We are being asked whether Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should be eighth in line to the throne. That is the wrong question.
The real issue is simple: why do we have a monarchy at all in a modern democracy?
No one should be born to rule. No one should inherit political authority. And public services belong to us, and not to a king.
In this video, I explain why monarchy contradicts equality, distorts politics, and blocks constitutional reform, and why a politics of care demands an elected head of state, a written constitution, and real democratic accountability.
This is not about individuals. It is about institutions.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
We are being asked whether Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should be eighth in line to the throne. There's lots of debate about it, but my point is quite simple: that is the wrong question. The real question we need to ask is, why do we have a monarchy at all? After all, no one in a modern society should be born to rule. It's time we had a head of state chosen by democracy.
Let me make it clear. I'm not discussing Andrew as a person here. I'm not discussing anyone as a person here, and I'm most certainly not discussing any allegations or an individual's suitability to be in line to the throne or not. What I'm asking is a straightforward, constitutional question.
- Why should we have a monarch who has to approve our legislation?
- Why do we have a monarch who can describe the government as his own?
- Why do we have a Monarch who has weekly audiences with the Prime Minister, as if their opinion matters?
What is this all about? is my question.
My suggestion is that in a modern democracy, why should anyone be head of state by birth, and why should public life be imposed by inheritance? After all, I think this system is as unfair to those who are in the royal family as it is to us.
Why should power flow through family lines is the actual ultimate question to ask? And my answer is, of course, it shouldn't.
I believe three very simple things. They're all principles of equality.
- No one is born to be superior to anyone else.
- No one should be forced into public life by reason of birth.
- And no one should inherit political authority.
I think those are unassailable democratic fundamentals, and yet monarchy denies them all.
Monarchy harms everyone involved. It imposes public scrutiny on individuals without their consent, and that has proved to be deeply detrimental in many cases, as we have seen.
It creates expectations that are now frankly impossible for anyone to meet.
And it turns families into institutions, and there is no family in the country that could survive that level of scrutiny.
This is unfair on the royal family, and it's wrong for us as a society.
We are told monarchy is symbolic, though symbols do matter, and I'm making that point specifically. I'm saying that the messages from monarchy are wrong.
- Class hierarchy is not natural.
- Privilege is unacceptable as a basis for ruling.
- Power should not belong to families.
- Power should belong to those with the ability to use it fairly on behalf of everyone.
But whilst monarchy survives, it is assumed that class hierarchy is natural and the privilege is acceptable, and the power does belong to families, and that then shapes culture, law, and politics.
We even see this in the naming of our public services.
- We have HM Government: His Majesty's Government.
- We have HM Revenue and Customs as if all the taxes we pay belong to the Crown.
- And we have HM Prison Service. If you are detained, it is at His Majesty's pleasure.
But these services do not belong to the king, this king, any king, any queen or whatever to come; they belong to us. Public services must serve the public, and not reinforce hierarchy.
And let's also be honest, public services should not be associated with wealth and privilege, and the monarchy does hold enormous wealth. That wealth exists because of the institution, land, property, prestige, and networks. All accumulate to the power of the monarch. This is inherited power in economic form. It contradicts all economic justice. It makes a mockery of those who think that we should live in a world where people are more, and not less, equal.
The head of state then must be chosen. In other words, we must elect them democratically. Legitimacy matters, and if citizens cannot imagine themselves as head of state, we do not have a democracy, and right now, no one, apart from the Royal Family, can imagine themselves as head of state, so we don't have a democracy. This, as a matter of fact, is true. We have class rule in the UK.
This is unacceptable, and other countries do, of course, manage without it. Look at Ireland. Ireland made the transition from being part of the UK to being an independent country with an elected head of state. Now you can argue that they just have a ceremonial role that is above party politics. I would argue that that is important. I think the fact that they are above politics is precisely why the Irish situation works so well. But the point is, they have found a role model for a head of state who attracts attention, who can speak on behalf of the country, who can deal with crises, and yet is democratically elected. So, then, could we.
The role should, in fact, be based on public service. We don't necessarily need someone who's been a politician to become head of state. We certainly do not need that person chosen by reason of their birthright, or their wealth, or their connections. Instead, they must have a record of service to the public in some form or other, but not necessarily by any means in the political sphere. They must have a record of integrity, and they must have a record of commitment. That would help us literally create a politics of care because what these people will have evidenced is that they do care, and that will be the criterion for selection: why somebody should get on the ballot in the first place.
And this idea that we reform the monarchy should be part of a wider constitutional reform. This is about much more than monarchy, in fact, because we also need a written constitution. We are playing, too often, with our rights at present. There are politicians who clearly wish to undermine them. That is precisely why we need them written down in a way that is very hard to change.
We also need proportional representation. We need a democracy that actually does really represent us; that is what a democracy should do. And yet too many people at present are denied the chance to ever elect a member of Parliament who might share their views in any remote way. So we need PR so that we have a greater diversity of politics represented in Parliament, but that's important because we are a diverse nation. We shouldn't pretend otherwise if our democracy is to work.
We also need an elected second chamber, and I stress here that it is very important that this elected second chamber should, rather like whoever might be our elected head of state, represent wise opinion and strong commitment to service rather than political interest. This second chamber would not be creating legislation. It would instead be acting as a sounding board for our elected politicians, many of whom seem to need such a thing, and it would be saying, "Are you sure you've got this right? Are you sure you are being wise? Do you want to have a second look at this?" That is the role of a good second chamber, and it needs to exist, but it needs to exist in a way that is distinct from party politics. So people elected for significant periods, ten plus years, but then expected to stand down, and no silly titles going with it.
We also need to reform our party political system. There should be no chance of it being corrupted by corporate donations; they should be banned. There should be strict limits on how much any individual can give as well. We need a state-funded political system to avoid the risk of corruption, and all of this would help create real democratic accountability, and that is fundamental to our future.
If we keep the monarchy, we keep class hierarchy, hidden power networks, cultural deference, and a lack of accountability. All of these distort politics. That's why they need to go. They block reform as things stand, and that is unacceptable.
They also undermine public services by defending privilege, and in that sense, they also deny the need for a social safety net by suggesting falling through the gaps is somehow natural because there is a hierarchy, and therefore someone has got to be at the bottom and uncared for, in effect, and that to me is unacceptable.
We need an end to monarchy. Equality must become real. Citizens must gain ownership of the state. Politics must become about public service, and the politics of care must replace the politics of privilege. This is cultural change as much as it is constitutional change.
We need to do this now. The latest debate over particular members of the royal family shows something, and that is not that they might or might not have done anything wrong, but that we obsess over individuals because we avoid questioning institutions. That is the key point about what is happening at present. That questioning of individuals protects power as a whole, and the problem is power is corrupted.
This is what we need to look at. We are being distracted from structural reform by, well, literally looking at individuals and whether they've done right or wrong. So, actually, what I'm saying is that royalty is not, I stress, about that issue. It is instead about the structure.
So the issue with royalty is not about any one person. The issue is monarchy itself. No one should rule by right of birth, and no one should inherit political authority. That is my point. Democracy requires equality. What can you offer to counter that argument when it seems so fundamentally true?
If we want a politics for people, we need to debate a written constitution, demand an elected head of state, remove inherited privilege, reform political funding, and put public services under democratic ownership. This is part of the politics of care. A modern society celebrates the best of us, not the accident of birth. It's time to move on now.
That's what I think. What do you think? There's a poll down below.
Poll
Loading ...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!
One other problem: land ownership.
The king owns ALL the UK and any other place where he is “head of state”. “Freehold: a holidng of land in fee simple” ultimate owner – King.
The definition is in legislation from the 2000s. serfdom may have been abolished, but the structure of land ownership has not changed since Willie the bastard.
This has to go
If there is to be an ultimate title owner it must be the state
Andy Wightman’s book title says it all ‘The Poor Had No Lawyers. Who Owns Scotland and How They Got it’
The land and seabed should belong to the people and to be used for the benefit of the people.
We absolutely don’t need a monarchy…it is the antithesis of a democratic country that should be governed in the interests of the people.
I dont know how the Irish system works but it would at least have been open to President Higgins to say ‘Is that really a good idea’ or even ‘No’ in a way that a British Monarch cannot.
This is an interesting article from todays Grauniad – it will save you having to read the whole of entitled
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/24/andrew-mountbatten-windsor-biographer-andrew-lownie-entitled
In particular
“That’s what the Chinese and Russian secret services realised – that the easiest vulnerability of the British establishment is the royal family,” says Lownie. “There’s no scrutiny. They’re greedy. They’re short of money.” And in Andrew’s case in particular, “they’re kind of immoral because of the way they’ve been brought up. And they mixed with lots of important people.”
Now in this case its the now 8th and previously second in line to the Throne but what about if it had been the heir apparent? Or worse still the monarch?
I read that article
Andtrew is replusive, is my conclusion
But so too was his mother who enabled him
In principle I agree with all you say. But these changes can’t happen overnight, and organisations like Republic, who should be leading the way, simply aren’t ready. Their case for replacing the Monarchy is compelling, but I’m afraid woefully oversimplified. Whether we like it or not, there will be a need to wade through complex legal and constitutional issues, as well as lengthy consultation with Commonwealth countries. And we must care for all the people who would be impacted by the changes, whether they be directly employed in support of the current structure, or indirectly through tourism and the like.
In the meantime, there are alligators close to the canoe. As I mustn’t exceed 400 words, let’s just look at one example. Here is the Oath of Allegiance that members of the Armed Forces must recite:
I swear by Almighty God [or: do solemnly, and truly declare and affirm] that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, His Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, and of the [admirals/generals/air officers] and officers set over me.
Now this is a curious statement. It’s hard to see the boundary between symbolism and the reality of war-fighting in these words. But since the words are there before us, let’s take them at face value. Look at that word Successors. That includes Andrew! That’s what we are asking members of the armed forces to obey and protect. And this at a time when we are wanting to recruit more soldiers, apparently.
So while we build the case for renewal of our Government structures, let’s pave the way by getting Andrew out of the queue, reducing the size and scale of the Monarchy, and having much greater transparency about what they are up to.
I will write a blog on this theme
The monarchy has to go and we need to replace that hodge-podge of historical compromises we call an unwritten constitution with a simple, sane, written one.
But you haven’t shown that we need any head of state at all. Usually their job is to enforce the constitution but we have courts for that, as demonstrated by Lady Hale rapidly skewering Bojo for his illegal prorogation after the Queen proved so useless.
Proposing another two elections (head of state and lords replacement) repels people who already lost faith that voting gives them a real voice, and raises the difficult question of why either institution would be above politics. That quagmire distracts from the main topic of abolishing the monarchy, so why not sidestep the whole problem by proposing no head of state at all?
To replace the lords, we need something like a standing citizens assembly, a bunch of technical fact checkers, or whatever. But I honestly don’t believe a second elected chamber would be anything but a copy-paste of the commons.
We will have to disagree
Citizen’s assembles are never substitutes for democracy
They are very useful testbeds of considered opinion
Don’t confuse the two
I agree Adrian.
When I debate the idea of abolishing the monarchy with my monarchist friends, their response is often along the lines of “we don’t need more elected politicians”. Well I am happy to debate that, and I agree that the real problem here is that we have very flawed democratic processes, and what needs fixing is the faulty process not the abandonment of democracy.
But seriously what would happen if we did not have a head of state , or if a titlehloder is necessary make it the PM.
The (non) response to Bojo’s shenanigans emphatically made the point that our current head of state serves no useful function. You had one job….
I fully agree that the monarchy has to go. I think that removing Andrew from the line of succession should be the beginning of the end.
The only reason Charles is King and William is heir to the throne is because of their births. Andrew has (legally) the same birth parents as Charles, so, under the rules he is currently 8th in line to the throne. That is a simple fact. People who care about these things can tell you the order of succession down to the 1,000 person and beyond. The rules are simple (and even simpler since the discrimination against women was removed a short while ago). No 2 people can be in the same position in the line of succession.
If Andrew’s position can be taken away from him, for whatever reason, the whole structure is shown to be a myth, based on the perception of someone’s acceptability rather than their birthright. Many people cannot see any of the royal family members as acceptable, so let them go.
Agreed
I am sure Beattice and Eugenie are passing the proverboal bricks
If he goes, why aren’t they, and their life of privilege?
To answer your question. It is because it suits the people who should change it.
The King’s sovereignty came from God.
The glorious revolution of 1688 passed it to parliament.
Then modern politics where MP are controlled by the party passed it to the Prime Minister.
As we have seen with the reform of the House of Lords no one in power wants to upset the apple cart.
The best thing Labour could do is to change the voting system for parliament to a truly proportional for the next election and subsequent ones.
This would start the changes happening.
I think your prescription for a modern democracy is excellent. However everything needs to change, if not all at once then in quick succession. Most important is PR for the Commons, some form of election to the Lords (needs debate what, it would be a pity to lose the contributions of non-partisan cross-benchers) and clear constitutional separation of powers.
Curiously the least important is an elected Head of State since clear definition of the limits to its power is what would make the biggest difference. Those would have to cope with the potential abuses of a King Blair, or King Johnson, or King Starmer just as much as King Charles III. But a proposal to abolish the hereditary monarchy would provoke the biggest emotional opposition from the public and make the rest of the reforms more difficult to achieve.
A codified constitution would also clarify what is meant by the “Crown” (whether or not with the name of the current incumbent). Most “Crown property” is a legal way of describing a national asset, such as the territorial sea-bed which isn’t owned by anyone. And that bizarre Oath of Allegiance would be to the country or, as I believe happens in the USA, to the constitution.
Noted
But I think by the time the revelations are known that will change
And rumour has it plans for a major royal funeral are well advanced
To step back or to step down, that is the question. Whether ’tis …
“Most important is PR for the Commons”
Possibly. Although I believe before that England should have its own Parliament which should automatically use a PR voting system to fall in line with the rest of us., This should trigger a restructuring of the whole system. (Hopefully!)
The Lords would need replacing, preferably with a 2nd house consisting of elected representatives of all 4 constituent, fully autonomous countries – more along the lines of the EU, or maybe the Nordic Council? Each entity having the same number of votes. We could even go wild and consider inviting the Crown Protectorates! Could the leader of that house perform the function of a head of state, assuming they’d been ‘sort of elected’ as a member of the house.
As for the monarchy, I think it should end with Charles. However, rather than getting rid of it out of hand, I’d favour having the would be monarch present himself to a gathering of both houses (televised) justifying his claim to The Crown to the entire (currently) UK. If we’re not convinced by how the monarchy will continue to benefit the ‘realm’ (and “You loved my mum and Catherine looks really good in a nice dress and a tiara” won’t do) the monarchy ends. All Crown properties revert to the public, they can keep anything they actually bought (eg Balmoral) the money – after tax. Oh and they WILL at least pay tax – all of it! – like everybody else.
Not sure it would work…
This could be made as complicated or simple as anyone desires.
The reality is it is like closing down a business. It’s not that hard, even if tidyng up the loose ends will take a while, but let’s not overstate the complexity. These people really have no real role. Pretending they have is just an argument for keeping power where it is.
I’ve always seem monarchy as usurpers of a human desire to seek a parental figure in their lives – someone wise to defer or refer to upon which they can model their own behaviour and humanity. I think it is natural for humans to seek a leader of some kind, some sort of ‘authority’, a weather vane for the soul or one’s own life.
In essence, monarchy attempts to replace the concept of God in our lives with some sort of mysterious, god related (reputedly) being who is present and visible in the ‘now’ so to speak. In meeting the need for some sort of authority, earth bound monarchs behave rather like gods don’t they – the purport to rule us for our benefit but all they do is capitalise for themselves on the need for leadership and authority.
What is worse these ‘monarch gods’ model all sorts of bad behaviours based on wealth acquisition, birth right, unarguable power and rights passed down from generation to generation, and other materialistic stuff. They put themselves first before anything. And as noted by Mike Parr, when you seize land and claim it as your exclusive own, you have an essential means of production.
Monarchs are for me the first real capitalists in human history, and the first monopolists. Some are better than others for sure, and as capitalism has expanded they have have faced being co-opted into it or being forced out by the noveau-riche.
For me, they have never led by example. They talk of ‘service’ and ‘sacrifice’ yet want for nothing and bow to no one, not even our elected officials. It’s all complete tosh. The message has always been, ‘We are better than you; we refuse to explain ourselves, worship us and be grateful’.
What I would rather is that we behaved like a real Christian country and followed God – or even better Jesus of Nazareth and measure our worth by his humane rubric.
And as an atheist, that’s saying something. For Monarchism is the worst religion of them all.
Thanks
I can’t fault the logic. I tend to agree with much in the post and the comments. I am sympathetic to republicanism – it makes sense.
I did not rate our late Queen very highly (to many that sounds almost treasonous). Her primary focus appeared to be to protect the monarchy above all else. To do that she sacrificed her own family, her sister Margaret by reneging on her word and refusing her marriage, forcing an unsuitable wife on Charles when he was in love with someone else, and other poor decisions. I find that all highly reprehensible. From a constitutional perspective I feel she failed her primary constitutional role by NEVER vetoing, or even delaying, egregious legislation that was unpopular and not in manifestos. She had the power for good and failed to use it.
I don’t have a particularly good opinion of King Charles or the Prince of Wales either. Their judgement seems rather suspect to me.
I say that to make clear that I am not a royalist per se.
And yet, and yet, I look over the pond and see how disastrous an elected head of state can be. I would hate us to follow the US model; President Farage anyone?
We definitely need a reformed monarchy. But perhaps try reform first? I tend to agree with Iain Boyle that a reformed voting system is more urgent and, desirable as it might be, we can’t do everything at once.
Thanks.
I agree most especially with your comments on the late Queen. Her ‘saintliness’ is like Mothger Theresa’s, corroding over time.
Another thought I’m afraid. Last one on this topic. Promise.
Many Christians go to Church each Sunday and declare “I confess to Almighty God that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and what I have failed to do……” The equivalent declaration amongst our ruling elite seems to be “I vigorously deny any wrongdoing or that I have done anything for personal gain”. So much for upholding Christian values.
🙂
Right from childhood I have been opposed to a monarchy. My working class parents were dyed in the wool Republicans. Throughout my long life I have listened to monarchists expound the same reasons for keeping the royals as described by Richard There is no logical need for hyper privileged individuals. It goes completely against the principles of democracy. Richard puts the case for abolition and real change perfectly. Somehow despite the antithesis of logic the monarchist argument has survived. A common retort is the monarchy is superior to a PM who your opponent dislikes. They name someone . To me that makes no sense at all. Republicans are 100% right. Finally, the National Anthem is a perfect example of how the citizens of the UK are regarded. Every word of the lyrics is about loyalty to the monarchy. Not to the inhabitants ,not to the beauty of the country, not to the language .Surely, an anthem should speak about the country we live in. No! Just the monarchy. Its a national disgrace.
Thanks.
A former citizen of Ely, one Oliver Cromwell, is with you in spirit. Just don’t talk about “axing the monarchy’. It might give the wrong impression.
🙂
I passed his house this afternoon.
First class assessment of the prevailing disasters unfolding before our eyes. You covered all the bases .
I told Dad when I was 7 that we didn’t need a royal family..(the king had just died) and I guess Dad ..shocked..thought the fairies had left an evil sprite in place of his wee daughter…Kids are very perceptive..they don’t know how to pull the forelock . At the time it seemed so obvious to me….73 years later it still seems so obvious to me. And you put your finger on why we don’t need them.
What is disturbing is the amount of people content to say nothing when confronted with the entitled behaviour of those supposed ‘betters.’ The old saying….’evil flourishes when good men/women do nothing’ is perfectly shown by recent events.
An excellent comment by you.My 7 year old sprite says thank you.
🙂