“We hold these truths to be self-evident – that all monarchs are usurpers and descendants of usurpers; for the reason that no throne was ever set up in this world by the will, freely exercised, of the only body possessing the legitimate right to set it up – the numerical mass of the nation.”
– Mark Twain
Last week, in part one of this series, we raised the question of the relevance of the British monarchy in the 21st Century. We traced the formation and development of the monarchy from the reign of Queen Elizabeth I in the 16th Century. How, through its exploits, often egregiously violent and exceedingly pernicious, Great Britain became “the empire on which the sun never sets”.
We observed how Britain expanded its empire, spreading that country’s rule and power beyond its borders through a process of imperialism, and how that empire brought hugely transformative changes to societies, industries, cultures and people’s lives worldwide.
We also noted how, through decolonization, many of the former colonies gained their independence from Britain, resulting in the Commonwealth, a voluntary association of 56 countries that work together toward shared goals in democracy and development. Today, the United Kingdom and 14 other independent sovereign states, the Commonwealth realms, share the same person as their monarch and head of state.
Therefore, this week, we will continue to consider this – what is in store for the British monarchy in the post-Elizabethan era?
Arguments for maintaining the British monarchy
Four arguments support the monarchy.
First, a monarchy provides stability because it is part of national identity. Second, the monarchy is popular and entertains people. Third, it is somehow “cost-effective” and brings in tourism revenue. And fourth, members of the royal family perform valuable work with charity and diplomacy.
The arguments for maintaining the British monarch usually strike a reasonable person as superficial, trivial, and irrelevant. But let’s examine these arguments that support keeping the British monarchy.
The first argument for maintaining this post-feudal construct posits that the monarchy provides continuity and stability. It is apolitical, so it is preferable to partisan presidential politics and guarantees national identity.
The question that should be asked is: how is this line of argument any different from the fascists seeking to remove any form of democracy? When arguing that the monarchy is simply undemocratic or autocratic, monarchists counter that the monarchy is purely symbolic.
That argument is a non sequitur: the fact is that the monarchy wields immense power and influence. Furthermore, if symbolism is desired, why not just have an elected figurehead? At least people will have a choice rather than having a system based on genetics.
This idea of continuity and stability needs to be deconstructed. Stable for whom? A British ruling class continues to make billions while a third of the population lives in poverty.
Maybe discontinuity is precisely what is needed. That would lead to stability for that bottom third of society that has experienced extreme insecurity and hardship as a permanent feature of their lives.
The monarchy may well be non-partisan, but it certainly is not apolitical. The monarchy’s zeal for all things military is no secret.
History is replete with examples where the monarchy has regularly praised Britain’s hired killers and expressed support for their wanton destruction of sovereign countries.
The royal family, whose ancestry is more German than British starting with George I, is awash with Nazi sympathizers.
Queen Elizabeth II’s uncle, Edward VIII, was known for his enthusiasm for Nazism and was involved in treasonous talks with the Germans during WWII. Hardly apolitical.
The queen’s husband, Philip, had three sisters who all married high-ranking Nazis and his mother was born Princess Alice of Battenberg.
However, his family name was Anglicized, so it would not emphasize his Germanic roots: from Battenberg to Mountbatten. So, the whole “apolitical” line is bogus.
Finally, in a multicultural, multifaith society, having a head of state who is necessarily of a certain race and faith, and head of a particular church (the Church of England) compounds the marginalization of minorities, again further emphasizing monarchy’s anti-democratic nature.
The second argument is that the royals provide glamour, pageantry, and entertainment value, and are popular.
If entertainment is a desired objective, there are many alternative avenues to achieve this. Is it reasonable to insist on a fundamental part of your political system being a feudal relic? That argument is a classical spin and propaganda.
Advocates of the monarchy paint a suffocating atmosphere of antiquated protocol and the institutionalization of snobbery and class condescension as “glamour and pageantry”.
This institution inculcates servility by formalizing steep hierarchies based on wealth and genetics. It casts ordinary, hardworking folk as the sovereign’s subjects, her inferiors.
And it infantilizes the population, tapping into credulity about fairytales of princes and princesses. Some suggest that this institution is really degrading, humiliating, and undignified.
According to a YouGov poll, two-thirds of Brits were not even interested in the Harry-Meghan wedding, and only 35 percent will be disappointed if the monarchy ended with Elizabeth II.
The third argument is that the monarchy is cost-effective because the royal family brings in tourists.
Cost-effective? Like when Andrew squanders £14,692 on a round trip to Muirfield to attend a golf tournament?
Meanwhile, the government will not spend £5,000 on Grenfell Tower to save the lives of dozens of families but will spend hundreds of millions on refurbishing a billionaire’s palace.
We are talking about personal wealth running into the hundreds of millions and institutional wealth running into the billions.
Meanwhile, the British government lavishes hundreds of millions (well over £300 million, according to Republic) annually “on this filthy rich bunch of parasites”.
At the same time, millions must rely on charity not to starve.
Royalists disingenuously base cost merely on the sovereign grant instead of the global figure.
As for tourism, we are talking about a political system here, and they keep banging on about tourism.
Even so, on its terms, it’s false. Look at French tourism attraction, Versailles, and all the rest.
Buckingham Palace could be the same. In fact, it would likely increase tourism revenues. Think about all those castles and palaces put to good use. They own all that land and property — a sizable chunk of the country.
Royalists paint a picture of global tourists sitting down with a list of countries and choosing where to visit based on whether they are monarchies or not.
France and the United States are the most visited countries in the world, and both are republics. The only monarchy in the top five is Spain, but tourists visit for the beaches and weather, not the House of Bourbon.
Monarchists argue that the Crown Estates bring in revenues to the Treasury of over £200 million, and the monarch receives a percentage of that. So, it’s good value for money.
This stems from a deal between monarchy and Parliament in 1760, when Parliament took over financial responsibility for civil government.
This is an absurd justification: they’re saying £30-odd million (however much it is in a given year) is better than over £200 million the monarchy would get if the monarch remained entitled to the whole lot.
Fourth, monarchists argue that they do valuable diplomatic and charitable work.
The royals have indeed engaged in productive and meaningful charities. And this helps British capitalism to an extent. But the same class presides over a system that engenders mass poverty both at home and abroad.
Let’s not forget that they also count dictators and despots all around the world as close friends.
As for the charity work – it’s not their money to give, so that doesn’t count.
And their patronage? They’re involved with wildlife charities while being some of the most prolific hunters in the country.
This is akin to Herod the Great being president of Save the Children.
Anti-monarchists suggest they are a liability, not an asset. Maybe if the billions’ worth of property, businesses, gold, jewels, fine art, antiques, palaces, and castles were taken into public ownership and Britain no longer lavished hundreds of millions on the royals, and their upkeep each year, people would not need to be so dependent on donations.
And the idea that they work hard?
A spokesperson for Republic stated, “There are 4,700 engagements last year – if you divide that between all the royals, that’s less than an hour a day each; it doesn’t add up to a lot … When William left the RAF, we worked out that he does about 47 engagements a year, so he’s not a hard-working person.
“King Charles III was born into a world where he has never had to do anything for himself; his shoelaces are pressed flat with an iron, the bath plug has to be in a certain position, and the water temperature has to be just tepid.
“Charles even called his butler from another room to hand him an item mere feet away. He has more than 120 staff, including three footmen to escort visitors to his office, each responsible for a short segment of corridor, four valets to help him change clothes, [and] four gardeners. All paid for by the long-suffering British taxpayers.”
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if the monarchy is popular, provides stability, is cost-effective, or does valuable work. What is important is that this family sits on tens of billions of pounds of assets, parasitically reaps hundreds of millions a year from the British taxpayer, and is firmly embedded in an imperialist ruling class that wreaks devastation on the rest of the world.
The royal family are willing participants in an imperialist capitalist system that annually takes the lives of millions. They are deeply embedded in a military that devastates oppressed nations regularly, pinning absurd medals to their ridiculous outfits with morbidly sick pride.
The problem is further compounded by middle-class republicans whose weapons of choice for fighting royalism are classism, ableism, misogyny, and snobbery.
They exhibit disgust for people on social security, equating them with the scrounging Windsors.
They are obsessed with Harry’s paternity: memes and jokes about who is Prince Harry’s biological father play up to the whole “genetic divine right” discourse upon which the institution of monarchy is built.
They are obsessed with who killed Diana – as if she was any better than any other aristocrat or commoner.
Conclusion
The argument is simple: monarchy makes a mockery of democracy.
Imagine establishing a political system and deciding that the head of state will always be the direct descendant of one family. About 25 such families are left in power; fewer, if we count the European monarchs that are one big family; most of them are each other’s cousins.
The institution of the monarchy will one day be extinct. And it will forever be a source of shame and embarrassment that Britain persisted with it longer than most.
Next week, in our final installment of this series, we will examine whether the British monarchy remains relevant for the modern Bahamas and whether we should genuinely become independent of and extricate ourselves from this archaic construct.
We will also look at what kinds of governmental systems may be best suited to ensure the prosperous future of a truly independent Bahamas.
