Time to abolish the UK Monarchy?
THE CORONATION OF KING CHARLES III
Isn’t it time to abolish the UK monarchy?
Image by Katie Chan
I should state my own position clearly: all my life I’ve found it difficult to understand why we still support an institution and a figurehead that historically oppressed, abused and stole from the people it presumed to RULE-OVER.
To my mind, the coronation of Charles III was a costly extravagant show of pomp and ceremony that is outdated and elitist. In my view (which I accept may still be a minority opinion) this type of lavish, wasteful ritual, along with the monarchy itself, should be abolished in favour of a modern, democratic system.
While holding that view, I still want to hear and consider arguments that are counter to my position, so please don’t hesitate to send me your thoughts and comments via any of the channels set out at the end of this article.
Here are my thoughts on the matter.
The monarchical system does not reflect the values and beliefs of the modern world. Instead, it reinforces a hierarchical system that is no longer appropriate. Above all, it is undemocratic and a waste of public resources, especially at a time when hard working people are struggling to keep warm in winter, a roof over their heads and food on their tables.
ELITISM
The monarchy is an elitist institution that perpetuates social inequality.
I can’t even believe I have to ask this, but how can it be right in this day and age for citizens to be expected to call other humans things like “Your Highness” or “Your Majesty”?
The monarchy is a symbol of inherited privilege and wealth, which is antithetical to the principles of meritocracy and equal opportunity.
Members of the royal family enjoy a lavish lifestyle funded by taxpayers, while ordinary people struggle to cope.
The monarchy reinforces class divisions and the warped idea that some people are born to rule while others are born to serve.
UNDEMOCRATIC
The monarchy undermines democracy and the principle of accountability. Why should the monarch still be above the law and immune from prosecution? Surely, that’s incompatible with democratic values, and simply not right.
And why does the royal family (especially the monarch) continue to have significant political influence, despite having no democratic mandate or accountability.
The monarchy also undermines the principle of meritocracy, as the position of monarch is based on birth rather than merit or ability.
IT’S EVEN BAD FOR THEM!
The monarchy is even bad for members of the royal family themselves, isn’t it?
Think of the harm it has done to the lives of people like Princess Margaret, Princess Diana, Prince Charles (as he was then), and that it continues to do to the lives of Princes Harry and William (brothers who used to be close but now may never be reconciled), as well as to the lives of Meghan and Kate - to name only a few.
SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE
The belief that the monarch is anointed (that is, set aside as special, chosen) by a God (that I would say almost certainly doesn’t exist) and is the head of one church only (the Church of England) is perverse, and non-inclusive. And it offends against the modern view that church and state should be kept separate.
This is yet another strong argument for abolishing the monarchy and for creating a secular state that treats all citizens equally and impartially, regardless of their religion or beliefs.
NATIONAL PRIDE
Some argue that the monarchy provides stability and continuity, but I believe this is a flawed argument. A modern democratic system can provide stability without any need for a hereditary monarch.
Others argue that the monarchy is a source of national pride and identity, but this is also misguided. National pride should be based on democratic values, not on an archaic institution that perpetuates social inequality.
Are French and German citizens not proud of their countries? As someone who has spent a long time in the USA, it seems to me that Americans are demonstratively proud of their country despite the absence of a monarch.
TOURISM & TRADE BENEFITS
But the counter-argument deployed most often to justify the continuation of the monarchy is that it creates revenue from tourism and increased trade, to such an extent (they argue) that the monarchy more than pays for itself. Really?
This argument lacks substance and any credible proof in my view. It may be true that maintaining the monarchy attracts some tourism, but how much? France has way more tourism than the UK (in fact more than anywhere in the world, including the USA) and we know what French citizens did to their monarchy way back in 1789!
Simply pointing to monarch-related tourist attractions like Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle does not cut the mustard. They would continue to be visited even if we no longer had a monarchy. In fact, tourists could be given much more freedom of access to such historic sites if they weren’t still occupied by royal family members.
And of course there are many tourist attractions in the UK that have no direct connection whatsoever to the monarchy. STONEHENGE is one great example, and there are a multitude of others. To name just a few the following immediately spring to mind:
The British Museum - one of the largest and most comprehensive museums in the world, with over 8 million works of art and artifacts from around the globe.
The National Gallery - an art museum in London that houses a collection of over 2,300 paintings dating from the mid-13th century to the 1900s.
The Lake District - a region in northwest England known for its stunning natural beauty, including lakes, mountains, and rolling hills.
The Edinburgh Festival Fringe - is the largest arts festival in the world, featuring thousands of performances by comedians, musicians, actors, and other artists.
The Roman Baths in Bath - are one of the best-preserved examples of Roman architecture in the world, and they offer a fascinating glimpse into the lives of ancient Romans.
These are just a few examples of top tourist attractions in the UK that are not directly linked to the monarchy. There are many, many more, including historic landmarks, cultural events, and natural wonders, that showcase the diversity and richness of British culture and heritage.
As to trade, that’s also a non-starter as an argument for keeping the monarchy. Countries and businesses make hard-nosed decisions to trade with us based on self-interest, not superficialities! If it’s in other countries’ and businesses’ best interests to trade with us, they will do so because it’s in the best interests of their citizens, and good for those businesses.
It is highly unlikely that it can be demonstrated based on hard evidence that all the costs associated with maintaining the monarchy are met (still less outweighed) by ACTUAL ENHANCED REVENUE from tourism or trade that can be directly attributed to maintaining the monarchy.
PUBLIC OPINION FAVOURS MAINTAINING THE MONARCHY
It is true that some opinion polls in the UK have tended to show that an overall majority of people support maintaining the monarchy. However, it is important to critically examine the reasons for this support, and to consider the wider implications.
Firstly, public opinion is not always a reliable guide to what is morally right or wrong. It is possible for the public to support things that are fundamentally unjust or discriminatory, particularly if it has been a part of their cultural identity for many years. This was the case with apartheid in South Africa, which was widely supported by white South Africans despite its clear violation of human rights.
Consider also in this context UK public opinion which tends to continue to support bringing back the death penalty. Fortunately, members of parliament have consistently seen fit to overrule public opinion polls on this issue.
Opinion polls are often unreliable. Look what they were saying before the Brexit referendum. They all predicted that REMAIN would comfortably prevail, and pundits were shocked when the opposite happened and LEAVE won an overall majority.
So it’s clear that polls can be misleading. Plus, attitudes change over time. Recent polls of young people show that they are caring less and less about the monarchy.
As societies evolve and become more progressive, their attitudes towards traditional institutions such as the monarchy change. This has been the case in many countries where traditional institutions such as the Catholic Church or the aristocracy have seen their influence decline as societies have become more secular and egalitarian.
While polls may give some indications that the monarchy remains popular, this is not necessarily a reliable guide to its merit as a system of government. It is important to consider the wider ethical and practical implications of maintaining the monarchy, as well as recognizing the fact that public opinion can and does change over time.
ALTERNATIVES:
It is often argued that were we to get rid of the monarchy, there would need to be an alternative head of state installed in its place. But I don’t think that’s true.
If the monarchy were to be abolished, there would be no need to replace it with a presidency or any other form of head of state. In fact, there are many examples of successful countries that do not have a monarchy or a president.
One example is Germany, which is a parliamentary republic with a federal president who has limited powers. The German president is elected by a special assembly for a five-year term, and while they do perform some ceremonial duties, they have no real political power.
Another example is Ireland, which is a parliamentary republic with a president who is elected by the people for a seven-year term. The Irish president has largely ceremonial duties and has no real political power.
Switzerland is another example of a country without a president or a monarchy. Switzerland is a federal republic with a system of direct democracy, where citizens can vote on issues directly.
In conclusion, there are many successful examples of countries that do not have a monarchy or a presidency. If the UK were to abolish the monarchy, there would be no need to replace it with a president or any other form of head of state. The UK could instead adopt a parliamentary republic model similar to Germany or Ireland, or even consider more innovative forms of direct democracy like Switzerland.
WE LOVE YOUR FEEDBACK!
To participate in the Refinement NOT retirement community, do comment/like/share/promote/BE A GUEST ON OUR SHOW/suggest a topic via any of our channels:
https://www.youtube.com/@RefinementNOTretirement
https://www.facebook.com/RefinementNOTretirement/
https://refinementnotretirement.blogspot.com/
#AbolishTheMonarchy #SeparationOfChurchAndState #EqualityForAll #EndTheElite #ModernizeDemocracy #SecularState #InclusiveSociety #DemocracyOverMonarchy #SocialEquality #AccountabilityMatters #MeritocracyMatters #NewEraOfEquality
Comments
Post a Comment