamber simply be offering a second opinion?
Noted
“Or will the second chamber simply be offering a second opinion?”
The Second Chamber could be exactly what it is but reconstituted as an elected Senate where elected members serve 6-8 year terms and CANNOT be re-elected. The purpose of the Second Chamber, or whatever you want to call it, would be to provide expertise, straighten out or clean up bad legislation and be a check & balance on MPSs that only seem to be chasing votes, Twitter (X) /Instagram followers and time on your TV screen. Also, IMAO, an elected member of the Second Chamber should be required to prove and have a 10 year previous residence in the constituency they are elected to represent to prevent “London” from being over represented by people “Moving House” simply to serve in the Second Chamber. Purpose of the Second Chamber: Members of the Second Chamber would NOT be chasing votes and approval of The Daily Fail.
No appointed Life Peers and no Hereditary Peers elected by Hereditary Peers. If you hold a peerage and want to serve you must be elected.
FYI: In the US Constitution, the purpose of the House of Representatives is to directly represent the people and the purpose of the Senate is to represent the individual “States”.
Much to agree with
There’s something odd about your numbers. If 81 states are bicameral and 5 unicameral, this isn’t a unicameral majority. Have you misprinted the numbers? Reversed bi- and uni-? Something else? At the moment your numbers simply don’t add up.
Jonathan Dimbleby has just been interviewed on BBC1 and claims this makes the Monarchy stronger.
His argument appears to be that there is a wider majestic notion of Royalty, and Royal individuals sometimes fail to live up to the ideals.
He is 81 so that might explain his fossilised view.
Oh he was described by the news presenter interviewing him as a friend and confidant of Charles!
He is a proxy fur Charles.
And a fool.
Richard, you slipped into the Scots vernacular there (“fur”) – should have said “Chairlie” though, to do it properly!
🙂
Are you sure he is not a “poxy fur” – a sort of mangy cat that Mr Windsor strokes from time to time (a la Donald Pleasance in You Only Live Twice).
Miaow.
I don’t like the idea of a fur Charles. Furry toys are supposed to be cuddly and loveable.
We should be careful what we wish for.
I suggest that the Monarchy should end with Charles death OR in 10 years from now so at least we get some time to debate what comes next.
What we are in danger of getting is whatever those in power put together as the House of Windsor collapses and it may be no better than what it replaces.
I’d get rid of the monarchy now if I could. And we need look no further than the Republic of Ireland for a replacement system for Head of State. It works perfectly well, costs a tiny fraction of what this awful lot are given for doing f*** all, without castles and palaces everywhere, ridiculous in the 21st century. Also they’re not up themselves like the Windsors.
Get rid. Abolish the monarchy.
Agreed, and also as to what comes next.
Hey Richard, I can’t comment on your old post about where you should hold another event as it is not accepting comments – so I’ll hijack this as there’s no other obvious way of contacting you…
You might consider contacting the IAI about speaking at How The Light Gets In – they do one in Hay in May and another in London in September. I’ve been for the last 3 years and it’s a great festival of ideas, politics, philosophy, economics and science. They have presentations and debates where relevant presenters will attend. It’s a fab opportunity to reach thinking people
https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/hay
Who are the IAI?
IAI = Institute of Arts and Ideas
There’s a bit more here
https://www.visitwales.com/event/display-or-festival/howthelightgetsin-festival-2026-hay-wye-590771
It’s really cool and diverse that the wales tourist bureau are promoting something as close to the occupied territory of England as it’s possible to get, literally a stone’s throw from the border
“An end to the honours system”
As a Yank, I never understood the UK “honours system” and why everyone coveted an “honour”. Hundreds of these “honours” are given out each year. Does not the multitude of awards given out dilute the value of the award.
In the USA there are two awards for civilians: The Presidential Medal and the Congressional Medal.
Rosa Parks received her “honour” in 1996. She received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest award a civilian can receive from the United States executive branch, from Bill Clinton. In 1999, Parks was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal with unanimous Senate approval . These “honours” were received for a LIFETIME of work on Civil Rights when Rosa had one foot in the grave and one foot on a banana peel.
Bob Dylan received his “honour” in 2012. Dylan received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in May 2012 from President Barack Obama, presenting Dylan with the award, said “There is not a bigger giant in the history of American music”.
The Presidential Medal and the Congressional Medal are highly valued and recipients respected because so few people get them.
How can (or why are) the UK “honours” valued when the Prime Minster seems to hand them out like candy taped to a campaign button?
I apologize in advance if I have offended anyone but, as a Yank, I do not understand why these “honours” are coveted.
The wise refuse honours appointing them officers of an Empire
The whole system stinks
Think of UK honours as
1. a cross between a form of currency Prime Ministers buy things/people with,
2. a bribe or bung, and
3. a class-based pension system (BEM for the working classes, MBE for middle class and professionals, and CBE/DBE/KBE for old celebs/actors/athletes and the old-money upper class).
4. A reward for doing as you are told (usually involving complicity in some sort of “omerta”.
Bath & Garter gongs are not available to ordinary mortals, being reserved for the governing classes on retirement or top level promotions. All explained on Yes, Prime Minister…
Peerages lately, seem to mainly (not always) go to crooks, for services to the Prime Minister, to delay their arrest for ten years or so or for ever. (See some of peerages awarded by A. B de Pfeffel Johnson, and E. Truss for some notable examples).)
It is integral to the success of our wonderful country. Cough.Cough.
(I should add that some good and innocent persons get gongs on merit, which is why I have a family photo of us all outside Buck House, after my dad got his military MBE from QE2 at the end of the sixties.)
My post suffers from a severe dose of cynicism, but a member of one’s royal family and heir, 8th in line for the throne, hasn’t been arrested since 1647 (and that one had his head removed) so it all feels a trifle apocalyptic round here.
The French have the Legion of Honour -from 1802-which is Republican in spirit to reward different contributions to the nation. It has been continued by all types of French governments.
Not saying I agree but I can see a point to that.
I wish Richards new constitution could be implemented. I don’t think it will. The monarchy will stagger through this. Thats also why I think we should campaign for getting money out of politics – that could start the move towards the other things.
There is a suggestion doing the rounds that The King advised against appointing Andrew as ‘Trade Envoy’ but the then PM, Tony Blair went ahead and gave him the job
There was no King at the time.
Are you refErring to Charles a Price of Wales?
Yes
Oh Dear! The Price Of Wales? Can he afford it?
Agree with all of your comments Richard. Hopefully the beginning of the end.
Expect the following PR campaign, Andrew is one rotten apple, he has been picked out of the barrel, lessons will be learnt to make us stronger.
They may try it, but I don’t think it will work for a host of reasons. There is no longer a majority deference to the royal family, it will be impossible for them not to get caught up with it prove they knew nothing and our whole political system is in turmoil.
Labour International passed a motion on Sunday calling for paying for the public functions of the Head of State as before 2011 instead of a bucket budget for the royal family. On Monday, no one in Westminster wanted to know. Now everyone wants a copy. Tomorrow’s news? You saw it here first.
I hate the thought of the monarchy being abolished.
If we do we are plunged into a constitutional crisis that will obliterate all other topics many of which we desperately need to tackle. Not least the rise of extremism and corruption in our politics.
The monarchy/royal family is hard wired into the state and judiciary.
We need to be careful what we wish for.
I completely disagree.
It is the precursor for all the change we need.
All pretty basic stuff you’d expect to find in a functional democracy.
Removing the monarchy would mostly shift where power lives, how elites adapt and how conflict is channelled, rather than simply “democratising” everything overnight.
Where power would move
Even if you end monarchy, honours and royal prerogatives, power does not disappear; it migrates. Senior civil servants, judges, military chiefs and regulators could become the new, less visible establishment, exercising wide discretion but with less public scrutiny than a hereditary monarch. If parties are state‑funded and corporate money is banned, informal patronage (jobs, appointments, visibility, platforms) becomes a key route for wealthy or well‑connected actors to keep influence off the books. Lobbying is likely to shift into grey zones (consultancies, “advice”, revolving doors) if formal rules tighten but enforcement and transparency lag.
Parties, PR and extremism
Proportional representation plus state funding almost guarantees a more fragmented party system. You would likely see more small, ideologically pure or regional parties in parliament, including ones that never win big under first‑past‑the‑post. That can normalise previously marginal extremes by giving them permanent platforms and public money, pulling coalitions and media narratives in their direction. Government formation becomes permanent negotiation: coalitions can be more representative, but also more fragile, making long‑term policy harder to sustain and easier to block.
Territorial and international knock‑ons
Removing the Crown rewires more than symbolism. The monarch is still the formal anchor of the UK’s uncodified constitution and union; removing that forces renegotiation of devolution, sovereignty claims and the UK’s existence as a union state all at once. That is likely to energise constitutional movements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, potentially increasing secessionist pressure even if that is not the aim. Abroad, it would probably accelerate republican moves in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but also raise messy questions about royal property, defence ties and treaties historically framed as agreements “with the Crown”.
Legitimacy and the missing lightning rod
The monarchy currently acts as both symbolic lightning rod and unifying spectacle. Remove it quickly and some of the anger once focused on “the royals” will be redirected toward elected institutions, judges or minorities seen as benefiting from the new order. The honours system, despite its class bias, is one of the few visible ways contributions are publicly recognised; scrapping it without a convincing replacement risks deeper cynicism about public service and the idea of a shared national story.
Wow. You really hate democracy and have absolutely no faith in it.
It’s staggering that anyone capable of stringing a sentence together might think as you do.
You clearly have no idea about what people want.
Who are you here as a stooge for?
I am a stooge for critical thinking, considering consequences, answering legitimate concerns directly and never engaging in ad hominem attacks.
You failed then.
All you said was maintain the status quo of power.
That means you are a stooge for something.
The way I see it, you can concentrate power, or distribute it.
We’ve tried concentrating it, for several centuries now and quite frankly, I don’t think that has worked out too well.
I’d like to try distributing it now, before it’s too late for us and our planet.
I don’t think ANY of us can be trusted with concentrated or absolute power.
‘I don’t think ANY of us can be trusted with concentrated or absolute power.’
You are absolutely right RobertJ. It’s like when Gandalf refuses to pick up the ring of power in Lord of Rings. He knows that he cannot trust himself with it, and leaves it where it is.
If humanity could be as self aware as that, then Liberalism could be reborn as major power just by accepting and allowing for individual human weakness and governing and subordinating it through the collective.
That to me is the salvational mechanics of democracy, right there.
Thanks
Canada has a Head of State in the “Governor General”, the King’s representative. The position has no real power. When the monarchy is ejected, I don’t see why we need a “Head of State” when we have a Prime Minister, but if that is desired, my hope would be for a system such as Ireland has. The very last thing I would want is a republic along the lines of the USA. They simply substituted “President” for “King” but came him a lot more power.
The Irish system works for me.
There is a positive in that it has sent a message that at least in the UK even Royalty are not above the law.
In stark contrast with the USA.
See Robert Reich today
In response to your “You failed then” reply to me:
All I said was a “Here’s a list of consequences”, none of which you addressed, you swept them under an attack on me and assumed, without asking me, that I was advocating for a status quo. I am not.
I advocate for preventing emotion tied to ideology from clouding clear thinking.
The problem with blind adherence to *any* ideology is that it will inevitably lead to asserting something is true when one does not know it is true, and that’s a bridge too far for me.
But your comment did make me think what am I a stooge for and it would be what I live my life by: “Lead me into the company of those who seek the truth and deliver me from those who have found it.”
Your MMT videos have been superb and I have used them in the classes I teach on MMT. Thank you for those.
REPLY PART 1
I note your anger with me. I note you demand a reply. I accept I did not previously provide one to your supposed arguments. Instead, I summarised my sentiments. Having bothered to add some formatting to your originally submitted piece because I thought it ight be useful, I then realised I had wasted my time. Decoded, it was what I thought to be a very typical argument for the maintenance of the status quo, and I said so. Let me explain why.
To summarise your argument it is that ending the monarchy would not magically create democracy or equality. Power would not vanish but would instead relocate elsewhere within the elite.
Instantly it is apparent what your message is: it is “don’t even bother yourself with thinking about reform: those in charge have it and will keep it, so stop wasting your time.” Politely, that is what those in power always say, and it is not true.
Then looking in more detail you made four points. The first was that without the Crown, honours and prerogatives, influence would likely concentrate in unelected institutions. Wealthy interests would adapt through informal patronage, consultancies and lobbying loopholes. In other words, elites would reorganise, not disappear. This is where you establish your overarching narrative of “don’t mess with power; you won’t succeed.” The threat is clear.
Second you suggest that with proportional representation and state-funded parties, parliament would contain more small or ideological parties. That could make coalitions fragile, empower fringe movements and complicate long-term policy making. In other words, you suggest sticking with the status quo of the single transferable party that knows it exists to serve the power elite you think unassailable. Don’t dare, you imply, to suggest change to that, whatever people might wish. Hence my suggestion that you oppose democratic will.
Third you want against Constitutional disruption because the monarchy anchors the UK’s uncodified constitution, and removing it would force renegotiation of the Union, devolution and sovereignty. That, you suggest, could strengthen Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish independence pressures and affect Commonwealth relationships, about all of which you are clearly horrified. Your belief in empire, English exceptionalism and the right to rule from London is clear for all to see.
CONTINUED IN PART 2
REPLY PART 2
And then you suggest the monarchy currently absorbs some public anger and provides a shared narrative through honours and ceremony. Without a replacement, cynicism might increase and anger could target other institutions or minorities. You are saying support inequality, or you will get fascism in other words.
I could, of course, interpret this as caution: constitutional change must be systemic, not symbolic or elite capture might continue. But when you make the argument in so many ways, that does not work. This is just an argument for the status quo.
You then assue me of blind adherence to an ideology. I think you were looking in the mirror. Your ideology is devoted to maintaining the world as it is by claiming any change might imperil the status quo that has served well. It has, for a few.
I have no ideology. I do have a commitment to truth, justice fairness, equality and well-being. So of course I do not want a system that denies all that, which is precisely what you came here to support, wrapping yourself up in your own very clear belief in your intellectual superiority.
That is why I called you a stooge. I maintain my view. You are an apologist for a system of abuse, wanting to maintain the power of an elite, the right of a few to rule without consent, and are an opponent of democratic choice, freely expressed. Apart from that, we’re on the same page.
But, thanks for your comments on MMT. Let’s find something positive here.
I think that I’m going to be unpopular and ask everyone to take a step back and calm down.
My sense of injustice in all this is far from satisfied by what I’ve seen about this issue.
Firstly, Randy Andy has been ‘apprehended’ on the basis of some woolly state secret offence, when all I keep seeing is him standing next to a young girl who was fed to him in a sex trafficking ring and later went on to kill herself. That could have been my daughter and any of yours if you have one. Or someone you know and it could be happening somewhere else right now. If you were Andy and his bro – Charlie – which offence would you prefer to be associated with?
All I’ve seen over the last 48 hours is cynical theatre. And as for the UK being some paragon of virtue over justice – well I’m sorry, I have just not got the words – and lucky for you!
Low down: There is one form of justice for ‘them’ and one for the rest of us. Nothing has changed. Nothing. Are we clear?
So, please, continue to enjoy yourselves.
And yes, I want to be wrong, I really do!!
I think you are wrong: this is significant.
And I – dear Richard – hope that you are right.
@PSR
I share your concern about what the police focus should be. Obviously we are going to have to wait and see where the axe falls – but I have read one report suggesting that the misuse of public office charge could be applied to the trafficking women for sex, (as well as the leaking of trade envoy information) and there is a maximum custodial sentence of life imprisonment, so theoretically..
Whether that WILL happen of course, is another matter.
Generally in our system, we look for “examples” & “scapegoats” rather than root and branch real justice for victims. If we were to get the latter, we would need to run night courts (again) to cope with the backlog as there must be hundreds of offenders or perhaps thousands sitting in those documents. Actually DEALING with it would be very unbritish, don’t ye know old chap. But I really wish they would, it’s long overdue. As God said to Cain, “your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground!”. So does the blood of our sisters, daughters and wives.
Is that going to happen? Are we going to muck out the Augean stables at last?
I really don’t know. If it DOES happen, we will have to MAKE it happen.
Wise words RobertJ and thank you for responding.
I’d have to take legal advice I can ill afford on the veracity of the form of the charges as you state them.
My advice is that whatever happens, we need to make sure that we do not delude our selves and watch any outcome closely. Andrew might well be sacrificed to keep the rotting hulk of HMS Windsor afloat.
Might it increase the effectiveness and equity of the U. K. if the governing bodies of the Bank of England and the B. B. C. were significantly democratised?
The Bank of England should be a government department.
The BBC should be mutualised.
In Parts 1 and 2 you go through my four points, but you mainly treat them as evidence about my motives rather than as questions about how institutions work. You infer from what I wrote that I oppose democratic will, support abuse by elites, believe in empire, and want inequality. Those are serious attributions, but they are neither stated in my comment nor implied by it.
My original post made a much narrower claim: if we abolish the monarchy and adopt the package of reforms you propose, power and conflict will not disappear but will reorganise. That has likely consequences for how parties behave, how territorial politics evolve, and where public anger is directed. These are institutional and political dynamics, not a defence of “the world as it is”.
Reasonable people can disagree about how large those risks are, or whether they are worth running. One might conclude that the reforms are still desirable and that the dangers can be managed; another might argue they are too great, or that a different design would be better. All of that is legitimate debate.
What I do not accept are the motives you ascribe to me. It is possible to support radical constitutional change and, at the same time, want to understand its likely side‑effects and design it carefully. That is the position I was arguing from.
Since our exchange now turns more on who I must “really” be than debating the institutional issues I raised, I do not think further back‑and‑forth will be useful, so I will leave it there and wish you well with your work.
I will leave it, too, pointing out that I still disagree with your words and their reasonable interpretation.