Accountability: if the behaviour or actions of the President were deemed to be unnacceptable or illegal (i.e. contravened a law or an article of a written constitution), then the Head of State would be prosecuted and/or replaced through popular elections. NB the current legal position of the Royal Family with regards to criminal prosecution is still somewhat hazy—despite Princess Anne’s conviction over the actions of her dog. But even if the minor royals are not immune from prosecution, it’s extremely unlikely that the Queen herself would face criminal charges for anything other than the most serious of crimes. She is very well protected.
Ideally, what I would like is an elected President who performs ceremonial duties and represents Britain abroad in a cost-effective and modern manner. The Prime Minister should still have significant powers. The rights, powers and duties of the President, the Prime Minister, Parliament, the judiciary, and British citizens, should be clearly laid out in a codified constitution that all in elected office and in the military should swear to uphold. Sovereignty should be in the hands of the people. That’s democracy.
Money
For me, finance isn’t the major issue in the case against the monarchy that some people claim it to be. Firstly, because democratic, social and political arguements take precedence. Secondly, because certain elements of the Queen’s expenditure would continue with an elected President. And thirdly, because the money spent on the Windsors is a trifling fraction of the Government’s overall budget. However, I am certain that becoming a republic would save the country a little money and that that money could be better and more justifiably utilised elsewhere.
Our “splendid” Royal Family is surrounded by expensive pomp that is entirely unnecessary and anachronistic. Moreover, I believe that such extravagant and ostentatious behaviour is inappropriate when so many in Britain have to tighten their belts to get by. I’ve no problem with being wealthy per se (especially if you’ve worked hard to earn it), but the Head of State should try and set an example to the people.
The Queen currently receives income from the following five official sources:
the Civil List. This is for official expenses relating to her role as Head of State (and Commonwealth too), currently fixed at £7.9 million per year (although the royals have made some savings, and this surplus will be carried forward to reduce future payments).
The Privy Purse—traditional income for private as well as public use.
Savings and Earnings in a Republic
Examples of potential cost cuts and improved income generation under a republic:
Much of the Queen’s income is spent on official duties, staff, and maintenance of state-owned properties. Obviously this sort of expenditure would continue under a republic because a President would have official duties as well, would need staff, and listed buildings should be cared for. However, the pomp of official ceremonies would be vastly toned down, less staff would be required (the President would dress him/herself!), and the extensive court that surrounds the monarchy would obviously be redundant.
The Civil List contains payments to the Queen and funding for her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, as well. He receives £359,000 per annum (probably spent on guns). This extra payment could be immediately wiped out. Only one person - the Head of State - needs to be supported in their activities by the country's taxes.
With the former Monarchy forced to live in their private residences, more (and more of the) state owned palaces and properties would be made available for public viewing. It's entirely likely that more people would visit these sites and therefore more income would be generated for the Treasury. Such income could then be spent on the things that really matter to all of us - the NHS, education, etc. I do not accept the argument that less people would visit Britain if we no longer had a monarchy; most current tourists only get to see the public buildings and ceremonies as it is. Other than the jubilee, the site of a royal in public is a rare thing indeed.
Decreased security costs - if the President fulfils only a ceremonial role (less people to protect).
Decreased travel expenses - if we have a ceremonial President, there will be fewer in the entourage, less security, better use of existing methods of transportation.
The phrase “time is money” applies here, too. The time saved by disposing of unnecessary events like the State Opening of Parliament could be better spent by the affected institutions e.g. more time could be spent debating the issues on the Government’s agenda by Parliament.
Effects on Society
I would argue that having the monarchy has a negative effect on this country and hinders certain aspects of social development. This page explains why I believe that and describes the positive effects on British society that becoming a republic would engender. The reasons do not just revolve around the practical, tangible effects of the monarchy. Often, what is more important is what the monarchy represents or symbolizes.
The monarchy has a non-partisan but still political effect on society. That is, it plays a part in upholding conservative values. NB that’s conservative with a small c. The mere existence of the monarchy helps sustain inherited privilege, the crumbling yet still significant class structure, deference to social status and anachronistic tradition, plus the strong link between state and religion (the Queen is the Head of the Church of England). I would argue, therefore, that the creation of a republic would significantly diminish the reinforcement of conservative values, ushering in important social change in its wake.
Under the terms of the British Nationality Act of 1981, we Brits are deemed to be citizens. However, the fact that we continue to have a monarchy means that we are still, in a sense, subjects of “Her Majesty.” Now, this may not be something that majorly concerns you (especially when you’ve got bills to pay) but I would much rather be regarded as an outright citizen that is the equal of all other British citizens. Naturally, that should include the Windsors, who currently benefit from a number of privileges and exemptions that ordinary people and companies do not. Take, for example, recent events where the Queen Mother’s estate was not subject to inheritance tax, or the fact that the royal household is exempt from normal employment legislation. What message is being given out if the supposed symbol of our multicultural nation does not have to abide by the Race Regulations Act?
Advantages of a Meritocracy
I would contend that a lot of people in this country feel ignored, lack self-confidence, and automatically defer to their “betters”—the upper classes. Having a republic, hopefully with a Bill of Rights underpinning its constitution, may well go someway to addressing these feelings. In the long term, the citizens of the new British republic would surely be less deferent and fawning, more self-assured, less hung-up on tradition and traditional viewpoints, and more ready to question authority. That’s what happens when you make the transition to a pure meritocracy, where a “can do” culture thrives and the “old boy network” and inherited priviledge no longer exist. Intellect, talent and practical worth need to entirely replace pedigree and power through bloodline.
It doesn’t take a huge leap of fantasy to see how becoming a republic would make British society (and institutions for that matter) better i.e. less tied to a class-shackled and imperialist past. British society would be regarded as more modern and less antiquated by its own citizens, and by those abroad with whom we have dealings. It may even help inspire political change in other countries as well. In today’s global news network, the example of Britain finally throwing off its feudal past may give strength to pro-democracy movements abroad.
Our Beliefs
The International Monarchist League believes that both history and contemporary experience prove that Monarchy has been, is, and will continue to be of inestimable value in establishing and maintaining stability, welfare and dignity of all countries. In Spain, for example, the restoration of the Monarchy ensured a tranquil transition to democracy, and the people of many other countries see a return to Constitutional Monarchy as their way forward to establishing the free society that has been denied under extreme regimes of the Left or Right. The world’s most stable nations are Monarchies. The constancy and political impartiality inherent in a soundly based Monarchy secures for its people freedom from civil or military dictatorship and ensures a genuine concern for the welfare of the entire community.
A monarch stands above politics, not owing allegiance to any political party or group, and not beholden to any business interest which might fund a presidential campaign. A monarch is able to unite a nation by representing all races, creeds, classes and political beliefs, because a monarch does not have to curry favour for votes from any section of the community.
A monarch is invariably more widely popular than an Executive President, who can be elected by less than 50% of the electorate and may therefore represent less than half of the people. Elected presidents are concerned more with their own political futures and power. Monarchs are not subject to the influences which corrupt short-term presidents. A monarch looks back on centuries of history and forward to the well-being of the entire nation under his heir.
By retaining certain constitutional powers, or at least denying them to others, a monarch is the safeguard against civil or military dictatorship. Sir Winston Churchill said that had the Kaiser still been German Head of State after 1918, Hitler could not have come to power, or at least not remained there. In Italy, when in 1943 he had the opportunity to do so, King Victor Emmanuel removed Mussolini from office. Romania’s King Michael dismissed the dictator Antonescu and transferred his country from Axis to the Allies, for which he was decorated by the Great Powers, and in Bulgaria King Boris III (although obliged to enter the war on the side of the Axis), bravely refused to persecute Bulgarian Jews and would not commit his forces outside his country’s borders. As we have seen in Spain and Thailand, monarchs have succeeded in defending democracy against the threat of permanent military take-over.
Even Royal Families which are not reigning are dedicated to the service of their people, and continue to be regarded as the symbol of the nation. Prominent examples are H.R.H. the Duke of Braganza in Portugal and H.R.H. the Count of Paris in France. Royal Families forced to live in exile are often promoters of charities formed to help their countries.
