Abolish the Monarchy: Why we should and how we will

Product Information

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.

It isn't! Evidence points to some royal weddings actually having a negative impact on inbound tourism. Presidential republics like France’s have elected heads of state, with real political power. Property of the Crown

Debating Pro- and Anti-Natalism

If you’re living in a constitutional monarchy, says Ansell, it’s probably possible for your country to change, without a bloody revolution. “A country that still has a constitutional monarchy is so stable that it could almost certainly become a republic perfectly stably,” he says. You could replace the monarch with a parliamentary republic – essentially swap out the monarch for the figurehead president. But it would be contentious: “Who’s our beloved figure, in the parliamentary republic?” he asks. Or we could change things more significantly and have a US- or French-style presidential republic, but “most political scientists find that presidential democracies are much less stable than parliamentary ones.” Moore says he doesn't disagree but the question isn't what the UK would do if it could start over but how it would change its situation now. He says nothing is wrong with the Irish system, but monarchy is very popular in the UK. Abolishing it would lead to "arguing like hell".

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. 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 future 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.

Can the Oppressed Afford to Be Humble?: Avoiding Vice While Resisting Domination

In his memoir Spare, Prince Harry chose to tell the truth of his life in this family, and he has been traduced for it. No one likes to have their dreams shattered.

However, there are some obvious ways one might try to respond. One could object on economic grounds. There is room to argue that monarchies could potentially produce economic benefits. Royals may serve as a tourist attraction or, if internationally popular, might raise the profile and favorability of the nation, thus increasing the desirability of its products and culture. So perhaps monarchies are justified because they are on the whole beneficial. Political journalist and author Eve Livingston argued in The Independent that the royal family “exist as a glaring symbol of the unearned privilege and inequality that pervades the roots of British society”. At the heart of power is a single family. They weren't elected but they live off the public purse. They aren't accountable to anyone, and yet between them they are privy to more government secrets than many cabinet ministers. Divinely appointed using a special hat, the head of the family is your superior, you his subject. Apparently he is guardian of our constitution - but we're also told he wouldn't dream of interfering in politics. 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.Yes, the monarchy needs changing (or for some, abolishing), but the whole structure is in desperate need of reform. The status of the monarchy, the power and structure of the executive, the powers of legislation and scrutiny of parliament, the methods of election and appointment, justice and accountability – all these and no doubt other matters need to be examined publicly and forensically in citizens’ assemblies. Then “we” can choose, and it is to be hoped that our political establishment will listen and put through parliament the bulk of our wishes, regardless of the vested interests against them. 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. At the start of June 2022, we could see the Queen very publicly celebrating the jubilee. Yet just four weeks later, as the constitution, at the centre of which lies the Crown, was in crisis [because Boris Johnson's government ministers had nearly all resigned yet he still clung on as PM], the Queen had vanished. Not a word from the palace. No reassuring comment or useful clarification of the constitutional position offered. One moment we see the monarch, and are told of her great virtues, the next she is nowhere to be seen, as we're told that under no circumstances can the Queen be 'dragged into' doing her job. This book, written by Smith in the lead-up to that coronation, lays out concisely and with great precision his argument for abolition of the British monarchy, and how a republican system of government could work in Britain. In such republics, if you don’t belong to that ethnicity, there will be questions over your loyalty, your suitability. If you’re Jewish in Hungary, your government is constantly casting aspersions on you because, “Can you be a real Hungarian?” If you’re a German from the Turkish diaspora, it’s an ordeal getting a German passport – less than half of German Turks have one – because, “Are you a real German?”