The Debate: should Britain abolish the monarchy?

The disgrace of the former Prince Andrew has led some to question whether it’s time Britain abolished the monarchy altogether. Two experts make their cases in this week’s Debate.

No: Constitutional monarchy is a shield against instability and tyranny

The list of countries which retain a ceremonial constitutional monarchy contains many of the world’s most stable, least authoritarian and most tolerant nations: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Jamaica and so on.

This is no coincidence. Constitutional monarchy and the parliamentary system which it implies has historically shielded the countries fortunate enough to possess it from the instability and tyranny that is the frequent outcome of presidential systems. It may not be the result of rational planning, but it has evolved to serve its function remarkably well.

Separating the function of head of state from that of head of government makes it harder for would-be strongmen to identify their partisan politics with the state itself. It makes debilitating gridlocks caused by conflicts between multiple branches of government, all of which can claim democratic legitimacy, impossible. It is consequently more stable than, say, the US (a study in dysfunctionality) or France (unable to even set a budget). In a time of immense political polarisation, it provides an invaluable non-partisan breathing space at the heart of our constitution. Its likely replacement – an elected presidency – might prove, especially in the current febrile political atmosphere, highly unpalatable, including to the progressives most keen on abolishing it. The insalubrious antics of Prince Andrew should not blind us to these realities.

Our deep dysfunctions as a country are the product of the incompetence and cowardice of our elected politicians, not a monarchy that wields no actual power. Proposing its abolition – especially when a large majority still support it– is an exercise in rationalist wishful-thinking and a distraction from real solutions.

George Owers is an editor and writer. His new book, The Rage of Party: How Whig versus Tory made modern Britain is out now

Yes: There’s no good reason for the state to continue funding this exceptionally wealthy family

I’m a Burkean republican

I believe there is much to admire about the British monarchy, not least their survival as an institution through two centuries of global republicanism, and the personal character of the former Queen. If seeking democratic reform, they would be a long way down my list of priorities after removing Bishops and replacing the Lords with a Senate. If seeking to save money, their annual cost, of which estimates vary from £80m to half a billion, is trivial compared to the great departments of state. But should they be state funded? 

The answer in part depends on their constitutional duties. If the crown can survive multiple unfortunate contacts with unloved partners and friends and Charles continues to avoid politics like his mother, we should expect no change. We could however still do a better job of separating their public duties and private interests, which are overdue reform. 

The Windsor family have inherited vast personal wealth, some of which dates to state appropriations of land and property by their predecessors. The exact size of the inheritance is unknown, but is believed to be several billion, capitalised through wealth management vehicles, property, and successful enterprises like the Duchy of Cornwall, yielding more than enough to cover their living expenses. If Charles wishes to use his profit on cheese biscuits to house his brother or see his son, that’s very much his business. 

Equally if the UK wishes to celebrate the institution and maintain The Crown, it should pay at a level akin to that of maintaining the Prime Minister, or more if justified by public duty, including attendant security, and support for the maintenance of public assets like Buckingham Palace. It’s an unromantic view, but pragmatic, and if it preserves public support longer-term, very much in keeping with our traditions.

Andy Mayer is chief operating officer at the IEA

THE VERDICT

City PM agrees with Meyer that the state should not be giving handouts to wealthy families, but it is not quite correct to say the Royal family is funded out of the public purse. The Sovereign Grant is derived from the Crown Estate, a commercially run portfolio of land which turns a huge profit all of which goes directly to the Treasury. The King then gets a 12 per cent share back, so in effect he pays an 88 per cent tax rate on business interests he can never sell. Add to this the tourism, soft power and national pride the monarchy commands and the taxpayer is getting an extremely good deal.

Of course pride in the current dynasty has been dented recently by lurid allegations against one of its worst scions. Every family has an embarrassing uncle, but not many reach the depths of disgrace to which Mr Mountbatten-Windsor has sunk.

However he is hardly the first Royal to be tainted by infamy. Richard III is believed to have murdered his own nephews; King John was angry, lustful and impious, lost vast swathes of territory in France and (perhaps worst of all) levied highly punitive taxes – though these happily resulted in Magna Carta. Scandals are an inevitable consequence of having fallible people at the heart of our constitution. And presidential systems are far from impeccable – Donald Trump has been impeached twice; Nicolas Sarkozy is in jail. Owers is right that constitutional monarchy is an evolving, tolerant yet stable system precisely because it is not the result of rational planning. Like the market, it is fundamentally human.

Therefore, the monarchy stands. God save the King.