A MODERN MONARCHY
Without royalty we would be diminished, our stature reduced, patriotism diluted. But to survive we need...
And only a minority of under-25s could be termed royalist. Some argue that, in order to restore the Crown’s fortunes, a generation should be skipped when the Queen goes, with William becoming King rather than the Prince of Wales. Such a move would be the height of folly.
It would destroy the whole point of the Monarchy, which is based on the hereditary principle.
WITHOUT adhering to the line of succession, the very purpose of the Crown would be lost, since the choice of the next sovereign would be fixed, not by birth, but by a popularity contest. In that case, it would be far better to go the whole way and have an elected head of state.
Yet that is an unappealing prospect, not least because the most likely candidates would be either retired politicians or noisy celebrities. Britain would not be a better country if it were governed by President Tony Blair or President
Alan Sugar. By the abolition of the Monarchy, we would lose a vital part of what makes Britain so special. Our nation would be diminished, our patriotism diluted.
As the Royal Family’s website puts it, the purpose of the Crown is to serve “as part of Britain’s national identity, unity and pride”.
Indeed our country has greatly benefited from the monarchy’s existence over recent centuries.
For all its logical contradictions, the institution works well, promoting stability and social harmony.
The Crown is a central reason why, for centuries, Britain has not been plagued by revolutions or political extremism, unlike much of the continent. But if it is to survive, it has to modernise. Reform can strengthen its legitimacy.
In practice that means, for a start, a significant reduction in the size of the Royal Family. The focus has to be on the sovereign and the immediate heirs under the line of succession. All the other relatives should be required to earn their livings like ordinary citizens, without subsidies, grace-andfavour homes or cronyism. The
Royals’ fabulous wealth should also be shared more with the whole nation, not treated as their private possessions.
It has been estimated the family’s overall fortune is £20billion, which is hardly dented by the costs of running the monarchy.
The prime annual source of revenue comes from the Crown Estate, which owns a vast portfolio of property ranging from Royal Parks to shopping centres, from palaces to wind farms.
Last year, the estate made a net profit of £269million, most of which went to the Government.
But £86million was handed over to the Royal Family in the form of the Sovereign Grant.
The Queen also receives money from the Duchy of Lancaster, which in the last financial year made a surplus of £22million, while she also owns outright Balmoral and Sandringham.
Though the Queen is renowned for her personal austerity, a fairer, less opaque system is needed for the Royal finances, especially in the distribution of property.
There are no fewer than 26
Royal residences, such as Frogmore House in Windsor, Kensington Palace in London and Holyrood in Edinburgh.
That is far too many. Most of them should be opened to the public, with the Monarchy concentrated in Buckingham Palace.
Much of the pointless flummery and obsolete customs should go, like the practice of curtseying and bowing, which has no place in our democratic, egalitarian age.
The Cambridges could set an example of anti-elitism by sending their three children to state secondary schools.after all just seven per cent of children in Britain are privately educated.
The Royals should also stop fretting about the Commonwealth – a pointless relic of Empire. Apart from its own bureaucrats, few would mourn its demise.
If Jamaica wants to be a republic, following the example of Barbados, what does it matter to Britain? The same is true of Northern Ireland.
If unity is the democratic will of the Irish people, why should there be regrets outside the obdurate citadels of unionism? In fact, it would benefit the Royals if all pretence of any influence in politics were abandoned.
Weekly audiences with the PM could be dropped, as could the pointless formality of requiring Royal Assent for legislation.
Nor should the difficulties facing the Crown be exaggerated.
It has survived fierce storms before, like public indignation in 1997 in the wake of Princess Diana’s death, when the Queen was accused of maintaining a cold distance from her grieving public.
And Queen Victoria was bitterly criticised for her retreat from public life in the 1860s following the death of Prince Albert.
ONE PROTESTOR pinned a notice to the railings of Buckingham Palace that read, “These commanding premises to be let or sold in consequence of the late occupant’s declining business.”
But the hostility evaporated and she was cherished by the time of her Golden Jubilee in 1887.
Perhaps the most telling lesson comes from 1957, when Lord Altrincham penned a notorious article urging the modernisation of the monarchy. The Queen’s entourage “are almost without exception people of the ‘tweedy’ set,” he wrote, adding that Her Majesty’s speaking style was that “of a priggish schoolgirl.” The monarchy would not survive, he warned, “unless its leading figures exert themselves to the full.”
His piece caused outrage at the time, yet his words began the process of reform, where openness replaced upper-class dominance.
The same reforming attitude today can ensure the institution not only survives, but also thrives.