Constitutional Monarchy 

Constitutional monarchy is an anachronism. It is a waste of money. It is a redundant part of our country and many others that symbolically upholds the history of English imperialism at cost to the taxpayer. The institution of the monarchy, while not entirely without its uses, is becoming increasingly out of touch with the modern world. The English obsession with tradition rather than change serves only to hold our country back from introducing radical reforms which could allow for greater democracy, and the endless parades and weddings and funerals serves to drain the government dry at a time when teachers and medical professionals are being severely underpaid.

Now, let us take off our rose-tinted spectacles and address these points in order, and then add a few more of our own. The 1760 deal concerning the crown estates is a brilliant deal for the British taxpayer, but it can be improved on in one simple way: Of the £300 million paid to the monarch, £40 million is kept as a “salary” (Which also exempts the crown from taxes, as well as paying other fees, but let’s keep it lower to be generous to the monarchy.) A simple improvement would be to keep 100% of this revenue. But how, my republican comrade, do we accomplish this I hear you ask? Surely the crown controls these estates, and if deposed the monarch would still own these lands, keeping 100% of the revenue instead? This dilemma can be solved thus: separate the monarch from the Crown. The Crown is the legal entity used to denote the monarchy. It is the institution rather than the people itself. This means that anybody with the power of the crown holds the legal powers currently associated with the monarch. So, why doesn’t the government simply nationalise the crown? Turn the crown into an entity controlled by parliament in some fashion, and all the profits are retained. The legal precedent is already that parliament is sovereign, and the legal powers of the crown are already executed mainly by ministers, so granting the ceremonial powers of the monarch to an elected official is hardly out of the question.

On the issue of tourism, if the monarch draws in massive amounts of tourism, why is the tourism industry so small compared to our immediate neighbours? 6th in the world and 36 million per year (2016) sounds impressive for raw numbers, but when compared to tourism per capita we lag behind Spain, Italy, and especially France (Who came 1st in the world in 2016 for number of tourists, with 82.6 million. They also chopped their last monarch’s head off.) who had 1.6 tourists per person per year (abbreviated to tpppy), 0.9 tpppy and 1.2 tpppy in 2016, compared to the UK’s 0.5 tpppy. But these countries are all sunny and in the Schengen area, I hear you say, improving their tourism industry no end. However, I have failed to mention as of yet Ireland, which received a whopping 2.1 tpppy in 2016. Ireland is no more sunny than the UK, and is also not in the Schengen area, so why would the UK, which draws in those wishing to look at the monarchy from all over the world, lag behind Ireland, who quite famously despise the royal family. The simple reason is that the tourism royalty draws is a negligible amount, and those who do come for our history will still come for our history. Getting rid of the monarchy would not get rid of our history or our castles, and so will not get rid of our tourism industry.

For a final word on the economics, let us talk about the hidden costs. An estimated £100 million for a funeral in 2022. About £10 million for a coronation. For decades the Queen lobbied the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments to hide her true wealth, which often resulted in laws based on transparency granting the royal family an exemption. Even if the monarchy is a net gain, the hidden extra costs add up, especially in crises. How can we fund a £10 million coronation when food bank use is at a historic high? When our public services are being underfunded? These sudden costs are dramatic and are a real problem even if the royal family is a net gain economically.

Now, for the meat and potatoes of the argument. The royal family as a source of stability in the organised chaos of democracy. It is said that the monarchy unifies the country around a single, apolitical entity. A source of pomp and pageantry, rather than the republican model where the head of state is a source of grief. Presidents and prime ministers must worry about elections and appealing to the masses, and must make tough calls which often make them unpopular. A constitutional monarch is removed from politics and therefore acts as a figurehead the entire country can rally around. A truly wonderful fiction. Apolitical? 

In the commonwealth, the royal family is a deeply contentious issue, with numerous member states seeking to remove the monarch’s role in one way or another. There are protests every time the royal family visits commonwealth nations. Even at home, there have been numerous protests surrounding the royal family, especially evident in recent years considering the amount spent on parades for royalty during a recession. The royal family also continues to harbour Prince Andrew, and spent $16 million on paying off a victim of abuse. The monarch does not unify the country, it instead unifies one political tribe, and indeed divides the country.

Hugo deliberates over what possible alternatives there are to the constitutional monarch, and focusses mainly on republics. To be fair, some republics handle their ceremonial and executive split badly. The US, for instance, has a deeply divisive head of state with almost imperial power. France has a deeply unpopular head of state and a deeply unpopular prime minister. However, little regard is given to alternatives. Ireland, for instance, has an incredibly popular President (And an even more popular presidential dog!) who successfully embodies Irish ceremony and history, while only foraying into politics in order to speak up when the Irish parliament fails to meet its duties. The president also appoints a council of cultural representatives, who accurately portray modern Ireland and its culture. Musicians, scientists, sports-people – Contrast this with the privy council and the difference is startling. One is made of the best and the brightest of the country who advise the president on the best course of action concerning diplomacy, while the other has Liz Truss in it. Why should our ceremonial head of state be unelected? Surely in order to represent a country on the world stage, a head of state should not only represent the past of a nation, but the people of the present too.

That is only scratching the surface of democratic alternatives to a constitutional monarch. Who says we even need a ceremonial head of state, a la direct democracy? Why not simply have a cabinet minister for it? Parliament is already sovereign, surely the speaker of the house is better equipped to carry out ceremonial roles! If uniting multiple countries under a single banner is the goal, surely the UK monarchy’s paltry 56 pales in comparison to the UN’s elected general secretary, who boasts heading a body representing nearly 200. However, this article is already much longer than the one it is responding to and as such I shall leave it there. There are suitable alternatives to the royal family, obvious ways of accomplishing such a thing, and countless reasons to do so. The arguments for the monarchy are almost solely rooted in either falsehood or misconceptions about the country we live in, from overstating the monarch’s economic benefit, to their diplomatic benefit, and to their societal benefit. If the monarch isn’t apolitical, isn’t representative, isn’t profitable, isn’t popular, and isn’t the only option then what can be achieved by the monarch that can’t be achieved by a museum? Tradition doesn’t make something good, tangible benefits do.