Abolish the Monarchy: Why we should and how we will

Product Information

Robert Hardman is a writer and broadcaster specialising in the monarchy. His most recent book is “Queen of Our Times: The Life of Elizabeth II” (Macmillan) Equal relations stand in contrast to hierarchical relationships. Hierarchies occur when one individual is considered “above” some other(s) in at least one respect. In Private Government, Elizabeth Anderson distinguishes between multiple varieties of hierarchy. Particularly relevant here are hierarchies of esteem. A hierarchy of esteem occurs when some individuals are required to show deference to (an) other(s). This deference may take various forms, such as referring to others through titles or engaging in gestures like bowing or prostration that show inferiority. Without a larger argument, it does not follow that economic benefits are sufficient to outweigh moral concerns. This would be like arguing that we should legalize vote-selling due to its economic benefits – it seems to miss the moral reason why we structure public institutions the ways that we do. A crucial, riveting polemic in support of one of the most precious things humanity has built - democracy itself' OWEN JONES

See also: With Spare, Prince Harry has broken the royals’ code of silence. It’s about time] Gary Younge: “The monarchy embeds class privilege at the heart of Britain” Photo by Martin Bond There is Margaret, the late Queen’s sister, forbidden to marry Peter Townsend because he was divorced. She could have insisted but would have lost her royal title. If you have been taught only to be a princess, it must be hard to leave, and she didn’t.Now, there are only so many ways that a polity can realistically be organised. Let’s look at republics – specifically those we have in Europe, which Britain might conceivably resemble.

the monarchy is less staunchly supported than many think, and there are more than enough political mechanisms and resources for the establishment of a republic to come in the near futurean unwritten constitution is not as flexible as we think, and a written one is much more flexible than we think. the establishment of a republic and written constitution is not as difficult as imagined and has many successful and recent precedents It is simply not the case that the monarchy’s role is powerless and “emphatically detached from political partisanship”. The powers are real, even if not usually exercised. The recent revelations of the process of Queen’s consent further undermine the notion of being free from partisanship and independent of the political process.

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.The monarchy is supported financially by UK taxpayers via the Sovereign Grant, which covers central staffing costs and expenses for the monarch’s official households, maintenance of the royal palaces in England, and travel and royal engagements and visits. I have been aware of the Privy Council and some of its activities as well as the power exercised by a Prime Minister which meets the criteria for the Quinton Hogg (Hailsham) assessment of their position as an elected dictatorship. While I know we are a constitutional monarchy Smith goes into the framework of government to examine how power is not exercised by King or Queen but is subservient to that Prime Minister. Most worrying is the way in which we have created a ruling elite that can bypass the elected Parliament. Like Smith says in the book itself, if you are a monarchist, this book is probably not for you - which is the precise reason I would recommend it to all the monarchists out there. It has been long enough that monarchists and the democracy-averse refuse to engage with polemics that challenge their beliefs in hereditary rule and concentration of power in an secretive, corrupt, inbred and embarrassing bloodline. Smith correctly points out in this fantastic manifesto the fact that British media and public discourse does not allow for even a shred of anti-monarchy (thus pro-democracy) sentiment in the media or other spaces of debate, lest the lumpen learn that they’ve been duped into supporting their own (by all objective measures of wealth and political power) oppressors. 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.

So here is Prince Andrew, essentially dethroned. His sin was not his inhumanity, but giving an interview about his inhumanity. Remember that when you start defending his mother. Meanwhile, Meghan has been treated as a villain for combining princessiness with stardom and being biracial. The questionable behaviour of the royals is not new. But what is new is a public less tolerant and more critical of that behaviour and the family's loss of their trump card, the Queen. The Queen was their heat shield, able to deflect even the most serious questions and accusations, unable to do wrong in the eyes of much of the media and political class and, if she did, not someone many dared to criticise publicly. With Charles on the throne, that first line of defence is gone, in her place a man few would hesitate to criticise if they felt it was warranted. [...] Beyond that, two other men will continue to remind people - for very different reasons - what's wrong with the royals. Prince Harry, seemingly on the run from his own family, and Andrew on the run from serious allegations of sexual assault. As daylight gets through, behind the curtains of deference and secrecy, we increasingly see an institution that is ripe for challenge and criticism. On 6 May, in a ceremony viewed by millions, we will get a new king. No imagination was necessary to determine whether he would get this job. Aspiration didn’t come into it. This was preordained. He was literally born into it. His qualification for the role was pretty straightforward: he was the eldest son of the eldest daughter of the only son who would do the job. If he ever needed a CV – and he wouldn’t because there would never be an interview – that would be it. His CV is his DNA. Polly Toynbee says she thinks the end of the monarchy will happen - but "maybe not in my lifetime." It's dropped in popularity massively, she says. "The likelihood of three white men" ruling until the end of the century is "depressing", she says.

Duchy Law Appeal

Martin Kettle’s thoughtful article on the future of the monarchy ( 16 February) ended with the phrase “a story about the kind of country we choose to be”. Am I unduly pessimistic in thinking we have very little choice? The norms of our society are set primarily by huge international technology companies and their relationship with advertising and social discourse. Our politics is conducted under systems and conventions that are no longer fit for purpose, where the House of Lords seems more representative of democracy and justice than either the Commons or the government. Not even supporters of Brexit can have chosen to bring the country to its present sorry state. And there is nothing we (the people) can do, until the powers allow us another vote. The problem with the monarchy is not that it establishes a hierarchy of esteem, but rather that it establishes a mandatory, unearned hierarchy between otherwise equal citizens. That is not the monarchy’s fault. But that is what the monarchy represents. I am not only a child of aspiration. I am also a child of free school meals, student grants and urban revolt. I danced here not only on my mother’s feet but on other people’s dreams. The monarchy was not just absent from those dreams for a more equal and inclusive society. It was the antithesis of them. The monarchy says, “Don’t dance: bow.” The monarchy says, “Don’t sing: hold your tongue.” The monarchy says you are not a citizen but a subject. This country does not belong to you but to those who were born to rule over you. I commend the motion. Presidential republics like France’s have elected heads of state, with real political power. Property of the Crown