Critics of the monarchy argue that having a system of hereditary power at the top of the country’s political, military and religious institutions perpetuates class divisions and inequality. Rather than the monarchy defending the constitution and, by implication, the British people, it has been the responsbility of subjects to defend the monarch not from injustice or tyranny, but from embarrassment. In the UK, embarrassment is, it seems, a central principle of our constitution.

A point made by Graham Smith in the book is that staunch monarchists are not a target group for persuasion in Republic activities. So may be not the book for them to buy. Could also be said for the supporters of his point of view but it is effectively a donation in part if it goes unread. To live in a country with a monarch is to have an individual person and family deemed your social superiors, a group to whom you are expected to show deference, despite your moral equality. This is not a relationship you choose, but rather, one that is thrust upon you. Further, the deference we are said to owe to, and the higher status of, monarchs is not earned. Rather, it is something that they are claimed to deserve simply by virtue of who their parents are, who in turn owe their elevated status to their lineage. Finally, beyond merely commanding deference, monarchs are born into a life of luxury; they live in castles, they travel the world meeting foreign dignitaries, and their deaths may grind a country to a halt as part of a period of mourning. For a long time, it was possible to argue that the monarchy should be retained because abolition would involve major constitutional upheaval. But leaving the EU has already opened the door to “root and branch” reform of how Britain governs itself. Even Scottish independence and Irish unification are now realistic prospects—foreshadowing, perhaps, the breakup of the British state. In this context, abolishing the monarchy alongside other constitutional reforms can be seen to make a great deal of sense, especially if the UK is to fragment into two or more entities. Republic and The Gilded Acorn bookshop at the LSE are proud to sponsor the launch of Abolish The Monarchy: Why We Should and How We Will.

Cite This Work

I was startled awake with the familiar story of the forced evacuation of the Chagos Islands not requiring any reference for an overview from Parliament and how the process is available to be repeated. And possibly has been because these need not be reported. This is a book that is bound to upset and anger monarchists, but at the same time, I think there are valid republican criticisms of it to be made. It is a great introduction to republican ideas and arguments for the undecided layman, but for those of us who are already convinced, I can say that I would like to see a far more equitable future than the tepid liberal democracy that Graham Smith envisions.

Criticism of Britain’s monarchy is being framed in terms of its irrelevance or detriment to minorities. I belong to such a minority. It’s because I do that I’m sceptical of abolitionist claims. The “first and most obvious challenge” for King Charles will be to “maintain popular support”, said Robert Hazell, professor of government and the constitution at University College London. “Modern monarchy no longer depends on divine grace, but the consent of the people,” he wrote in a guest paper for the Institute for Government last December. He warned that if public support “does start to dwindle”, the government might come under pressure to reduce funding for the royals, as has happened in Spain. 2. Con: cost to taxpayers Generally, hierarchies of esteem are not automatically impermissible. One might opt into some. For instance, you might have to call your boss “Mrs. Last-Name,” athletes may have to use the title “coach” rather than a first name, etc. Yet, provided that one freely enters into these relationships, such hierarchies need not be troubling. Further, hierarchies of esteem may be part of some relationships that one does not voluntarily enter but are nonetheless morally justifiable – children, generally, are required to show some level of deference to their parents (provided that the parents are caring, have their child’s best interests in mind, etc.), for instance.Presidential republics like France’s have elected heads of state, with real political power. Property of the Crown The obvious problem with the moralistic approach is that any society, let alone one of sixty-five million people, will harbour a vast diversity of values, as is borne out by recent polls of public attitudes to the monarchy itself. Perhaps unwittingly, Smith concedes as much. He says that the attitudes of the royal family to race are contrary to the nation’s sense of fairness and equity. At the same time, however, he refers to the outpouring of public support for the courtier Lady Susan Hussey when she was accused of racism. For Prof Jason Arday the issue is that at the moment there are "unprecedented levels" of suffering. He says that there is an opportunity to redistribute the monarchy's wealth. There is a huge opportunity for all resource to be redistributed to those who are greatly in need, he adds.

Polly Toynbee says that bringing up children with the idea that they are ruled by a monarch is "very damaging and makes democracy harder to embed." Even in the 1990s when the late Queen was struggling with an annus horribilis, her children’s marriages imploding left, right and centre, the overall popularity of the monarchy remained robust at 69 per cent, only falling to 55 per cent in the wake of the Prince Andrew and Harry debacles. But regardless of the odds, for over two decades Smith has been tugging away at the stitches of our constitutional monarchy, pulling at loose threads, developing his republican thesis and focusing his ire. This jubilee would make a cheerful ending to all the royal folderol. What better time to return the sovereignty promised in Brexit to the people to whom it belongs. Elizabeth the Last should get a historic send-off, her golden coach and crown retired and her six palaces opened as fine museums. (No, tourism is no excuse for monarchy: Versailles gets many more visitors, and so does Legoland down the road from Windsor Castle). The Crown, a source of real power, protected from serious scrutiny by the monarchy, a family and institution steeped in mythology and itself guarded by deference, is key to the failures of Britain's constitution. Constitutional reformers who demand an elected upper house, or electoral reform, are often missing one of the main fault lines in our political system: founded on monarchy, we are still governed using the outdated toolkit of a monarchy, regardless of whether or not it is the King himself who wields power. The demand for a republic isn't just about the job of head of state. It is a demand for a better, more equitable democracy.

And then there’s sovereign immunity. This holds that the monarch can’t be prosecuted or subject to civil legal action under the law. Effectively, we have a monarch unable to be tried for criminal behaviour. On a number of cases, the Crown is being granted legal immunity in respect of its private estate, such as Sandringham and Balmoral. Are we all OK with that? Furthermore, the monarchy to a large extent promotes social division. The British monarchy represents a feudal society of medieval England in a modern democratic state. (Bagdanor, 1997) Having a monarch breeds excessive deference and living in a modern society she is seen as being out of touch with the rest of the country. “In a Mori poll an 2003 68 per cent of those who were questioned thought that the royal family was “out of touch with ordinary people”; 28 per cent thought that it was not”. (Jones et al, 2006, p 397) The monarchy is still continuing to live in outdated traditions and beliefs where they expect to be greeted by respect and deference from everyone. Such outdated practices perpetuate the delusion of their inherent superiority to the rest of us, which are both insulting in principle and manifestly untrue in reality. Living in a modern democratic society and having a constitutional monarchy underlines a string of values which hinder the modernisation of the country. (Fabian Society) “As an institution whose roots lie firmly in the past, it reminds us too much of our history while failing us to help anticipate the future”. (Bagdanor, 2007, p 300) The monarchy has outlived its usefulness and because it symbolises deference and hierarchy, it forms a dominant barrier against any reform whether it be constitutional or social. If Britain is to ever change and take place as an efficient industrial and democratic society, which does not breed deference, the monarchy needs to be taken out of the British constitution. Perhaps what is most encouraging about this book is Smith's arguments against the contention that most people want the monarchy to continue. The figures have come down over recent years so that even royalists admit it is close to half the country wanting to be rid of the institution. Their argument is the old classic 'now is not the time' when it comes to demands for a referendum. Wait until the consensus is much greater and don't make a fuss now, they argue, ignoring the fact that much of the change in opinion has come through the efforts of people like Graham Smith, campaigning for years. Smith counters this argument brilliantly in essence showing that there is a great difference between being actively in favour of something and passively being ok with it continuing. This is the crux of the matter: it is likely that those who truly want to keep the monarchy are actually now in the minority. Due to the power of this dreamworld, we do not have a transparent and accountable system of government. We have, rather, a gaudy merry-go-round that, with the rising crises in the world, seems odder by the year. Britain feels necrotic and undynamic. Our fancied exceptionalism feels less exceptional these days. Only saddos like me, the sort of people who tell small children Santa isn’t real, moan about the monarchy as well as the Lords now. (Admittedly, the Lords often has better discussions than anything that goes on in the Commons – but then so do most sixth forms.) We all know how the argument goes: you don’t like hereditary privilege? Well, do you think an elected head of state would be better?