King Charles (center) with his family at Queen Elizabeth’s funeral in September Andy Stenning/Pool via Reuters

Does Britain Still Need the Monarchy?

April 24, 2023

The formal coronation of King Charles III on May 6 will make official his reign as the United Kingdom’s latest monarch. Last September, his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, died after ruling for 70 years—longer than any other British queen or king in history. The British people widely adored Elizabeth, even as the royal family dealt with a series of scandals and ongoing questions about the cost of the monarchy to taxpayers. Her death has prompted a lot of soul-searching about the value of the institution in the 21st century.

A leader of a British think tank who supports the monarchy and a leader of a group that wants Britain to become a republic face off about whether the U.K. still needs the monarchy.

Despite periodic calls over the past 50 years to abolish the British monarchy, the institution remains widely popular with the British people. Almost 70 percent of Britons surveyed last fall said they support the continuation of the monarchy.

The British monarchy, which traces its roots back more than 1,000 years, has a long and distinguished history of being a constitutional monarchy. Under this form of government, the United Kingdom has a monarch as our head of state while an elected government makes policy and manages the country’s daily operation.

But having a king or a queen has proven to be incredibly important in maintaining the stability of our political system. In a world where we’re rapidly polarizing into deeply opposed camps, what pure democracies lack is somebody who can embody consensus and rise above partisan divisions. That’s the function of the British monarch in our society.

The monarch holds politicians and democratic politics to a higher standard.

Actually, a constitutional monarchy preserves and extends democracy because a monarch stands for a higher good and a deeper principle than that of the politician. By personifying the nation, the monarch holds politicians and democratic politics to a higher standard. And having a monarchy reminds politicians that they don’t occupy the highest space in the land.

Constitutional monarchies also comprise some of the world’s most developed, wealthy, democratically accountable, and progressive states. According to United Nations statistics, 12 of the top 20 countries in the world in terms of quality of life are constitutional monarchies.

Were we to abolish or further limit the power of the British monarch, therefore, we would remove the very linchpin that has secured our British liberties, equities, social mobility, and sense of economic justice over hundreds of years.

—PHILLIP BLOND

Director, ResPublica

Britain’s monarchy is much more than a decorative remnant of our past; it’s a central part of our unwritten constitution. Unlike in the U.S., where political authority comes from the people and is constrained by the Constitution, in the United Kingdom, all legal and political power comes from the Crown.

That doesn’t put King Charles in charge, because over the past 200 years, the monarch has surrendered their power to Parliament and the prime minister. But this leaves us with a government with excessive power and few checks and balances. Our Parliament is largely there to rubber-stamp the government’s laws, and our head of state—Charles—has no useful purpose beyond opening hospitals and visiting charities.

The royals themselves are not people we would vote for if given a free and fair election. Their popularity is sustained by state secrecy and a deferential media. They have been accused of hypocrisy on the environment, abuse of public money, and using their position to demand—and get—unique exemptions from British law. If they were politicians, they would have been booted out long ago.

Having a monarchy forces us to compromise our democratic values.

Some will say the royals do lots for charity or that the monarchy is good for tourism and the economy. In fact, there’s no evidence to suggest the monarchy sustains our tourism industry. But more importantly, our democracy should be based on solid democratic principles, not what people enjoy doing on holiday.

Others will argue that royalty is part of our identity and that tradition is important. Traditions can be important, but what about the tradition of fighting for democracy, demanding equal rights, and standing up for our most cherished values? Instead of being bound to a medieval relic that stands for inequality and elitism, we should be free to shape our identity as a modern, exciting, and industrious nation. Having a monarchy forces us to compromise our democratic values in order to make room for hereditary privilege. It’s time it went.

—GRAHAM SMITH