In the merry month of May, we were treated to magnificence and majesty, pomp and pageantry, golden coaches and glittering crowns. Alongside, peaceful protestors being arrested, families struggling to pay their bills and children going hungry. Monarchies are based on hierarchy, and the crowning of Charles III put Britain’s class divide on full display.
“The existence of a hereditary monarchy helps to prop up all the privilege and patronage that corrupts our society; that is why the crown is seen as being of such importance to those who run the country – or enjoy the privileges it affords …. I don’t think people realise how the establishment became established. They simply stole land & property from the poor, surrounded themselves with weak-minded sycophants for protection, gave themselves titles & have been wielding power ever since.” (Tony Benn)
The historian Dr Priya Atwal (@priyaatwal tweeted: “The monarchy has a long way to go to justify its status & wealth. A single family holding on to power & billions of ££s only due to its ancestral bloodline & in a cost-of-living crisis – how does that unite the nation? Let’s see what, if anything, changes
Opulent coronations are a choice, not a necessity (as is the institution of monarchy itself). In 1973 Sweden’s King Carl XV1 Gustaf, chose not to be crowned and simply took the then-required regal assurance during a meeting of the cabinet. Spain’s King Felipe succeeding to the throne in 2014, eschewed extravagance and excess, in recognition of his country’s austerity measures at the time, choosing a legal process attended by lawmakers and only a few members of the royal family. Yet in Britain, also in a time of austerity, over £300 million were spent on the coronation of Charles III. An odd choice for a man who wants to reform the monarchy and make it more relevant. The new king could have chosen a simpler and far more elegant ceremony at a fraction of the cost; demonstrating his understanding of people’s difficulties, struggles and pains, thus assuring the country his reign wouldn’t be based on grandiosity and the wastefulness of public funds. As it was, many people lost a day’s wages (coronation day having been declared a holiday), and some food banks were unable to supply their clients, funds having been diverted to Coronation events, as revealed by the following letter to the Guardian:
“Regarding your recent coverage of the coronation and the cost of the crown, our local food bank supported about 760 people last week out of a population of about 10,000 in the local area. In recent years, the food bank has used grants from the national lottery to support its activities, but recent applications for funding have been unsuccessful. They have been told that much of the funding is going to events celebrating the coronation. While it is a massive indictment of our government that so many people are driven to need this help, it is also a sad reflection of how out of touch our monarchy is, that the coronation of a man worth £1.8bn will indirectly result in so many people going hungry.”
“The monarchy brings in tourism,” is an argument constantly trotted out in its support. I’ve heard it since I was in school and it’s always felt demeaning and inaccurate. Demeaning to the royals in suggesting their importance only exists in allowing people to gape and gawp at them, and inaccurate in its omission of how much the royals actually cost the country, ranging from the sovereign grant, their security, tax exemptions, and the social inequality they engender. Britain is a beautiful country with breath-taking landscapes, ancient heritage sites, world class museums and a vibrant arts sector. I seriously doubt tourism would dry up and die if the monarchy was abolished. Numerous, republican countries across the world, enjoy flourishing tourist industries, such as France, Italy, Germany, and the US.
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience…” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), perhaps the most beautiful and exquisite words ever written in a document. Monarchies are the antithesis, being hierarchical institutions, claiming moral and social superiority, constructed on the myth of divine right. Bowing and curtsying are a symbol of hierarchy, a person physically lowering themselves, making themselves smaller before another. I fail to understand why the Royals haven’t abolished this ritual of humiliation. Bowing and curtsying, strike at the very heart of the principle of equal dignity and worth. Abolishing this demeaning practice would be a small start in chipping away at the iron hold of hierarchy, privilege, Oxbridge and private-school hegemony which hoovers up opportunity and power in Britain. Outlined in the report “Elitism in Britain, 2019”, commissioned by the Sutton Trust and the Social Mobility Commission.
Being governed by a wealthy, privileged elite (politically manifested in the Conservative party) has impoverished Britain and limited the life chances of its people. “For over a decade, the Conservatives have ransacked the country they claim to love … While the wealth of the very richest rocketed … the party’s program of austerity, (has) contributed to the longest period of wage stagnation … Life expectancy is down, child poverty is up, and there are few signs of a reprieve on the horizon. Life under the Tories has become poorer, nastier, more brutish and shorter. (New York Times)
Whatever the royal and private-school group-think may believe, the reality is that a country’s prosperity and progress lie in the intelligence, skills and creativity of its people. Precious assets which can only be harnessed if resources are invested in every child, underpinned by a social ethos of equality and respect. The aspirational American belief ‘Anyone can be President,’ has no echo or equivalent in Britain. When King Charles’s entourage drives by a council estate or the poverty-stricken part of a city, does he ever wonder how many talented minds, how many scientists, inventors, entrepreneurs, writers, and all the others who make a country brilliant, dynamic and wealthy, have been lost to the nation? Begging the question, does he care? If he does, let him start by paying his share of inheritance tax on the vast fortune inherited from his mother. He could choose to pay it voluntarily; 63% of the public certainly think he should. In comparison, ordinary mortals have to pay inheritance tax on assets above £325,000; a mere fraction of a fraction, of the king’s inheritance.
The “King’s fortune includes cars, jewellery, property, investments, horses, rare stamps, art and a hereditary estate. The monarch’s personal fortune is largely concealed from public scrutiny and it is impossible to know the complete value of his estate. However, the Guardian has conducted the first comprehensive audit of the king’s assets, from country piles and diamond-encrusted jewels, to paintings by Monet and Dalí, Rolls-Royces, racehorses and rare stamps.
Unlike the rest of the country, the royals are hardly being battered by the cost-of-living crisis, receiving a stupendous sovereign grant from the taxpayer of £86.3million; additionally, the metropolitan police pay for their security, local councils pay for their visits, and they receive extra funds for overseas tours which can amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds. All this while collecting revenues from their private assets. The late Queen only agreed to pay income tax in 1993, whereas ordinary families have been paying income tax for generation upon generation.
‘The royals don’t interfere in constitutional matters,’ is another justification wheeled out in support of the monarchy. Yet, in 2021, during its three-year investigation into the crown, The Guardian exposed an opaque mechanism, known as ‘The Queen’s Consent,’ whereby the royals vetted over 1,000 laws. “The huge number of laws subject to royal vetting cover matters ranging from justice, social security, pensions, race relations and food policy through to obscure rules on car parking charges and hovercraft.”
Not only did the Queen and Prince Charles vet laws, they also argued for exemptions. Currently the royals are exempt from160 laws of the land. “Tenants on Prince Charles‘ private estate have been banned from buying the freehold of their homes by laws ‘vetted by the heir to the throne.” Securing exemption from laws that apply to everyone else, are an abuse of power.
Further, shockingly and most explosively as future events were to demonstrate, the palace also sought exemption from equality laws designed to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race and ethnicity. The Palace had no shame, no self-awareness of its obligations as an institution, as a recipient of public funds, or its hypocrisy, given its role at the head of the Commonwealth, when it said that: “it was not, in fact, the practice to appoint coloured immigrants or foreigners” to clerical roles in the royal household, although they were permitted to work as domestic servants.”
So, it was alright to have black women scrubbing their floors but not to have one actually marry into the family. Meghan Markle would have been fully cognisant of American racism, after all, she’d worked hard and succeeded despite its existence, but she couldn’t possibly have known how British racism worked, particularly within the upper classes, veiled in polished courtesy, cut-glass accents, diamonds and pearls.
What a missed opportunity. Here was a confident, intelligent, self-made, charismatic woman, whom the royal family could have seen as an asset, used her to modernise their image and reduce the distance between them and the world. Instead, they nearly drove her to suicide, hid behind their culture of secrecy, and hounded her out of the family. Through their lived experience, all people of colour know the myriad ways in which racism works, from the most subtle to the most direct, and fully empathise with Meghan. The threat is ever present: one of my friends, an accomplished actor (theatre, tv, film), never leaves a shop without the receipt, even if she’s only spent 50p, “I’m black,” is her incisive explanation. When my daughters were little, I used to take them to ballet classes; one day, as I was sitting with the other mums (the only woman of colour in the room), I was left speechless when a little white girl, about 6 years old, who was having her clothes changed by her mother, turned and ordered me: “You do it.” It was like being hit with an electric shock – such racism and bullying coming from a little child. She could only have learnt it at home; I presume she had a nanny who was a woman of colour, and her parents hadn’t believed it necessary to teach her respect and equality. Who says unconscious bias doesn’t exist?
Whilst British tabloids may sneer and jeer at Meghan and Harry, in other parts of the world they’re hugely popular and admired. Harry being particularly esteemed for protecting his wife and family. Rohit Kachroo’s report from Kingston, Jamaica, two days before the coronation presents a devastating critique of the Royal family. When Rohit asks Mark, whether he’s more interested in the English Premier League or the royal family, his reply is unequivocal, “The English Premier League of course. The British royal family? Irrelevant!”
“…. that confession about the colour of Archie’s skin: what might it be? That was a big blow – that was a punch in the solar plexus that really stunned us and stunned all the people in the Commonwealth.” Says Barbara Blake-Hannah in this interview with Rohit Kacheroo, as they discuss how Jamaica views the royal family/Meghan Markle fall-out, and touch on Barbara’s own experience as the first black female reporter on British TV.
Prince Harry demonstrated courage and loyalty when he chose to protect his partner and children and move them to a safer environment. At that point Prince Charles (as he was at the time) should have stepped up and acted as the future head of a multi-ethnic country, and ensured his daughter-in-law, a woman of colour, felt safe in his family. On the other hand, how could he tackle racism in the palace, when the palace had pushed for exemption from equality laws on the very basis of its own racism? No wonder Meghan Markle was demonised, her complaints ignored, and she was driven to breaking point. Prince Charles also failed to step up as a father. Millions of families go through crises and conflicts; the majority of parents endeavour to understand their children and build bridges. King Charles’s treatment of Harry at the coronation, caused such outrage the comments section of the royal Instagram account had to be shut down, as people excoriated him, i.e.: “…This is a king who has bad advisors & a father who doesn’t know how to have a relationship with his son….”
Yet another hoary argument put forward for keeping the monarchy are doubts about the trustworthiness of whatever system might replace it. Alternatives, such as a presidential system, are decried as being susceptible to abuse and corruption. As if the royal family is a bastion of probity, transparency and unimpeachable morality. The royals have protected themselves with an iron culture of secrecy; gained exemption from FoI (freedom of information requests); practiced tax avoidance, and hidden vast amounts of their money in off-shore accounts, as discovered when the Paradise Papers were leaked, Queen Elizabeth II’s $13 million private investment in funds in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. They’ve protected an alleged paedophile by paying off his accuser with an estimated £9 million pounds; have been accused of having a symbiotic relationship with tabloid newspapers, where they brief and snitch on each other. William, the future king, has physically assaulting his younger brother. Questions have been raised about whether some state to state gifts have been subsumed into their private possession, rather than being handed over to the nation. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg, the spectre of the British monarchy having profited from slavery also lurks in the background: “ King Charles II and his brother James, Duke of York, helped establish a company that would control all English business in African slave trading. By 1672 it was called the Royal African Company (RAC) …. Many of the enslaved Africans were branded with the initials ‘DY’, standing for Duke of York.”
The monarchy can and should be phased out and replaced by a presidential, non-political, ceremonial head of state, whose duties and tenure would be written and agreed and whose conduct subject to the strictest codes of accountability, transparency and oversight. The transition to a presidential head of state would present a thrilling opportunity in nation building, as a written constitution would be needed.
This constitution would reflect the needs of a mature democracy, incorporating the highest ideals of equality and social well-being. A commission would be appointed for the drafting of this constitution, whose members must include a wide array of people, representing different areas of expertise, skill-sets, and backgrounds. This commission would collate best practice from around the globe; invite contributions from every sector of Britain’s society, from youth groups to the Women’s Institute, from citizens’s assemblies to parish councils, from tech nerds to taxi drivers. Naturally, the process would take 3 or 4 years but the resulting constitution would be a remarkable, magnificent and monumental document, fit for the twenty-first century and beyond. Partnered with a new head of state, Britain could move towards the future more confident and united, with a stronger foundation than ever before.
Leave a Reply