Abolish the Monarchy: Why we should and how we will does exactly what it says on the tin: delivers an invigorating polemic on why the British monarchy can and should be done away with. It covers the same topic as The Enchanted Glass: Britain and its Monarchy but with an utterly different tone and style. While Nairn's book is dense, academic, and fatalistic (still great though), Smith's is accessible, journalistic, and optimistic. I think it oversimplifies a bit for effect, especially when discussing constitutional reform, but is nonetheless a very good read. Finally, one might argue that abolition is unnecessary. Compared to their status throughout history, monarchies have fallen out of grace in the 20th and 21st centuries. Of the nations with monarchies, few have a monarch which wields anyth Perhaps what is most encouraging about this book is Smith's arguments against the contention that most people want the monarchy to continue. The figures have come down over recent years so that even royalists admit it is close to half the country wanting to be rid of the institution. Their argument is the old classic 'now is not the time' when it comes to demands for a referendum. Wait until the consensus is much greater and don't make a fuss now, they argue, ignoring the fact that much of the change in opinion has come through the efforts of people like Graham Smith, campaigning for years. Smith counters this argument brilliantly in essence showing that there is a great difference between being actively in favour of something and passively being ok with it continuing. This is the crux of the matter: it is likely that those who truly want to keep the monarchy are actually now in the minority. If you’re living in a constitutional monarchy, says Ansell, it’s probably possible for your country to change, without a bloody revolution. “A country that still has a constitutional monarchy is so stable that it could almost certainly become a republic perfectly stably,” he says. You could replace the monarch with a parliamentary republic – essentially swap out the monarch for the figurehead president. But it would be contentious: “Who’s our beloved figure, in the parliamentary republic?” he asks. Or we could change things more significantly and have a US- or French-style presidential republic, but “most political scientists find that presidential democracies are much less stable than parliamentary ones.” But Charles Moore disagrees. He says the feeling about the monarchy is repeated in different generations: "Because there is something that is archetypal about monarchy, it's something children really get. You can't explain to a four-year-old what an economist or a business is, but you can explain what a king or queen is."

But there is a collective sense that there is something uniquely different about the monarchy in its pomp and ceremony - and the late Queen's funeral is an example of that," Arday says, citing the "collective sense of grief" that people felt as they marked a momentous historical event. The monarchies we have today are in countries that had long-run stable transitions,” says Ansell. “Sweden, Norway, Holland, UK – they do lots of things right, and they don’t have lots of horrible revolutions and moments of dictatorships. If your political system took the power away from someone who had absolute power, but was able to leave them in place, that suggests you have a pretty stable system.” The monarchy has had its time. It has run out of road. We need to begin a gradual, respectful transition to abolish it. We can’t be the British we think we are, and the Britain we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren, while we have this powerful, unaccountable relic defining us.

See also: Charles is proving a political king – and we should be grateful] Robert Hardman: “In an era of soft power, it would be a monumental folly to get rid of the monarchy” Photo by Martin Bond So in the United Kingdom we appear to have a head of state who recognises Muslims as integral to Europe when, across the rest of Europe, states are making it clear that Muslims are indeed “a thing apart”, with bans on Islamic clothing, on minarets, and prime ministers who call Muslims “invaders” (these examples all taken from republics). But Toynbee says that in countries like Ireland, presidents have a different but equally as dignified role, showing that a king isn't required. What is wrong with a system like Ireland's, Moore is asked. ​ It is refreshing to see Polly Toynbee argue clearly for the end of our feudal and anachronistic monarchy ( Clearly Britain loses more than it gains from the monarchy. Let us be brave and end it, 17 February). The Queen is rightly admired for her lifelong service, even by many of us who advocate for a republican Britain. This is the time to do it with minimum fuss and rancour, almost a celebration of Her Majesty as Polly shrewdly recommends, before moving on to becoming a modern European state.

Presidential republics like France’s have elected heads of state, with real political power. Property of the Crown My opposition to the motion is based on my understanding of politics and power, the British culture, and the implication in the motion “it’s time to abolish the monarchy” that it’s time now. Because I would put to you that we are as a country in an incredibly fragile and dangerous position. It isn't! Evidence points to some royal weddings actually having a negative impact on inbound tourism. More surprising still, given that he leads a group called Republic, Smith appears to have little familiarity with the 2,500-year-old tradition of republican thought. Where are Plato, Machiavelli and Rousseau? Where are the Levellers, the Radical Whigs and the Founding Fathers? Thomas Paine does get a mention, though one is left with the suspicion that Smith’s acquaintance with him comes via The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations rather than Rights of Man, since he is invoked merely to make the point that the appearance of something being correct doesn’t make it so. Furthermore, the monarchy to a large extent promotes social division. The British monarchy represents a feudal society of medieval England in a modern democratic state. (Bagdanor, 1997) Having a monarch breeds excessive deference and living in a modern society she is seen as being out of touch with the rest of the country. “In a Mori poll an 2003 68 per cent of those who were questioned thought that the royal family was “out of touch with ordinary people”; 28 per cent thought that it was not”. (Jones et al, 2006, p 397) The monarchy is still continuing to live in outdated traditions and beliefs where they expect to be greeted by respect and deference from everyone. Such outdated practices perpetuate the delusion of their inherent superiority to the rest of us, which are both insulting in principle and manifestly untrue in reality. Living in a modern democratic society and having a constitutional monarchy underlines a string of values which hinder the modernisation of the country. (Fabian Society) “As an institution whose roots lie firmly in the past, it reminds us too much of our history while failing us to help anticipate the future”. (Bagdanor, 2007, p 300) The monarchy has outlived its usefulness and because it symbolises deference and hierarchy, it forms a dominant barrier against any reform whether it be constitutional or social. If Britain is to ever change and take place as an efficient industrial and democratic society, which does not breed deference, the monarchy needs to be taken out of the British constitution.

Customer reviews

A point made by Graham Smith in the book is that staunch monarchists are not a target group for persuasion in Republic activities. So may be not the book for them to buy. Could also be said for the supporters of his point of view but it is effectively a donation in part if it goes unread. monarchy represents the unelected rule of the disproportionately privileged over those who suffer due to economic inequality. plus the ones we have in particular are petulant and refuse to hold accountability or show integrity in their elevated positions At the heart of power is a single family. They weren't elected but they live off the public purse. They aren't accountable to anyone, and yet between them they are privy to more government secrets than many cabinet ministers. Divinely appointed using a special hat, the head of the family is your superior, you his subject. Apparently he is guardian of our constitution - but we're also told he wouldn't dream of interfering in politics. I gained more than merely confirming I could share his views. As with many books, I imagine, the publication timing is selected deliberately because it might benefit sales. Obviously a coronation is good timing but in this case we have the author being arrested!! I s the Metropolitan Police a republican fifth column? Since it hauled the author of this book off to the cells hours before Charles III’s coronation, in full sight of the world’s media, the campaign group he heads, Republic, has almost doubled its membership. When the police clapped him in handcuffs, Graham Smith was preparing to perform that most fearful of treasons: shuffle around Trafalgar Square waving a placard bearing the words ‘Not my king’. Smith’s sixteen hours in police custody has generated more publicity for his organisation than the eighteen years he’s toiled away campaigning to replace the monarch with an elected head of state.

A crucial, riveting polemic in support of one of the most precious things humanity has built - democracy itself' OWEN JONES It is simply not the case that the monarchy’s role is powerless and “emphatically detached from political partisanship”. The powers are real, even if not usually exercised. The recent revelations of the process of Queen’s consent further undermine the notion of being free from partisanship and independent of the political process. The questionable behaviour of the royals is not new. But what is new is a public less tolerant and more critical of that behaviour and the family's loss of their trump card, the Queen. The Queen was their heat shield, able to deflect even the most serious questions and accusations, unable to do wrong in the eyes of much of the media and political class and, if she did, not someone many dared to criticise publicly. With Charles on the throne, that first line of defence is gone, in her place a man few would hesitate to criticise if they felt it was warranted. [...] Beyond that, two other men will continue to remind people - for very different reasons - what's wrong with the royals. Prince Harry, seemingly on the run from his own family, and Andrew on the run from serious allegations of sexual assault. As daylight gets through, behind the curtains of deference and secrecy, we increasingly see an institution that is ripe for challenge and criticism. monarchy is by its very nature anti-democratic and not suited to a country which prides itself as a world leader in political rights and freedoms Due to the power of this dreamworld, we do not have a transparent and accountable system of government. We have, rather, a gaudy merry-go-round that, with the rising crises in the world, seems odder by the year. Britain feels necrotic and undynamic. Our fancied exceptionalism feels less exceptional these days.There has been some research, though, which tries to account for all that. Mauro Guillén, a sociologist and economist at the University of Cambridge, published a study in 2018 which looked at 137 different countries – republics, constitutional monarchies, absolute monarchies and dictatorships – over 110 years, between 1900 and 2010. Like Smith says in the book itself, if you are a monarchist, this book is probably not for you - which is the precise reason I would recommend it to all the monarchists out there. It has been long enough that monarchists and the democracy-averse refuse to engage with polemics that challenge their beliefs in hereditary rule and concentration of power in an secretive, corrupt, inbred and embarrassing bloodline. Smith correctly points out in this fantastic manifesto the fact that British media and public discourse does not allow for even a shred of anti-monarchy (thus pro-democracy) sentiment in the media or other spaces of debate, lest the lumpen learn that they’ve been duped into supporting their own (by all objective measures of wealth and political power) oppressors. Polly Toynbee says she thinks the end of the monarchy will happen - but "maybe not in my lifetime." It's dropped in popularity massively, she says. "The likelihood of three white men" ruling until the end of the century is "depressing", she says.

The “first and most obvious challenge” for King Charles will be to “maintain popular support”, said Robert Hazell, professor of government and the constitution at University College London. “Modern monarchy no longer depends on divine grace, but the consent of the people,” he wrote in a guest paper for the Institute for Government last December. He warned that if public support “does start to dwindle”, the government might come under pressure to reduce funding for the royals, as has happened in Spain. 2. Con: cost to taxpayers On 6 May, in a ceremony viewed by millions, we will get a new king. No imagination was necessary to determine whether he would get this job. Aspiration didn’t come into it. This was preordained. He was literally born into it. His qualification for the role was pretty straightforward: he was the eldest son of the eldest daughter of the only son who would do the job. If he ever needed a CV – and he wouldn’t because there would never be an interview – that would be it. His CV is his DNA. The problem with the monarchy is not that it establishes a hierarchy of esteem, but rather that it establishes a mandatory, unearned hierarchy between otherwise equal citizens. The obvious problem with the moralistic approach is that any society, let alone one of sixty-five million people, will harbour a vast diversity of values, as is borne out by recent polls of public attitudes to the monarchy itself. Perhaps unwittingly, Smith concedes as much. He says that the attitudes of the royal family to race are contrary to the nation’s sense of fairness and equity. At the same time, however, he refers to the outpouring of public support for the courtier Lady Susan Hussey when she was accused of racism.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

Get rid of the monarch, and we don’t get rid of kings; we make kings of politicians. So, between the elected politicians who would be king in a republic and the unelected British monarchs of modern times, who inspires greater confidence from ethnic minorities? For me, the monarchy. So here is Prince Andrew, essentially dethroned. His sin was not his inhumanity, but giving an interview about his inhumanity. Remember that when you start defending his mother. Meanwhile, Meghan has been treated as a villain for combining princessiness with stardom and being biracial.