Republic Replies

see also FAQs and What we believe

You have probably heard many counter arguments from monarchists, such as the one about tourism or keeping power from politicians. In truth these arguments and others are nothing more than myth. They are constantly recycled by monarchists as if true in an attempt to defend what is, in a democracy, indefensible.

You don't need to abolish the monarchy, just reform it

Years ago, the Royal Family set up the 'Way Ahead Group' ostensibly to do just this. So far, no progress has been made, because they have no wish to reform the monarchy and won't allow anyone else to. It's hardly surprising. The present worn-out arrangement, by which they are not accountable to anyone, suits them very well. If by some miracle, they did accept some of the very modest proposals that our elected representatives have tried to suggest, it still leaves the British people with no say whatsoever in choosing their Head of State. And, even after modernization, it would still be an undemocratic institution.

The monarchy acts as a stabilising and unifying influence on our political life

An hereditary monarchy is divisive by nature. It stands aloof from the rest of us, representing the ultimate in unearned privileged and unelected power. How can the monopoly by one family of the position of Head of State unify a nation when that family is often divided and at odds with itself? Within the last seventy years, the nation has been divided by Edward VIII's abdication, the treatment of Princess Margaret, the split between Charles and Diana, Charles's marriage to Camilla, the new Princess of Wales, and the issue of who should succeed the Queen. The opportunity to elect our Head of State gives us all a chance to share together in what should lie at the heart of our democracy.

Monarchists are more patriotic than republicans

There is no evidence that citizens of republican states are less patriotic than subjects of the British monarchy - indeed the very fact that we are subjects might suggest that ours is some kind of enforced patriotism. Of course that isn't so in reality. The British are staunchly patriotic, but to their country, their people, their hard-won liberties and their incredible accomplishments. We do not need the monarchy to ensure the survival of this. Republicans' patriotism is founded in a belief in the qualities of the British people, including their ability to produce and choose their own democratically elected Head of State.

The Monarchy is good value, the royal family bring millions of tourists to Britain

As we are not told a true and accurate figure for how much the Monarchy costs the nation, it is impossible to make this claim. As for tourism, there is simply no evidence for this. This is a fictional piece of propaganda with no supporting evidence.

It is based on bad logic - the argument goes: we have tourists, we have a monarchy, therefore the monarchy brings in tourists. But supporters of this view never stop to look for any evidence that shows a link between monarchy and tourism. Revenue from royal residences such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle make up less than 1% of Britain's total tourism income. That income is concentrated almost exclusively in London. There is no benefit for Scotland, Wales or regional England.

Britain is quite capable of bringing in tourists without the help of the royal family - just compare visitor figures for Windsor Castle and Windsor Legoland. In 2005 Legoland attracted almost 1.4 million tourists, Windsor Castle was visited by a little over 900,000. Buckingham Palace saw 110,000 pass through its over-priced doors.

Of course, if the monarchy were gone we would be able to have more tourists visiting Buckingham Palace, as they would be allowed full access to the site all year round.

These arguments aside, decisions about democratic constitutions cannot be made on the basis of projected tourism income. Britain is a democratic nation-state, not a theme park.

But the Royal Family does so much for charity!

Here again we have no idea of the actual worth of the monarchy, but is it likely that the British people give so generously to so many charities because a member of the royal family has his or her name at the top of the printed notepaper? We don't have a Royal Red Nose Day, or a Royal Oxfam, or a Royal Christian Aid. What we have is the goodwill and generosity of the British people doing all they can for charity and giving all they can to hundreds of good causes.

It is unsettling, to say the least, to see Prince Charles make this claim so loudly by adding up, and claiming credit for, the total amount raised by the charities he is associated with. In one deft PR move he dismisses the hard work of the people who run those charities and who do raise so much money for good causes.

So who would we have instead? President Blair? President Thatcher?

No matter how much Tony Blair wanted to be President, he wouldn't be unless the majority of the British people voted for him. It's a big mistake to envisage an elected Head of State solely in terms of a career politician. This nation has always produced a mass of people who would bring respect and prestige to Britain in that role: men and women who are scientists, lawyers, soldiers, writers, educators, innovators, architects, doctors, broadcasters, etc. And how wonderful it would be if every child born into every family could dream of one day being Head of State - instead of one child in one family having the nightmare of knowing that, whether they liked it or not, they would have to be King or Queen.

The monarchy has no real power and that's what we want

Because we don't have a written constitution we don't really know just how much power the monarchy has, and we can only guess under what circumstances it has been and would be used. We know that the last three monarchs have all used their power to choose who should be Prime Minister, and we know that every week the Queen meets with Tony Blair to discuss matters of government. We also know that immense swathes of power rest with the Queen but are exercised by the Prime Minister - including the power to declare war without the approval of Parliament. Replacing the monarchy with an elected Head of State would give us the opportunity to define what powers we would like such an office to have, to plan how we would like these powers to be exercised, and to apportion them with checks and safeguards. And, if the British people wanted their elected Head of State to have very limited power or no power at all, then that is what would happen.

The monarchy will fade away anyway, so why not leave it to do just that?

It's true that many people, when asked, are now saying that the monarchy will no longer be with us in 50 years time, but there's no certainty about this, and monarchists are not hastening its departure. The first stage of reform of the House of Lords took place in 1911. The second stage came 88 years later. We are still waiting for the third stage. History suggests that royals cling tenaciously to power. But the most important point is that the system is unfair, outmoded, exorbitantly privileged and undemocratic. Why should the British people have to wait?

People enjoy the pomp and ceremony that accompanies so many royal occasions

These are state occasions, attended by the monarch (or members of the royal family) in her capacity as Head of State. There is no reason whatsoever to abandon the parades and the glitter, the fun and the glamour. Every republic has its state occasions. They abound in France and the United States, Germany and Italy, and dozens of other nations. And, if we think ours are the most colourful and the best, there's no reason why they shouldn't go on being just that fronted by an elected Head of State.

The Queen's the best person for the job because she's got the most experience

Well, since she's had the job for more than 50 years now, one certainly hopes she's the best person for the job. It's true that we've been very lucky with our present monarch. But supposing she had been no good? Suppose her successor proved to be no good? Do we really want to have a Head of State who's incompetent, or doesn't like the job, and whom we can't get rid of? Any democratically elected Head of State has to prove his or her worth after 4 or 5 years when they face re-election. We've had mad monarchs, bad monarchs, absentee monarchs, cruel monarchs, dithering monarchs, monarchs who've driven the country to civil war, and plain old incompetent monarchs - and we haven't been able to replace any of them. They all had the job for life.

The Royal Family sets us all a good example

It's hard to believe that there are people who still believe this after the shambles of the last 20 or 30 years, but there are and they do. What is saddening, however, is that much of the royal family's private and personal woes and misfortunes may well stem from the hideous pressures put upon them by the hereditary system. What must it be like to grow up knowing that whatever you want to do, you have to be king or queen? What must it be like to wait over 35 years from the time you came of age (as Charles has done - and he may have a lot more waiting to do yet, unless we change the system) before you can start work as Head of State? What must it be like growing up in the knowledge that you will always be known principally as the younger sibling of the king or queen? The system of hereditary monarchy doesn't breed happy, fulfilled people. It should be abolished for their sakes as well as our own.