Times: Abolish The Concept Of ‘the Royal Family’ & Just Have The Monarch & Heir

Following Prince Andrew’s arrest on February 19th, there has been a lively discussion online and within the British media about what the monarchy should look like in the future, and what kinds of changes need to be implemented immediately. There are also rising republican sentiments, and a conversation about “why does Britain even need a monarchy at this point?” Some wild things are being said, and it does feel like we’re witnessing a big sea-change moment for the British monarchy. Well, the Times published an interesting column by historian Anna Whitelock, who argued at length that the idea of a “royal family” must be scrapped, but Britain should keep “the monarch and heir” and then just transform the institution entirely. Here’s her argument:

Whether or not the allegations circling Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor lead to charges and a trial, in court (versus the Crown), this whole crisis should see the King act proactively to bring about a sea change in expectations of the monarchy and legitimate scrutiny of it. Beyond co-operating with the police as ongoing investigations necessitate, the King and Prince William must now oversee far-reaching reform, and the confected distraction that is the “royal family” should be exposed for what it is.

The monarchy is a singular continuous entity represented by the King, and his heir. It does not need a large cast of royals to fill the balcony of Buckingham Palace. The notion of a “royal family” should be scrapped. It is no longer fit for purpose, and is not part of the legal or constitutional framework of the British state. Other members of the family should not be paid for at taxpayers’ expense. The current sovereign grant — the monarch’s annual funding for him and his family — is more than £132 million. Those simply related to the monarch should live, work and be held accountable like everyone else. They should not hold a position of unchecked privilege and influence.

So what of a truly modernised monarchy? The sovereign grant, currently a percentage of the profits from the Crown Estate, a vast portfolio of land and property which is structured to always benefit the monarch, might be replaced by an annual fixed budget for the monarchy, to cover the costs of the monarch and his heir. This should be set by parliament and managed by a government department staffed by civil servants rather than the royal household.

Security costs, which are now typically covered by the Metropolitan Police at taxpayers’ expense (although the sums are not revealed), with arrangements determined by the police, royal family and Home Office, should be made transparent and accountable.

The monarch, all members of the family and the royal household should be subject to the same tax arrangements as other public bodies and private individuals, and personal royal wealth should be audited. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, the private estates of the King and Prince of Wales respectively, whose significant incomes go directly to them, should be fully investigated by parliament, with a view to transferring them into public ownership, with all revenue going to the Treasury. A royal register should be created to require members of the royal family to register their business interests, based on the register that exists for MPs; exemptions should be removed from the Freedom of Information Act, and the royal archives made public.

[From The Times]

I find these suggestions entirely reasonable – a flat operational rate for the monarch and heir, an audit of royal finances, complete financial and constitutional transparency across the board. This a business-like assessment of how the situation should be handled and what kind of transformations should be made. Unfortunately, royalists are the ones trying to talk over politicians and diligent historians. Royal reporters insist that Prince Andrew’s arrest is THEIR beat, that they need to tell Andrew’s story and the story of how the monarchy gets through this. These are the same royal reporters who spent the past eight years treating Prince Harry and Meghan like the biggest threats to the monarchy. These are the same royal reporters who trade real reporting for access, and a chance to be the palace’s favorite stenographer to power. My point? Bring in the actual elected politicians, political journalists and historians to figure out this mess.

Also: it’s soooo funny that as soon as they got their all-white balcony, sh-t fell apart completely.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.