Abolish the Monarchy
Why We Should and How We Will
Graham Smith
Having read it
★★★★★
A well-structured, calm and honest book that makes clear the (urgent) need to abolish the monarchy in the UK so as it can become a republic (with a written constitution, too).
It won’t be a panacea, as the book mentions, but it will represent proper progress and the start of more realistic, reasonable and effective transparent, responsible, clearer and more enforceable political and societal change with more meaningful and involving systemic growth for all. Then, the people (and the state with its outdated efforts) can slowly stop subsidisisng the wealthy and start building, adapting, learning and developing, proactively and with better leadership and accountability with more robust frameworks and practices for governing and involving, truly democratically, everyone so as contributions and interactions happen effectively between everyone and every institution.
Many would no doubt say there are more pressing issues which need to be faced first but, as put forward in the (good) arguments, getting rid of the monarchy and becoming a republic soon would actually free up and better allow the potential and real action for improved acknowledging and understanding of current (and historical) issues and predicaments, bring better accountability to all levels of society, certainly within Parliament and government especially and just be a modern and relevant thing to do.
Support for the monarchy is sustained by a dishonest fairy-tale image, a deferential media and an acquiescent political class too keen on the monarchy or too fearful of speaking against it. It is time to let the daylight in on the magic, to see the family and the institution for what it is, and to have a serious, grownup conversation about the state of our constitution and the country we want to be.
Abolishing the UK monarchy definitely would be something worth doing instead of these hereditary ‘elites’ that aren’t actually doing anything for ‘their’ people apart from mostly avoiding tax and sitting on state owned land (and in property) as if it was their own, but actually, the Crown (Estates) are a part of the state, not the monarchy and much is done on the quiet to obfuscate these matters.
That third Charles ain’t right...
Charles is a product of the strange world into which he was born, a family cosseted and fawned over, constantly told that they are uniquely talented and wise. Charles clearly believes in the natural order that has him placed at the top, that this chance of fate makes him uniquely suited to high office. He said as much in a handwritten note, which was revealed as part of a 2004 employment tribunal brought by one of his former staff, Elaine Day, in which he complained about Day’s concerns about lack of promotion opportunities, saying:
‘What is wrong with people nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far above their capabilities? [...] This is all to do with the learning culture in schools. It is a consequence of a child-centred education system which tells people they can become pop stars, high court judges or brilliant TV presenters or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having the natural ability [the author’s italics].’
He added: ‘It is a result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically engineered to contradict the lessons of history.’ In the context of Charles’s position, the meaning is clear: the plebs should know their place and let those born to greatness and who are afforded an elite education occupy the higher ranks and offices of state. The accusation of snobbery is hardly going to surprise anyone, but in other quarters it does rile most people for whom such daft, outdated and offensive comments are unwelcome in public life. For Charles, however, this kind of snobbery is no more than an expression of a natural order that he readily accepts and celebrates. His deep sense of entitlement and the expectation that everyone treat him differently is something that is either largely ignored, excused or laughed off, but it is perhaps something we should take more seriously. It is an indication of the kind of man he is.
A good passage
It’s sometimes hard to get our heads around large numbers, and the larger the number the harder it is to understand in concrete terms. So people can be forgiven for thinking that £500 million is a large amount of money to risk losing from our economy. In truth, in the context of the UK’s economy, it is almost nothing. Using 2019 statistics, the last full pre-pandemic year, the tourism industry brought £127 billion into the economy. Heritage tourism alone, which includes palaces, castles, old country homes and the like, was responsible for a whopping £20.2 billion. £500 million is just 1.9 per cent of the UK’s heritage tourism revenue, 0.3 per cent of all tourism revenue and only 0.01 per cent of our total economy. To put that into perspective, imagine you needed to find £25,000 towards the deposit on a house, and I said I’d help out by giving you £2.50. That’s the scale of the impact of the monarchy on the UK’s economy, if we believe that £500 million figure. And that’s the most optimistic figure that anyone has offered as a measure of the monarchy’s impact on tourism, and it’s not even true.
A second good passage
Firstly, the Crown is a state institution, which means when we make the transition to a republic, the state can freely transfer all the Crown’s assets to some new form of state ownership, whether through Parliament, government or continuing as a quasi-independent body like the Crown Estate. The revenue Crown properties provide to the Treasury now would continue once the Crown was abolished. In other words, it’s not the monarchy making money for the country through the Crown Estate, because that money is ours whether the monarchy survives or not.
Secondly, the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall have the same history as the Crown land managed by the Crown Estate. They are part and parcel of the land that was used to generate an income for the King when the King was responsible for government. Although Charles claims that the Duchy of Lancaster is his private property – having spent decades claiming the Duchy of Cornwall was his – it is public property. Effectively, as a country we pay Charles a private income in excess of £22 million a year. William, too, now that he’s Duke of Cornwall. By some estimates, that’s roughly six times the total combined salary of all democratic heads of state in Europe. It is reasonable to conclude that the King and his eldest son are being dishonest in their claim to that income.
The duchies are, for all practical purposes, property companies. While their history stretches back hundreds of years, the contemporary organizations are not areas clearly marked on a map, but vehicles for land ownership and business that have property scattered across England. The Duchy of Cornwall owns more land in Devon than in Cornwall, as well as swathes of real estate across the West Country and in London, including the Oval cricket ground. The total area of land owned by the duchy is approximately the size of Leeds, population 800,000. It is, in essence, a corporation, a company headed by a prince who acts as chairman of the board and sole shareholder, receiving all the profits as personal income.
A third good passage
The BBC needs to change its ways because, as things stand, they are projecting a dishonest view of the monarchy and public attitudes towards it. Whether it’s inviting on so-called royal experts, colluding with the palace PRs or ignoring a huge body of opposition, the picture you get from our national broadcaster is grossly distorted. Just imagine if it wasn’t. Imagine for a moment if the BBC ceased all collusion, stepped back and made a determined effort to be entirely neutral and detached in their royal coverage. Imagine if they applied the same editorial standards to covering William or Charles as they apply to coverage of Labour, the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats. Imagine if the BBC were forensic and fearless in their analysis and reporting of royal scandals, not just reporting what has been uncovered but seeking to apply its resources to uncovering whatever it is the royals are hiding, not accepting at face value the statements of palace press officers but insisting on interviews with the royals themselves. Imagine if they gave fair, proportionate and serious coverage to the issue and to republican opinion. Imagine if they hosted serious and informed debates about the institution and its future, and the democratic alternatives. That would be when millions more hear those debates for the first time, learn about the scandals for the first time and engage with the republican argument for the first time.
One final word on the BBC. I’m not saying that without the corporation changing its ways the republican cause is lost. In the age of social media, a more diverse mainstream media, and with imaginative and engaging strategies, we will overcome the BBC’s bias. But that lets the BBC off the hook too easily, and their coverage does a disservice not only to republicans, but also to the whole country. If our national broadcaster set a higher standard of free, independent and fearless coverage of the monarchy, others would follow. The debate would take hold and the country could then genuinely engage in an intelligent, informed conversation about what kind of constitution we want. How could monarchists oppose such an approach? If the monarchy is as good as they say it is, such scrutiny will play in their favour. If not, then how is dishonesty or self-censorship the answer?