Melanie Goldberg
I’ve always been a republican (the anti-monarchy kind, not the racist American), but I’ve also always been a pragmatist. Although a remnant of a violent, imperialist era, Queen Elizabeth II was idyllically beloved by British society and beyond. Realistically, I knew that whilst she reigned, there was little chance of a successful republican movement. With the Queen’s death, I saw a renewed potential (albeit probably fairly small) for a republic. In the week that followed, my hopes were diminished by the overwhelming support for the royal family and the irreverence towards anybody who dared to disagree with this point of view. Are we forever doomed to this archaic system?
Unsurprisingly, upon the Queen’s death, the whole country flew into a frenzy. For her funeral, a bank holiday was declared. Doctors and hospital appointments and elective surgeries across the UK were cancelled or rescheduled, putting pressure on an already strained NHS. Food banks closed. Funerals cancelled. Government petitions suspended. Draconian. Not unlike the existence of an unelected head of state.
Free Speech (or lack of)
“The authoritarian suppression of free speech surrounding anti-royal protestors is frankly terrifying.”
Even in death, the queen still holds an inordinate amount of power. There has been a surge in repression of republican dissent, with several recent arrests made under the guise of ‘disturbing the peace’. The recent Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 states that it is up to the discretion of the police to define how the bill is ultimately implemented when it comes to arrests. This is the same police that murdered an unarmed black man, Chris Kaba, and stalked a young woman, demanding her address solely for holding a blank sheet of paper.
Although the Act states that the police will act reasonably, do these qualify as reasonable actions? The authoritarian suppression of free speech surrounding anti-royal protestors is frankly terrifying. The new Act had arguably already signalled a degree of democratic backsliding, but the abuse of power from the government and police seems to have ramped up in the wake of the Queen’s death.
A Question of Wealth
Her death has also in many ways distracted from an impending recession and energy crisis. Prices are rising, but wages and benefits remain stagnant, whilst potentially millions of taxpayer’s pounds are usurped by an already outrageously wealthy family, who themselves are exempt from paying tax. The Queen Mother’s funeral in 2002 cost taxpayers approximately £7.6m, with the cost of Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral likely to have been similar, if not significantly more.
“Yes, the royal family draws in plenty of tourism, contributing heavily to the UK economy, but who does this actually benefit? How does this benefit those who rely on foodbanks? Or those who cannot afford to heat their homes? Or those without homes altogether?”
The collective wealth of the royals is an estimated £25 billion, according to Forbes. Each year, the royal family receive a “Sovereign Grant” from the Government, with the most recent clocking in at £86.3 m, all sourced from UK taxpayers. In just three construction projects for Windsor Castle, an estimated £7.4 million of public spending has been used, and an estimated £1.4 million on two projects at Buckingham Palace, all of which remain ongoing. As part of an ongoing 10-year restoration project of Buckingham Palace, an estimated £369 million, all sourced from the publicly funded Sovereign Grant, will be spent. The Grant also funds official royal trips and pensions.
Moreover, despite such an exorbitant amount of wealth, according to their official financial reports 2021-22, during the pandemic, the ‘Royal Collection’, a private company, was absolved of “facilities management charges” by “Lord Chamberlain’s Committee” to a total of £4.2 million over the course of official lockdowns, a service not afforded to other businesses. Yes, the royal family draws in plenty of tourism, contributing heavily to the UK economy, but who does this actually benefit? How does this benefit those who rely on food banks? Or those who cannot afford to heat their homes? Or those without homes altogether?
Royal Colonial Legacy
In addition to wealth, the new King has also inherited the colonial legacy of his mother’s reign. The royal family website paints a rosy picture of British imperialism by describing “The Commonwealth” (states colonised by Britain) as an idyllic “international organisation” which “exists to foster international cooperation and trade links between people all over the world”. It is, however, expected that the monarchy wishes to whitewash such a violent and oppressive history. Moreover, the monarchy may claim acceptance of other faiths, but continue to retain a contentious law which states that only “Protestant succession” is permitted, disqualifying other religions. These are just a few examples which demonstrate the truly antiquated nature of the monarchy.
“The archaic monarchy is intrinsic to an equally archaic society, where inequality is acceptable.”
The British monarchy have arguably demonstrated that they are uninterested in legitimate and meaningful reform. An increased transparency in finances does not erase the fact that a significant amount of the royals’ wealth was built on a foundation of colonialism, ethnic cleansing, slavery, and more. Creating charities and foundations do not offer durable solutions for homelessness and poverty. Framing the ‘Commonwealth’ as a melting pot of cultures cannot erase centuries of violent imperialism. The archaic monarchy is intrinsic to an equally archaic society, where inequality is acceptable. It seems that the only viable solution is to abolish the monarchy.
Featured image courtesy of King’s Church International on Unsplash. No changes were made to this image. Image licence found here.
