OPINION: Abolishing the British Monarchy is Not a Fight Worth Fighting
Maxim Krukov (COL ‘23) is a guest writer for the Caravel's opinion section and a regular writer for the Eastern Europe and Russia section. The content and opinions of this piece are the writer’s and the writer’s alone. They do not reflect the opinions of the Caravel or its staff.
The obviously very multiracial royal family at Buckingham Palace in 2014. (Flickr, Alex David-Baldi)
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey rekindled the republicanist movement that would see the abolition of the British monarchy. Newspapers including the Guardian and the New York Times published fiery opinion pieces supporting the abolition of the monarchy while tweets calling for the institution’s end went viral. Nevertheless, no major U.K. political parties have yet endorsed republicanism.
Should there be a sustained political movement to make abolition a reality? Not yet, though not because the royal family represents some paragon of virtue. Rather, citizens must be ready and willing to sacrifice certain things for the happiness and wellbeing of the greater community.
The monarchy’s persistence within a modern liberal democracy is irrational: after all, how can the U.K. be a democracy if its head of state is unelected? Even Walter Bagehot, one of the U.K.’s most influential monarchists, argues that the monarchy has lasted more because of emotion, not reason. “The mystic reverence [and] the religious allegiance, which are essential to a true monarchy, are imaginative sentiments,” he wrote in 1867.
The monarchy, however, does offer several benefits. For instance, the institution contributes nearly $2.77 billion annually to the British economy, primarily through tourism, while only costing the public $55.56 million per year (though the figure stood at $97 million last year due to renovations for Buckingham Palace). That’s a stellar return on investment.
Economic arguments, however, should take a back seat to questions of what the country’s identity, exemplified by its symbols, should be.
The monarchy oversaw the rise and fall of the British Empire, which committed atrocities that continue to impact the world today. The Commonwealth of Nations, though a voluntary association, is nothing but an effort to preserve this empire. No other reason can explain why the British monarch serves as the head of state for fifteen other countries (the Commonwealth Realms). The monarchy will always stand as a symbol of the U.K.’s imperial past, and, by extension, the country’s current racist practices. Some thought Meghan Markle’s wedding had signaled that the monarchy would move into a new era. Though it sounded overly-optimistic then, the sentiment has a ridiculous irony now with the recent revelation that members of the royal family had noted concerns relating to the skin color of Harry and Meghan’s child.
The royal family also epitomizes inherited privilege (if you’re the child of the head of state, you’ll get to be head of state, too!) and wealth inequality in a country increasingly focused on tackling these issues. Even the Conservative party has attempted to grow poorer areas as part of its new platform.
The monarchy symbolizes some of Britain’s greatest moral failings, and symbols do truly matter in displaying a cultural identity. However, such symbols should not be mistaken for the cause of society’s ills—they are symptomatic of them.
When it comes to the U.K.’s colonial legacy, would anyone really say that abolishing the monarchy forces Britain to confront its past? Some policies would seek that end, for instance, in properly educating children about the empire’s dark history. When it comes to class politics, improving the quality of state education and implementing more redistributive legislation could go a long way in solving one of Britain’s most significant injustices. Such measures could tackle the root causes rather than simply symptoms thereof.
The monarchy stands as a reminder of so much wrong about British society. But while symbols demonstrate a state’s national identity, they don’t make it. And though taking down a symbol makes it easier to break down that which the symbol represents, citizens in a democratic society should still want to make sacrifices for the happiness of the national community, thereby ensuring its stability and cohesion. Without such a willingness, democracy cannot function and politics become war. The question, then, is what and how much to sacrifice.
Whether we like it or not, the British monarchy is a quasi-religion—a lone figurehead is elevated above the common person, its existence built upon faith. In fact, divine language has historically upheld the institution. That’s not to say that rational arguments in support of the monarchy don’t exist, but, just like any other religion, reason alone will not make you a believer. One must take a leap of faith—which, for many in British society, happens at an early age.
A successful ideological crusade against any religion would entail many difficulties, or at the least polarize the populace. Faith can’t be broken down with simple reason, and religion is where passions burn brightest. This would be especially true for something as popular as the monarchy. Even in the aftermath of the Oprah interview, 63 percent of the country supports the institution.
Those who remain faithful to the monarchy tend to be incredibly passionate. Take for example Piers Morgan storming off set, extremely unusual for the sedate nature of British TV, during a discussion on Meghan Markle. It is clear that a fight against the monarchy would create much division and, while the monarchy is a stain on the country’s identity, that in itself is not enough for society to divide in two over the issue. However, as the more republican younger generations grow older, the monarchy’s persistence will surely come into the limelight again—perhaps when society will be ready to accept its end.
Have a different opinion? Write a letter to the editor and submit it via thecaravelgu.opinion@gmail.com for publication on our website!