The British Royal Family is a historic institution, and symbol of the United Kingdom.
However, as the recent death of Queen Elizabeth II and the coronation of King Charles III have shown, many people in the UK believe the monarchy is outdated and repulsive. We all remember the throwing of eggs at Charles’ regal forehead and the rampant ‘Not My King’ campaign. How founded are anti-monarchy ideas? Are the royals outdated? Have they overstayed their welcome? Or do we still as a nation need and want the Royal Family?
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Firstly, I believe the most important argument that underpins whether or not one can even begin to consider the abolition of the monarchy is: Does it make economic sense?
As it stands, the taxpayer has to fund the royal family. To the average person, it seems, we are funding them to wear medieval clothes, wave like numpties, and show up at the occasional charity event. If the royal family took more money from the taxpayer than they contributed to the economy, the monarch’s existence would be undefendable. So let’s look at how economically sound the royal family is in 21st-century Britain.
Firstly, how much of our hard-earned cash do they pinch for 24k gold hairpins and ugly curtains? The Sovereign Grant in 2023 was £86.3Million.1 However, due to an ongoing refurbishment plan for Buckingham Palace, the total the taxpayer forked over was £107.5Million.2 Not insubstantial.
We then need to ask how much the royals bring in for the country, mostly in tourism. Brand Finance, a leading finance consultancy, estimates that in 2024 the Monarchy will pump +£958Million back into the economy.3 However the picture was not so rosy in 2023 when the Monarch cost the British public -£242Million.4
Defenders say that this was the year we had to fund a royal funeral and coronation, and so of course it cost more. To their credit, every year since 2012, according to the same Brand Finance audit, finds that the Monarch made a profit. The highest was in 2017 when they brought in +£1.192Billion.5 2023’s shortcomings are then perhaps made up for. This audit only looks at the UK directly. This is not considering the economic boost that royal state visits bring in for commonwealth countries.
Furthermore, per person in the UK in 2023 the monarch cost £1.52. Not a lot, for potentially putting hundreds of Millions of pounds back into our economy.
The idea that taxpayers should give money to a family to live a lavish lifestyle might seem counterintuitive. However, financially, it seems to work. Some may argue that 2023 saw a net loss of cash, and this is true. However, in an ordinary year without coronations and funerals, the royals bring in much more than they take. And, if Brand Finance’s estimates are anything to go by, 2024 will be a year that the royal family put the country back in the green.
Criticisms withstanding per person, per year £1.52 is not exactly extortionate.
Overall I would argue that it is a small amount of money one has to pay in tax for the royal family especially when considering the benefits of increased economic prosperity that the royals give the British public in return.
With the question of economics proving Charles 1-0 Egg Throwers.
IDENTITY CONSIDERATIONS
Let us consider the more challenging and pressing ideas that are behind anti-monarchy sentiment. These are arguments of a philosophical and theoretical nature. Namely, should the royal family exist on principle, do they bring happiness to their subjects, and do they provide the UK with an internationally positive image?
First, and most disputed within the UK, is should a monarch exist on principle? Does the idea and existence of a monarch make sense?
The consensus for this question has been clear-cut worldwide since the French Revolution, and the enlightenment thinking of the 18th and 19th centuries. As an idea and institution, it can never make sense that certain people — in this case, a certain family — are simply born into immense wealth and power. While the Monarch in the present day holds nowhere near the power they used to, they still retain incredible privilege for no other reason than they just happened to be born into that family. This is completely flawed and in a 21st century UK that prides itself on democracy and equality the existence of this unequal treatment can be puzzling.
One would argue, on the contrary, that the Monarch has no power over their British subjects and they are simply a figurehead. It’s the way it’s been for a long time, and some people just have more. That’s how the world works, it’s not as if it will change.
While I agree that it won’t change, the existence of the monarch is in principle unequal and confusing. As of 2014, British values of rule of law, democracy, individual liberty, and mutual respect, are taught in all schools. What of the children who are brought up being taught of democracy and the rule of law, who then turn on the television to see the symbol of Britain, a monarch, which is the antithesis of these values?
I and many other Britons see the Monarch as a contradiction to our 21st-century way of life.
However, while it is important to question the existence of a monarch in a modern democracy, it is true that the Monarch no longer holds the power they used to. The argument for inequality therefore is one regarding money and status. As we have already established, monetarily speaking, the Monarch makes sense for the taxpayer and gives the economy a boost.
As for status, this is perhaps also something that should be given more thought. The monarch and their successors do not use their status for malicious activity — as far as the public knows. However, as recent events regarding a certain Andrew of the family, show other royals have and do use their status maliciously.
Prince Andrew was taken to court for a sexual assault he (allegedly) committed in 2001 operating within Jeffery Epstein’s circle. After a picture of him with Ghislaine Maxwell and Virginia Roberts (the victim) emerged, Roberts took Andrew to court. After a disgustingly embarrassing, and as far as the court of public opinion was concerned, incriminating interview about pizza express and sweating, Andrew decided the best way to palm off the court case was with a reported £ 12 million settlement to Roberts outside the courtroom.
This remains a disgrace to the royal family, and to those who are against the monarch, a nail in the coffin for why certain people should not be afforded status for no reason other than blood.
In principle, the monarchy is a contradiction. While they are not born into power, the status is too much to give to some of the royals. However, the money they are afforded makes economic sense for Britain. So perhaps as a nation, we should consider the status we afford these people.
ENTERTAINMENT CONSIDERATIONS
So what of our other questions — do the royals bring joy to their subjects?
It is no secret that many people in the UK and the commonwealth, love the royals. As ITV reported a quarter of a million people went in person to see Queen Elizabeth II lying in state and the waiting time in the queue was… wait for it… 25 hours.6
Many Britons are enthusiastic and feel connected to the royals. Out of 4,592 adults, in a YouGov survey for BBC Panorama, 58% believe the monarchy should continue.7 While a very small pool of people this can give a general idea, and for those living in the UK we don’t need to be told of the fanatic royalists in our midst.
However, to be in favour of a Monarchy does not mean that the royals make one happier. Much more has to be considered. Firstly is the idea of a figurehead. Someone the British public can rally behind, identify with, and use as common ground to connect with others. This spiritual connection our island has with the monarchy is a powerful one. The royal family is a historic institution that is, whether we like it or not, part of British history and culture. To abandon the monarch would be to abandon a large part of our history and culture.
One might argue that by abandoning the monarch we could create new culture and traditions. However, the connection so many people have to the monarchy is too strong to just disregard the traditions that already exist. To suggest new traditions would hold the same weight and value in the British culture is a poor argument. One could never be sure of how new or existing social traditions affect people. To argue that these new traditions would be more or as influential can only ever be theoretical and anecdotal at best.
So whether one likes it or not the Monarch is part of the fabric of Britain. To abandon such tradition could have completely untold effects. It is not as simple as having an elected figurehead replace the monarch.
On the flip side, what the monarchy represents for one person is not what it represents for others. For the one in six Britons who were born outside the UK, the Monarch represents something very different.8
Historically, Britain worldwide represents oppression and enslavement. The most common country of origin for UK migrants is India.9 Bearing this in mind I will use India as my example of what Britain represents for those in a post-colonial world, however, remember that Britain has a terrible historical reputation around the globe on all continents.
(If you don’t believe me I encourage you to research what the colonial machine did to the Native American population, the West African coast, the Australian and Tasmanian aboriginal population, with opium in China, to the Middle East, and right here on our doorstep in Scotland, Wales, and most of all, Ireland.)
For India and Indians, Britain represents colonial rule. British men with no interest in India and its subjects ruled over the entire sub-continent until as late as 1947. Since the 16th century, the British took as many natural resources from India as they could, and left the Indian population living in poverty. Take a look at the actual jewel in the crown that until Queen Elizabeth II’s passing was worn on the head of our Monarch. The Koh-I-Noor diamond is famously from India. Not to mention the Radcliffe Line that divided the Indian subcontinent into India and Pakistan which is still an area of intense military tension.
For Indians and other migrants coming to and living in Britain, they have a very different idea of the Monarch. It is not an institution that represents Britain and its values but instead represents enslavement and centuries of inequality in the form of ruthless British rule.
How happy the royals make their British subjects then is very dependent on whom one asks. The monarch gives a singular person for the public to rally behind, and this is invaluable. However, what the monarchy represents for many who live here and around the world in post-colonial countries is that of a dark, violent, and oppressive past. With this in mind, I think it’s hard to defend the royals when it comes to how happy they make their subjects.
INTERNATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The royal family’s reputation overseas brings us nicely to the final point of discussion. Do the royals give the UK a positive image around the globe?
Not much needs to be added to what has already been touched on. Brits need to really take a hard look at our colonial past and how we are perceived worldwide. Our monarch within the last 300 years has given the order for some of the worst examples of enslavement and destruction of culture in recent history. For them to now be on everyone’s television screens around the world draped in diamonds and gold is nothing short of rubbing kilos of gritty salt in the wound.
The royals then are an incredibly complicated part of British culture. To many Brits, they are a figurehead that people rally around and adore. The monarch is so often inseparable from British history and culture. It seems that complete disregarding of the monarch would be a messy and intrusive event.
As I touched on earlier the creation of new cultures and rituals is not a simple process. Furthermore, in an average year, the monarch seems to take taxpayers’ money and make a profit for the economy. I would argue that the fact the monarch brings in so much money for the British economy is the only reason left for keeping the monarch in place.
The reason I take this line of reasoning is because to the ordinary person in Britain today the existence of a monarch is hardly something that we think of. Perhaps here and there when we see them on the news, other than that their existence does not make a difference to how we live. The only thing the royals influence is the £1.50 that they take in tax every year.
With that said, serious consideration needs to be taken for the colonial past that the monarch is the face of. What the royals represent for most people on the planet is the scars of the not-so-distant past. In addition to this, the status that the royals are afforded for no reason is open to abuse, as we have seen in the case of Prince Andrew.
I will argue then that the royals should remain but a reality check perhaps is in order. I might suggest that the monarch should take real consideration about how they can operate differently to connect more with their subjects, for as we have seen many Brits are anti-royalists. Most pressing for 21st-century Britain is the status they are given, this is the most outdated part of the monarch.
As a nation, we must hold the royals more accountable for their acts. The royals should think about how they can distance themselves from the way Prince Andrew acted and act in a more transparent and relatable way that does not separate them socially from the rest of us. Furthermore, the royals should take into consideration of their global image and how they can mold this to show more awareness and acceptance of their ancestor’s historically disgusting acts.
If the monarchy does not consider how they can change with the times, they will soon see that the small price of £1.50 is far too much, and Brits will call in their masses for the abolition of the royals.
Footnotes:
1. Crown Copyright. Sovereign Grant and Sovereign Grant Reserve Annual Reports and Accounts 2022-23. 2023. Statement of Income and Expenditure (p. 81)
2. Edington, T. Clarke, J. BBC News. Royal Finances: Where does the king get his money? 2023.
3. Brand Finance. Monarchy Aduit 2023. 2023.https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/new-analysis-finds-the-uk-monarchy-produces-a-net-economic-benefit-for-the-uk
4. Brand Finance. Monarchy Aduit 2023. 2023.https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/new-analysis-finds-the-uk-monarchy-produces-a-net-economic-benefit-for-the-uk
5. Brand Finance. Monarchy Aduit 2023. 2023.https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/new-analysis-finds-the-uk-monarchy-produces-a-net-economic-benefit-for-the-uk
6. TV.How many people waited to see the Queen Lying in State, and how long was the queue at its peak? 2022. https://www.itv.com/news/2022-09-14/official-queen-lying-in-state-queue-tracker-shows-length-and-end-of-line-live
7. Crobin, J. Coughlan, S. BBC. Coronation: How popular is the Monarch un King Charles. 2023. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65326467
8. Census 2021. International Migration: England and Wales. 2021. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/internationalmigrationenglandandwales/census2021
9. Census 2021. International Migration: England and Wales. 2021. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/internationalmigrationenglandandwales/census2021
