Remember the glee with which the British royal commentators mocked the Duke and Duchess of Sussex for daring to leave, daring to start a new life, daring to find work? They were so looking forward to Harry and Meghan failing, so that Harry would be forced to come back to “work” for the Royal Family. I keep thinking about that, how everyone on that toxic island was rooting for H&M to fail. I thought about that again as I read Hamilton Nolan’s op-ed in the New York Times, “Down with the British Monarchy.” Some highlights:
A recent interview you may have heard about revealed that the British monarchy is a toxic den of backbiting and racism. And who would doubt it? There is nothing easier to believe than that an institution created to be the physical embodiment of classism is awash in inhumanity. Where the public response to this humdrum revelation has gone astray is in the widespread conviction that we should make the monarchy better. Not at all. You cannot turn a bottle of poison into a refreshing drink, no matter how much sugar you pour into it.
A just and proper response to what we have learned would be for the entire United Kingdom to come together, join hands in a great circle around the institution of the monarchy and burn it to the ground, while singing “Sweet Caroline,” to maintain a positive spirit. Then the members of the royal family can sweep up the ashes and deposit them neatly in the bin, a ceremonial beginning to a new life of working for a living.
The existence of a monarchy is an admission that a government can’t, or doesn’t care to, solve people’s problems. Instead, it offers spectacle. It has always been easier to elevate one family to a fairy-tale life of luxury than to do the dreary work of elevating every single family to a decent standard of living. The common people fund the lifestyle of a tiny, exalted and thoroughly unworthy elite, rather than the other way around. Any nation that still has a monarchy in 2021 is proving itself to have a mortifying lack of revolutionary gumption.
America is guilty of many crimes against humanity, but this is one thing we got right. Our presidents may be national embarrassments, but at least Americans are not required to scrape and bow before some utterly random rich wastrel whose claim to legitimacy is being the child of the child of the child of someone who was, centuries ago, the nation’s biggest gangster. Yes, we have our own hypnotic capitalist addiction to celebrity, but monarchy is something altogether more twisted — as if the Bush family, the Kardashians and the Falwells were all rolled into one bejeweled quasi-religious fame cult, topped off with a bracing dose of imperialism.
…Abolishing the monarchy shouldn’t be too tricky. First you take away their homes. Then you take away their wealth. Then you take away their titles. All of those things properly belong to the public, and those squatters have held them for far too long.
The good news for the royal family is that the economy seems to be on the rebound. It shouldn’t be too hard for them to find jobs, even considering their lack of practical experience. They could get honorable jobs at a Tesco market. What a wonderful opportunity for them to earn an honest living, for the first time in their lives. As our social betters often tell the rest of us, hard work is good for self-esteem. I expect that they will soon be happier than ever.
One of the reasons why I brought up the nastiness around Harry and Meghan thriving outside of royal life is because deep down inside, most people know that the other royals would not land on their feet as well as Harry and Meghan. For as much as William wants to cosplay a normal bloke, take away his money, protection, titles and public housing, and he’s just some lazy, stupid, bald a–hole with rage issues. Take away all of Charles’ staff and extensive property, and he’s just some old fart who would be quite happy on a farm, talking to his plants. And on and on. The system is broken and toxic because the people populating the highest echelons of the system are broken and toxic.
Photos courtesy of WENN, Avalon Red, Backgrid.
I was on Reddit and you should’ve seen the commentary on why the monarchy couldn’t be done away with. “But they’d be so rich, they’d own everything, they’d be so powerful and able to influence politics. We must keep them intact so they don’t unduly influence politics.”
Is your brain broken? How is it possible to be this dim? Has anyone a concept of the state? It’s called TAKE THEIR DAMN WEALTH because it belongs to the state/public, not the family. I was just baffled.
Someone also asked me how we could remove our ties to the Queen in our commonwealth country. Uh…close the Governor General’s office? It’s that simple. These ties are form, not function. Truly, our own parliament will suffice–we need nothing more!
It’s always difficult to break away from what you know, especially if it has been ALL you know. But it can be done. The question is a rhetorical one: continue to bow down to a family that think they are above all or save yourself?
yes I think that’s exactly it. There’s this propaganda about why the monarchy must remain and its entirely false. Yet people have been buying the propaganda for so long, they can’t imagine otherwise.
I personally think that’s why (one of many reasons why) people there are digging their heels in. It’s all they’ve ever known, and to suddenly have to open their eyes wide and admit these are actually terrible people they’ve been gushing over and admiring all these years is too big a pill to swallow for them.
I don’t think the British public believe the Royals can’t be got rid of and I think even the politicians know this but what I’ve found interesting with all of this is how few politicians have even spoke up about it after the interview. I was really expecting more.
Even the Royals know their position is precarious. Other monarchies have fallen and the British Royals really are at the mercy of public perception and politicians, unlike other monarchies who actually are actively involved in or even rule over their people. That’s where Harry’s point about his family being afraid of the tabloids came in.
As a British person, I think a lot of people would like to see an end to them and their expensive upkeep but they’re also nervous of what a future without them would look like. We are always told that yes they’re costly but they also bring in plenty of money from tourism but getting any real figures is pretty much impossible. They all just show what they want you to see.
Another point that was interesting from the interview was that Meghan seemed to imply that countries without a monarchy view the idea as almost fairy tale like. What they know about Royalty is much like Disney movies and so I could see her naivety entering into the firm. Brits don’t have doubts about how far removed from reality that is. When Meghan said she didn’t realise she’d have to curtsy to the Queen in private, it’s the kind of detail Brits just get and so when you’ve always lived with that impression, it just becomes normal.
They have plenty of personal wealth, even if you remove all of the state held property but it would be amazing to see every single one of them have their titles removed and have to find their own ways to make money.
This was exactly what was going through my head watching the H&M interview. They talked about the Firm’s dependence on tabloids, and I didn’t see Oprah dig enough on the “why?” of that relationship. IMO it seems like the royal family needs the press to continue to promote their charitable work and portray them as adding value otherwise people will begin to question even more why their taxes go toward keeping a small family living in riches. The press is a necessity in keeping the royal family’s power in place, so they will do anything to keep their favor.
And Meghan and Harry themselves prove a wonderful example of the good that can come, the better life you can have, when you have the courage to break away from the only life you’ve known, and decide that you will deal with whatever issues and complication come up when you step away because it is that important and the end result is a much happier, freer, moral, valuable life. We now have a very recent and real and visible example that it can at least be done.
And lets be honest, none of them will be working in Tesco. They’ll all be able to make a good living on the back of being ex royals. Just through being ex royals, they all already would have massive privilege in terms of who is going to hire them.
Without the taxpayer funding, they’ll remain wealthy but they won’t be able to maintain their lifestyles especially in the long term. So the only option will be is to marry rich like the Greeks.
And they already influence politics now. Charles and HM were found to veto and checks bills that didn’t suit them personally.
They may have influence in politics, but that can be broken as time wears on.
Let them scrounge and try to find and marry money. I do not feel sorry for any of them. They have blood on their hands from centuries of mistreatment of humans – including their own family. An entire family was killed in Russia because Liz’s grandfather was too scared to offer them a refuge.
Exactly. They would each have tens of millions to their name. It would be enough of a cushion for them to pivot and establish themselves a non royal existence.
wealthy people have influence in politics everywhere. What is lobbying in the United States if not the purchase of influence over Congressional votes by wealthy people? It was so baffling to me how this notion of “but they’re so wealthy they’d have so much influence that is otherwise pre-empted by…keeping their wealth intact” or some nonsense has been given full purchase by the British people (well, Reddit, haha)! That wealth is YOURS, Brits. Not THEIRS. You can take the land, the titles, and the money. They belong to the state because the monarch IS the state, historically and in theory, so that is your legal standing should you decide to exercise it. Split hairs as you will, but this is a negotiation. What Mr. and Ms. Windsor get to walk away with can be negotiated. There is no automatic family claim to any of it!
Do people really imagine that if the monarchy were dismantled, the family would retain Buckingham Palace? That it would be privately owned?
LOL They act like there aren’t richer people without titles influencing their government officials. No one values the royals’ opinion like that and they definitely won’t without the prestige of royalty to lift them up. Once that’s done away with, they’ll be lobbying and bribing with the rest.
yes, they’ll have to wear the shame of doing it openly like the rest of us, ha
Grnwei
If the monarchy was abolished there would be a power vacuum. This is known.
I think the discussion that needs to happen is how much wealth and assets the BRF needs remain the caretakers of. And how how much wealth do they need to live comfortably from taxpayers. We know they bend laws to enrich themselves too, so that should play into how much they need to receive personally.
I think many properties and tourist spots that are maintained by tax funds and are not used as private residences should be turned over.
Known by whom? I’m a political scientist and I certainly don’t know this. There would be no power vacuum in my Commonwealth country. We’d simply shut down an office that has gotten a great deal of bad press lately, and move along with little to no other changes. What power do you think this obsolete institution possesses that can’t be fulfilled by the British state? Precisely what? The Queen signs off on things, and little more. She serves an administrative and symbolic function at best. This is the function that the operation of your state apparatus rests on? It’s really not impossible to turn your Speech from the Throne into a State of the Union address. Put the Empire behind you!
Recall the words of Thomas Paine: “We cannot conceive a more ridiculous figure of government than hereditary succession, in all its cases, presents.” Even if this office were indeed so absolutely vital to some delicate power balance in British government, it certainly need not be occupied by some rich wastrel whose only claim to it is hereditary. What tea are you people drinking over there?? (Sorry for the excitement, but this one genuinely baffles me).
I should mention, I believe our Governor General office (our tie to the monarchy) currently sits empty. And our government functions just fine aside from the embarrassment of a photo of the Queen’s temporary representative looking like Santa Claus in ridiculous 18th century garb, though.
When my country got rid of the queen, we put in a president. Same responsibilities, different title, local person. Been fine for 40-plus years and we’re still members of the Commonwealth.
Actually, some of the property will be tricky–Balmoral, purchased by Prince Albert with his (?) money, for example–as far as who owns it, but that could be worked out over years (yes!) of negotiation. Much of what they own has ties to the government and arguably could be taken away.
Yes, as an American who spent a wonderful summer in Britain, I say rid Britain of the scourge of royalty! Power to the people…
Confiscate it all, in my opinion. Prince Albert couldn’t have bought the property had he not been subsidized by the public purse for his entire lifetime.
Balmoral will also be tricky if Scotland votes for independence, as many people want.
if I’m not wrong, I think the queen alone has multi millions of personal assets and wealth which would be difficult to wrestle away.
Although I am for getting rid of the monarchy, I’m just saying I don’t think “taking away their wealth” is as easy as people imagine it, unless it’s a socialist revolution. Sadly Britain is still a capitalist society and capitalism still fetishizes personal and private wealth, good luck getting your hands on that.
Ok, but here’s my point: the Queen wouldn’t have those assets, those many millions, had she not lived on the public purse. That money from the state enabled her to not spend her own wealth on a daily basis, which in turn allowed it to accrue so she could go on to acquire these assets. So those assets aren’t fully hers, unless she wants to repay taxpayers for them. I understand that she holds the title/deed/whatever, but her wealth is not independent of the state. That’s where the negotiations with the state begin. This is how you begin to make the actual institution of the monarchy a private (and non-existent) one.
The real problem here is the wealth and its hereditary nature. Barack Obama was wealthy while in office. Donald Trump was wealthy while in office. But that wealth was always privately accrued. It was not subsidized by the state at any point (well, an argument can be made with Trump. But the fact that no one went after him was not because there was no principle for doing so. It was a choice not to). The salary of a US President is modest and does not maintain a grotesquely wealthy standard of living.
Nothing about the wealth of this family is independent of the state because the family itself has never been independent of the state. So which bit of it is private? None of it, really, because it was all inherited too.
when I talk about taking away their wealth, I mean the land and properties that should be in public ownership. They should not ‘own’ a whole county. It’s the equivalent of saying the US president should own all the land in Philadelphia.
The same for all the jewelry and paintings. They acquired those because of their status.
So all of the aristocratic titles should go, including the monarchy and all their land should become public land; and castles and palaces and the contents of those buildings should go to the National Trust.
I am not saying we should empty out their bank accounts.
@GRNIEWNIE For first time, I find myself agreeing with the Republican lobby. I don’t know if you’re speaking in context of Canada, Oz or NZ, however until a legally sound and democratically adopted alternative system of government is in place to replace the current constitutional monarchy, it is unfortunately not as simple as closing the governor-general’s office. The prime minister cannot just get out of bed and announce themselves head of state.. and considering the current state of politics in Australia, frankly, that’s a good thing…
Amen. Sign me up
Brexit and HM leaving shows UK institutions are bad at divorce. It’s gonna take a long while. My guess is in 100 years it may look like the Swedish model.
The british royal family won’t make it a 100 years
yeah I think a lot of the remaining support will evaporate when QE is no longer in the throne.
At the very least the UK will need to start from grassroots level and depend on more Gen Y and Gen Z to be in Parliament to even start to talk about taking away their homes as the writer says. That will take a while. Not to mention your House of Lords and what Vera said. It’s not that easy and you need determined like-minded politicians voted in by determined like-minded voters to kickstart everything. And with Brexit happening and Scotland threatening to leave, the priority is trade deals. I definitely want to see the Commonwealth dissolved in my lifetime. That might be easier. As of now, is there a prominent white influencer at least leading the republican movement effectively? If no then it’s going to take a while.
@Alexandria
The oft-repeated argument (lie) about the British monarchy is that it brings in tourism. That hasn’t been tested in a year or so because of COVID. But when the world opens up, and Brexit sets in, what are British tourism numbers going to look like? How many people have been put off from vacationing in Britain, and decide to go to Ireland, France, or Germany instead? The British establishment disdains people of color, but it depends on tourists from China and the rest of Asia and the United States for its upkeep. The royals are in a more precarious position than they realize. The negative press in the US ought to be especially troubling. The royals and their lackeys in the press need to watch what they say, because so many of their snide, racist remarks about Meghan could also apply to VP Kamala Harris. They may brief themselves into a real international incident soon.
@ Alexandria
I had the same thought after the interview. If it wasn’t Harry & Megan, it would’ve been something else. They’re not smart, and they have no vision for the future. They just don’t get it.
@TCBC
For many people in some commonwealth countries in Africa, visiting the UK is seen as a status symbol. Trust and believe that this scandal will not deter thousands from visiting. I don’t even see some African countries pulling out from the commonwealth. It’s not even a discussion here. Commonwealth scholarships and opportunities are huge in my part of the world and fiercely contested for. I am not holding my breath that anything will change at least for now.
I think the Swedish model would be their best bet. Others on here have explained how messy and complicated it would be to completely get rid of the British monarchy, but I do think their funding and such will look very different in a few years.
@TCBC the current uproar is mostly concentrated in the UK, US, Canada and Australia. Average tourists are not going to boycott the royal family, they don’t follow royal news. Tourists matter when a prominent chunk of the market like the Chinese market dislike them. This is not happening at the moment, not that I see online. And we all know Chinese society still have a problem with colorism. Their beauty standard for fair skin and the racist attacks and taunting of black people is still alive. My country is not interested in this. I definitely agree with you it has always been a lie…tourists visit because they want to see buildings, not the royal family. I agree monarchy should be abolished.
The US government deals with the UK government, not the royal family. There is only concern if the royal family attacks the US government. That is not going to happen. I’m not trying to disparage anyone but I still believe removing the monarchy will take time and will take someone very determined. Even to start the ball rolling by removing the FOI equivalent will need someone very determined and who has support of his voters and colleagues right now. Right now, there is no one stepping up yet because who can?
I do not like to use the word woke but UK (and the world generally) needs to be more woke and that will take time.
That being said, I am NOT an expert on the UK political landscape so my view may be simplistic and incorrect.
When I went to England is was not to see the royal. I wanted to see the buildings and museums. All the palaces would still be able to view once they kick the monarchy to the curb since those properties belong to the people. As more and more immigrants move to Britain, they will move to abolish the monarchy since they have no allegiance to them or care about them. I can’t imagine a system in 2021 that actually has all its citizens bow down like peasants to some rich white lady.
It has always been easier to elevate one family to a fairy-tale life of luxury than to do the dreary work of elevating every single family to a decent standard of living.
THIS! Wake up!!!
This is my thought!! Why would anyone support a bunch of lazy do-nothings that you, the British taxpayer, are funding to live in the lap of luxury as they manipulate the laws to their benefit? If I was a British taxpayer, I would be furious to see what the royal family has been doing to manipulate the laws to their benefit as I am paying taxes for their upkeep when they have millions at their disposal!! I say it’s time that they start earning their own money as it’s apparent that an ex-royal has been able to do within a short period of time!!
And don’t forget that William at least could earn what I imagine would be a pretty good living as a pilot. Not saying he’d WANT to, just that he COULD…!
Step 1. Remove them from being exempt from the British version of FOI requests.
They only got this in 2011 using Will and Kate’s wedding as a distraction. Let’s roll that change back and see what they’ve been doing. How can you have an institution like this without transparency and accountability?
the thing is in the UK, it’s not just the monarchy.
The feudalistic system of land ownership, and freehold ownership needs to go.
People should be allowed to own their homes instead of ‘leasing’ it form some rich aristocratic A-hole, having to pay for the privilege, who happens to own the ‘freehold’. Some bloke called the Duke of Westminster should not be allowed to own the ‘freehold’ for swathes of London. And he didnt even pay any inheritance taxes on his billions.
There are many like him, like the Duke of Devonshire, who for some reason owns a lot of land in Eastbourne, including the marina development (Devon and Eastbourne are 4 counties away).
All of these people should be stripped from their lands and it should be ours, the people who live there and pay their taxes.
But they dont want that, Prince Charles actively stopped a bill that would have allowed the people of Cornwall to own their homes.
The French had the right idea with their aristocracy.
Just a note, not all of the UK lives under the freehold/leasehold system. Up in Scotland bought homes are freehold. I have no idea if leasehold is a thing here, if it is then its incredibly rare. I should also say that huge swathes of Scotland are owned by individuals but then these estates dont have huge housing schemes on them either and again I dont know if homes on these estates are owned/rented by the people living in them. I would hazard a guess that this is why we see community buyouts when these estates go on sale, people wanting to determine what happens on the land they live/work on.
yes, sorry for forgetting about Scotland being better again 🙂 . I live in England, but I am not British and when I first learnt about this, I was gobsmacked.
Other countries have ‘commonhold’ for blocks of flats, so everyone owns their place and there is a common fund collected monthly to pay for the building maintenance.
But also your other point, the large land ownership is a problem too, just because someone’s ancestor was a massive gangster, they shouldnt own all the land.
Yes. And if any country has experience in stripping other people’s property from them it’s the UK so they have no excuse.
This. the Brits were quite happily ransacked other countries and stole their heritage and natural resources.
That needs to be overhauled and taxes imposed. I knew about Westminster owning some of the most expensive territory in London. He and his family could live perfectly fine on the proceeds that they’ve already stockpiled.
Windsor and Buckingham Palace should definitely become public property and the royals can lease the sub-properties from the government and the people if they want to stay on those smaller estates there, if not, then they can move. Charles has Highgrove, let that be his permanent home. Kensington can be converted to other uses. I think he also inherited his Grandmother’s place in Scotland, so he could keep that and Balmoral could revert to Scotland completely. As for the rest, I hope they made good investments over the years.
While I am not proud of the last four years of our country’s leadership and I don’t think we can sit on a high horse about it, I do think the monarchy should be abolished. It is a figurehead position at this point and it costs the UK citizens $ for what benefit?
My brother-in-law is British and anti-royals. When he and my SIL got together some 15 years ago I was surprised he was against the monarchy. At the time I thought the younger royals were so full of fun pageantry and Kate was glamorous, the crowns were pretty, etc.
Since Meghan arrived, my eyes have been opened and I am disgusted by how that family has treated her—and Harry. It’s revealed a lot of pettiness and closed-mindedness and yes, racism. So now I agree with my BIL. Down with the monarchy. Burn it down.
Just some bald guy with rage issues 😂
The monarchy should be done. They are random people who exist because of imperialism, colonialism, classism and racism. They know their position is based on our willingness to put up with them, which is why they are all so damn insecure.
And they aren’t even good at their “jobs.” Harry and Meghan are, and they can continue elevating causes with or without the title.
Very curious to know if William and Kate would continue to do charity work if it wasn’t part of a social contract. The answer is probably NO. They begrudge it.
Hamilton Nolan is a former infamous Gawker writer, and was so gloriously b*tchy then that I looked forward to his posts. I almost can’t believe the nytimes paid him, this feels a very Gasket editorial.
That being said – British people had a chance to stop monarchy, but it’s their version of Make America Great Again ‘ reminds them of their “glorious” imperialist (white supremacist) past when they ruled the world and the sun never set on the British empire.
Hope those courtiers gagged when they saw HamNo in the nyt, and think twice before sending any Windsor here.
Also screw colonizers (even the ones that came and prospered in the US) forever.
I still remember his F*ck Boston piece.
@Kalana he was/is a character for sure. I was so sad when Gawker (not Gasket) had to shut down, even though it went sometimes too far.
Brits have never been given a choice in the matter of whether or not we have a monarchy. There’s never been a referendum despite republican sentiments being really strong at times (e.g Prince Charles and the Black Spider memo scandal, Camillagate and Diana’s death).
Missf thank you for your correction. I admit I was speaking figuratively about the Brits having had a chance to remove monarchy in that I don’t think there is the support to do so, because the Queen is so beloved, no matter what. She is the THE symbol of patriotism, no? But the same stuff Meghan said happened with Diana, there was Charles and Camillagate, the Panama Papers with the Queen, Queen and Charles influencing bills, and I am sure other scandals like Andrew.
I bet there have been enough issues that if the rich and powerful people really wanted to, the issue would have come to the forefront over the last 50 years. If the government managed to convince people of Brexit, I feel they could raise awareness and establish abolishment.
I see a parallel between the little Englander who loves the Queen and America where Republicans convince the poor white person to vote against their own self interest out of notions that America is a bootstraps place, and our “Queen” is a bald eagle and guns.
Never heard of him before but I love his writing (bitchiness and all). This part is especially smart and insightful:
“The existence of a monarchy is an admission that a government can’t, or doesn’t care to, solve people’s problems. Instead, it offers spectacle. It has always been easier to elevate one family to a fairy-tale life of luxury than to do the dreary work of elevating every single family to a decent standard of living. “
In these days I had a though: the BRF now is no better than the Kardashian family, with the huge difference they live on taxpayers money and with a posh accent.
I mean: they are famous for being famous, and the only reason we talk about them it’s not because of their charity work, or their patronages, but because of their dramas.
At least Kim. K and her family make their own money.
I keep telling my partner I hope this is the beginning of the end for the royal family. It’s been proven they don’t bring in vast amounts of money via tourism. Their charity patronages don’t add much value (I’m absenting Prince Charles’s Trust and the work Meghan started, which was really promising). The monarch’s position as the head of the Church of England is losing its currency in an increasingly secular country. Beyond the tabloid bubble, they are not really talked about that much here in the UK, certainly not amongst younger people, and the stories the press pedal are like Victorian breadcrumbs: look at what Kate wore today; this is the interior of Prince Edward’s house; here are pictures from William’s boxing day pheasant shoot. How exactly are we meant to feel about these stories, other than resentful that these people cost so much of our money to maintain? If we do go republican, please yes, the downside is we will be tangled up for years extracting the Crown from the legislative and parliamentary system. The Queen, as was seen during Brexit, can be called upon to halt parliamentary process and she apparently demands daily briefing. I can’t see Kate or William having the intelligence or gravitas to care about or understand these aspects of royal life. There is also the military, whose older generations cherish the Queen. Once those go, I’m not sure the current armed forces will care that much. That’s a hard one to call, though, seeing how fond they are of Harry.
I love the idea of the Queen in a small London flat haha. Also I can’t find it but seriously good point about the people who said Kate and Willnot’s poor work record makes them like the Kardashians at this point, and at least they earn their income haha. All the questions about Kate’s scars, botox, hair, clothes and whatever else is nauseating? Infuriating? for someone who has the job she has.
Have you read the Sue Townsend book ‘The Queen and I’? Has the scenario of the monarchy being abolished and the whole lot being relocated to a council estate to learn to cope with all the things they’ve been insulated from, like budgeting, gas bills, dealing with welfare agencies, how to open cans of dog food and put on your own bra.
I agree.
I’m not British, but I can’t see anyone replacing the Queen. None of them are likeable. Especially after all the drama that’s been going on with the Sussexes and prince Andrew. I wouldn’t want to see any of them on the throne.
Harry and Meghan would’ve been fun, but it wont happen.
I’ve said it before but not many actively in the UK really wants to remove the monarchy because 1) there’s a massive respect for HM and her death/Charles’ coronation will inspire patriotism and royal family love even temporarily 2) no-one really cares for them so that includes not caring enough to get rid of them 3) this will involve a referendum and no-one likes those, especially considering how the last one went.
And 4) if the royals go, so does the aristocracy and there are a lot of people who want the peerage to remain because they themselves want acceptance from the peerage and/or titles.
“Any nation that still has a monarchy in 2021 is proving itself to have a mortifying lack of revolutionary gumption.” I think this is what you are talking about @Sofia. Perhaps some tea might get thrown into the Thames after Queenie passes. Perhaps the idea of King Charles and Camilla, the Consort on the tea towels might spark that revolutionary flame that’s sorely lacking over there.
IMAO, The problem is not the Constitutional Monarchy of the UK as other countries have a Constitutional Monarchy as a form of Democratic Government and seem to be happy with it such as The Netherlands, Sweden or Denmark.
The problem is the Windsor family. There has to be a way to keep a Monarch and a heir in training but get rid of this Royal Family nonsense.
Baytampabay, that’s why I guessed the future might still be royals but the Swedish model. As for peerage and House of Lords, I don’t have a guess. It’s easy to stipulate the method of removal but which government representative will lead?
The Windsors really do stand out from the other Monarchies with their dysfunction. There might be stuff going on behind the scenes in other royal families, but the Windsors are by far the messiest.
@Alexandra – Reformation of the House of Lords has been talked about since the 1880s and it was not until Tony Blair came along that anything was really done. IMAO since introduction of non-hereditary Life Peerages the House of Lords is actually a chamber of Senators for life. The problem to me is that majority of the “Senators for Life” seem to be reactionary conservative Tories with no clue of the real world.
I totally agree with Sofia! The majority of the people love the RF and don’t care.
And again, I’m really disappointed to read that GB is considered a “toxic island” , it’s totally disrespectful towards its people.
And I can’t believe some American man has decided that it’s time to overthrow the monarchy and would think that he’s important enough to have his voice heard and followed. How is that his business anyway?
IMO far too much importance is given to the RF and their role within the British politics.
They’ll stay in place but they will “fade”, just like the Swedish RF, especially with William and Kate who will be too keen to stray off, unlike QE who has/had a sense of “duty”.
Like Harry said the RF survives very much on public perception a perception created by the tabloids. Break the tabloids and the institution will be following soon after. I just don’t get how millions of people read and believe such trash or still maintain the system.
And the Royal Family thought by cutting off finances, pulling their security and leaking their location to the press would ensure that Harry and Meghan did fail.
On a side note, I wonder if Ma Middleton is clutching her pearls and how many times she has fainted over the idea people are calling for the monarchy’s demise.
Ha, right? All that work and we have the teeniest chance that Kate won’t even become queen!? God forbid.
Brilliant. Paste that article anywhere you can and add the hashtag #abolishthemonarchy
The entire peerage system is rotten to the core. It’s bizarre to me that people tolerate it.
This wont be like the French revolution,its not like they will be chased with torches down the streets. They will still keep their ill gotten gains and it will take several generations for them to really ‘ need’ to earn a living.
Or like in Russia……
I’m partial to Ding Dong the Witch is Dead for that celebratory group song instead of Sweet Caroline.
doesn’t a good deal of tourism hinge on the BRF being around? Maybe not? I would think that would influence whether they stay or go
Sure its the tourist thing to do and go take a pic outside BP but i doubt a majority of visitors are going their for the royals.I think those numbers have always been inflated.
That’s an argument Royalists use but I don’t think it holds any water. We’ve toured palaces and the like in France and Germany and they were super crowded money makers. They are doing just fine without monarchies. I’d personally pay a higher ticket price to tour Buckingham Palace if I could see all the rooms. I think it’s a detriment to tourism to have people living there. Think of all the fancy, shiny things we can’t see b/c they are for the RF’s “private” use. Fire Angela Kelly and put those jewels on display!
completely agree. More money could be made from opening up those palaces. It’s also completely ridiculous that they are so wealthy, but still expect me, the taxpayer to pay for the maintenance of BP, when we cannot even visit it for free or see it properly.
I dont think that argument holds up. Maybe for big events -I imagine the Queen’s jubilees, big royal weddings like W&K’s and H&M’s – but in general, probably not. Countries that no longer have monarchies, like France, still have a huge tourism industry obviously and Versailles is not hurting for tourists during normal times. Even countries like Spain, that still have a monarchy – I’m going to assume that the most visited palaces there have nothing to do with the current king and queen (i.e. Alcazar in Segovia, la Alhambra in Granada). When I think of planning a trip to London, Buckingham Palace is loosely interesting to me, it would be more interesting if we could see more of it and if it was open year-round. Tower of London interests me much more.
Now obviously that’s just my personal take on it but I think if they abolished the monarchy completely, tourism would be just fine .
Lol. When we visited London, we didn’t go anywhere near the royals or their tax-paid buildings. We went to Westminster Abbey, we went to Trafalgar Square, we went to as many museums as we could. We were excited to stumble across tributes to poets and actors. The Tower of London was cool to see from a distance, but that’s as close as we cared to get. Nothing royal was necessary; we had a great time.
I’ve been to England a number of times and I can assure you it was never to drool over the royals. I visited numerous art galleries and museums, got out into the countryside to see Stonehenge, Hellfire Manor, Hampton Court (yes it’s royal but Henry VIII vintage), etc. etc. I only went to Buck Palace, Westminster Abby and the Tower of London once as a teenager (I’m 68) but have been to Winston Churchill’s childhood home and grave several times. There’s wayyyy more to see in England than fusty old royal residences and overpriced restaurants where the toffs might be eating.
Am a big fan of Hamilton Nolan’s writing, so very happy to see him get space in the NYT!
The ironic thing about all of this, perhaps, is that H&M –as people have noted– were more than happy to uphold monarchy. Bringing the monarchy down (whether it *will* come down is another conversation) was never their intention. Their family & the institution was just so bloody mean & racist, it became as Meghan says ‘almost unsurvivable.’
I think the way Harry and Meghan used their platform wasn’t seen as upholding the monarchy. The only way the couple could uphold the monarchy (to satisfy the heirs and institution) was by being quiet, sacrificial lambs for William and Charles. Of course, the institution couldn’t tell them that. They wanted the PR extravaganza that came with Diana’s youngest son marrying an American. They wanted H and M to give them everything and expect nothing in return.
This is an abusive family that the British taxpayers not only pay for but are required to curtsey, bow, and scrape to. And never get the chance to vote out.
The NYT column is a dose of reality. It’s so easy to fall into the trap that it’s impossible to change something that’s been in place for so long. It’s not – just do it. They aren’t special, they aren’t leaders, and as Onomo said – it’s their version of MAGA.
Just stop making these people special – they have repeatedly shown themselves to be cruel and ordinary.
Yes! This!! I hope the courtiers who told Richard Kay that NYC was “Diana territory” for the Cambridges to tour read this.
The monarchy is ridiculous and needs to go. I’m in Canada and actually wrote my MP last year about it. People of the UK, how are you all alright with paying this family 69.4 million pounds a year? Thats how much of your tax dollars went to them in 2020, DURING A PANDEMIC.
Standing ovation.👏👏👏
I am British and would abolish the royal family in a heartbeat- they’re an absolute omnishambles.
However, what about their constitutional role? How would all our institutions and governmental conventions be maintained? Dismantling it all and rebuilding it would make Brexit look like a stroll in the park. Some of the ceremonial things the head of state do are centuries old. While Britain is grappling with post-brexit trade deals and the nations’ independence movements and Covid, I just don’t know how it could be achieved.
One step at a time. It’s how everything gets done.
#AbolishTheMonarchy
It’s not just the British, there’s Sweden, Japan, Spain and so on why do people support monarchies?
Classism, romanticism and warped sense of nationalism.
There was plenty of posturing and framing by the royal rats that if you criticise the Queen, you’re not patriotic.
The Chrysanthemum Throne of Japan is said to be the oldest (2381yo) continuous hereditary monarchy in the world. Japan has had 126 monarchs compared to the British Throne’s (1200yo) 61 monarchs. The history behind the Japanese throne is fascinating and really horrifying at the same time, and it’s still being supported.
I know all sorts of tax money gets wasted on dumb stuff around the world but the BRF is a whole other level. Brits are paying to have someone dust tiaras in a literal castle. They are paying for the “privilege” of watching royals do what exactly? Go places? Abolish the monarchy. Do it now. It’s a ridiculous institution full of ridiculous people that shouldn’t exist.
Harry’s departure has proven just how worthless the monarchy is.
I expect there will be a referendum on the monarchy in this decade. Once you get to referendums you may as well stick a fork in it, even if the royals win.
Or if they “simply can’t” abolish it for whatever reason, it doesn’t need to be run as it is. Technically they only need a monarch to do her ceremonial duties. She doesn’t have to live in and rotate between 5 palaces, some of which are taxpayer funded. Her children and grandchildren do not need to be working royals funded by the state and travel between multiple palaces, some of which are taxpayer funded. Her cousins don’t need to live on crown estate property. All of the “crown” estate stuff can go back to the actual state, the public. All of the “crown” art collection and furniture and palaces and buildings and land and jewelry, does not to be “in the care of” the royal family, where they are the only ones who can see and enjoy it and they are responsible for its upkeep, but oops, they let some of it fall into disrepair and now they need additional huge lump sums of money. There is so much that has been tied to the monarchy that doesn’t have to be. They don’t need to be exempt from FOI and having to show where they’re spending the money that is given them by the government. They don’t need to have taxpayer funded security and private planes that they’re allowed take to multiple international vacations each year. Make sure they’re secure, yes, but put some parameters on it. Do they get to spend millions of dollars taking a whole security team on Caribbean island vacations with them multiple times a year? Maybe they should get security when they’re home and working in the UK or on tour and they get 2-3 weeks of holiday each year where they’re allowed to have their taxpayer funded security accompany them and have the taxpayers pay for their planes and holiday accommodations. If they want to do more than that, they pay for it themselves. And I don’t think they should get to have taxpayer funded security and taxpayer funded staff at the palaces and houses they own privately even when they’re not in residence there. The government and the people should not be paying to guard Balmoral when the Queen isn’t even in residence there. They don’t need to be able to make money off of the crown estate land (which is owned by the people) by using that land to charge rent, run a huge Duchy originals business, make gin, charge people at tea houses and gift shops and cafes that they erect on crown property. Give all those palaces, land, art, furniture, jewels, etc back to the government to be housed in museums where everyone can see them all the time, and then the royals can put in a request when they want to wear a certain necklace or use a piece of furniture. But they shouldn’t be able to hoard it all in their basement, even when they’re not using it, and when it doesn’t belong to them privately.
They could seriously have just the monarch that works and whom they pay for and she could live in a nice apartment in London and have an office inside the parliament building when she needs to “go to work.” There is nothing that says the monarch and 4 generations of her extended family all need to be kept in unimaginable luxury and have all their exorbitant bills paid for by the taxpayer.
All of this, AmyToo.
Looking at the group balcony photo, I am left wondering, in the midst of their riches, why the BRF doesn’t avail themselves of orthodontia?
“English teeth” is a badge of honour.
I really hope this happens in my lifetime. The British taxpayer pays way too much for that clown show.
Someone needs to go through their jewelry collection.
“as if the Bush family, the Kardashians and the Falwells were all rolled into one bejeweled quasi-religious fame cult, topped off with a bracing dose of imperialism.“
America’s King-in-waiting: Trump and his MAGA court.
Considering that the REAL scandal should have been how the Queen has been abusing those backdoor policies to protect the family wealth, they absolutely should. Frankly, Harry and Meghan were smart to get out while they were can. With the way Brexit is going to impact people there and the continuing trend of economic disparity, it’s a matter of time before the family starts seeing the backlash from the general population. Which they should. Because the ultra wealthy are parasites on the back of society lol.
Peter Hunt at The Spectator had a great article too about “too little too late” “and 61 words later, the Queen will hope this is the end of the matter. It won’t be. It’s too little, too late. This delayed, tame statement went for predictability when unpredictability – stepping out of the Windsor comfort zone – was what was needed. It has left the advantage with Meghan and Harry.” I still don’t get how they can’t get a footing, except, again, imo they’re leaning into their real base of Brexit and British maga.
Years ago, pre Diana. when I was uninterested in things royal, I recall hearing Charles say that the upkeep on these huge palaces was exorbitant and the monarchy should consider turning them into residences for various underserved groups, either thru private or government ownership. So there already has been some thought of divesting these buiding . This was back when Charles was beginning to communicate his interest in conservation and architecture.
England was a republic from 1649 to 1660 under Oliver Cromwell. The monarchy was restored by popular demand. However, the restoration changed the the status of the monarchy. It abolished the concept of ‘divine right’ and established the condition that monarchy works alongside parliament.
Constitutional monarchy works as a safety measure. This is why Spain restored its monarchy. It prevents dictatorship and safeguards democracy. The monarch holds nominal ultimate power ‘in trust for the people’. The monarch has no personal political power to act without parliament and parliament cannot act without reference to the monarch. The Dutch system has this written into their constitution so that there is no Parliament without the King and there is no King without Parliament.
A constitutional monarch therefore is meant to act as a representative of the nation. A unifying symbol which is above political parties . The second verse of the national anthem includes ”may she defend our laws, and ever give us cause, to sing with heart and voice, God save the Queen.” The monarch is meant to be for ALL the people, not just some of the people. This is the essence of the Queen’s public role and what is meant by ‘royal duties’ for those of her family who represent her. They need to be able to connect with the population as a whole and to be able to represent the UK population in their contacts with other countries. This is the essential purpose of state visits and the foreign tours they embark on.
That’s the theory. In practice it is becoming unstuck. The British royal family has not adapted to the changes in UK society. Charles’ ideas about marriage belong to a pre-war aristocratic mindset. Unfortunately, people like the Middletons have much the same mindset. This is what fuels snobbery and ‘social climbing’. The Cambridges do not connect with their own age group in the UK. Kate embodies a 1950’s housewife and William takes his cues from his father. None of the blood royals can connect with a diverse society. Except Harry.