The Royal Family has had a raft of mixed press over the last year. HM The Queen enjoys extensive personal popularity from the British Public, with a YouGov poll in Q3 of 2020 finding that 72% of respondents held a positive opinion of her. However, the allegations against (no longer HRH) Prince Andrew have marred the image of the royals for many. Republicans will be no doubt buoyed by this cloud as it hangs over the historic Platinum Jubilee celebrations. These are to take place throughout 2022 to celebrate the Queen becoming the first British monarch to have reigned for a record-breaking 70 years. The Prince Andrew situation does not look to abate throughout the jubilee year, in spite of his being cast out of his royal role. The British republicans will also be setting their eyes on The Queen’s impressive old age, and thus the likely accession of Prince Charles to the throne by the end of the decade.
Approval for the Monarchy still reigns, with an average of polls taken in May 2021 citing just under 60% of respondents in favour of the Monarchy, in contrast to 25% in favour of the UK becoming a republic (fig. 1). The remaining 15% were undecided. That said, it should be noted that the trend since 2011 has shown a gradual decline of support for the Monarchy and a gradual increase of pro-republican and “not sure” responses.
To actually become a republic there would be a truly titanic series of obstacles to overcome for the UK republican movement. Firstly, they would need far more backing from the British Public than they have at present. Secondly, they would need a government voted in which was willing to provide a referendum on the issue, and that had campaigned on such a ticket (almost impossible from the Conservatives and very unlikely from Labour). Finally, that referendum would need to go in their favour on the day, bearing in mind that polls can be misleading.
Would it really be worth all the bother? There are various arguments as to why a British Republic would be better than the United Kingdom, but I will focus on three common ones:
- The Argument of Democracy.
- The Argument of Meritocracy.
- The Argument of Finance.
The Argument of Democracy
This initially seems fairly clear cut. The basic argument here is that having an elected head of state is inherently more democratic than having an un-elected head of state. It is entirely reasonable to read this and conclude that it is a piece of simple axiomatic logic. However, a democracy is more than one person and the translation from a monarchy to a republic in a given country does nothing to further guarantee the democratic rights of its citizens. In fact, European monarchies often have a strongest and most open democracies in the world. A study by the University of Würzburg as recently as 2020 rated democracies according a matrix of factors central to a functioning democracy (fig. 2). In the ratings the five top countries, and thus the five most democratic, were: Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden and Germany listed in order from first to fifth. Of these countries, three of them (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) are constitutional monarchies akin to the UK. Incidentally, The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and the UK as the other major European monarchies sit at 7, 9, 11 and 17 respectively in a list of 176 countries. They all sit higher than the two most famous western republics, the United States of America and France. By contrast, the bottom five countries on the list are (from the bottom up) Eritrea, North Korea, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and China. All, bar one, of which are self-proclaimed as republics. The exception to this is Saudi-Arabia which is an absolute monarchy. The UK, as mentioned, is a constitutional monarchy and the importance of that distinction will be touched on, anon. A link to the study can be found here:
https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking
So what do these rankings tell us? They tell us that the functioning of a healthy democracy does not depend on whether there is an elected or un-elected head of state. At most, it depends on the role of that head of state within the constitution. In the European constitutional monarchies listed above, the monarchy has no real political power. In the UK we elect a parliament which, in turn, appoints a Prime-Minister. They go through the ceremony of seeking permission to form a government from The Queen, but in reality it is decided at the ballot box. Our constitution has been robust enough to keep our democracy functioning well for a long time. Evidently, there are certain republican constitutions, such as that of the USA, in spite of which democracy has been eroded for reasons not to be explored here. The events of 6th January 2021 at the US Capitol demonstrate that. Having an elected head of state has not prevented these issues for them, and the Monarch has not created these issues for us. Therefore, the democratic argument is at best one on principle, alone. In reality, the evidence is not there that becoming a republic would make the UK any more democratic.
The Argument of Meritocracy
This argument goes something like this: if we claim to be a meritocracy, we cannot have a head of state who is appointed by birth rather than by virtue of their achievements. I have two issues with this argument. The first relates to the presumption that acquisition of office through competitive popularity is a trait our head of state would benefit from, and the implied assumption therein that democracy = meritocracy. By using the Monarch as a gauge of meritocracy, or lack therein, it can be assumed that a republican would argue that an elected head-of-state will have been elected by popular vote as they are the most “meritorious” of the candidates. Therefore, from that perspective, popularity = merit. Immediately, anybody can see a problem with this logic. We do not select candidates in a democracy based on competitive examination or by their CV, but rather by popularity. I am sure everybody can think of somebody in high office who they personally think cannot possibly be there by merit and merit alone. Why then, would an elected head of state be any different? They would not. In fact, they would just be another divisive political figure with views which appease one portion of the population and inflame another. The job of the Monarch is to unify the country, after all. They are in then unique position of having had political neutrality impressed upon them from birth. You will never have that from a political figure, and thus they will never have the capacity to be as unifying.
The starkest differences between the Monarch and an elected politician can be summed up in the juxtaposition of a masked Queen sat alone at her husband’s funeral showing true empathy and leadership, while the Prime Ministers’ Office were holding parties against the very rules they had set out to the public.
The second point relates to a far more important indicator of meritocracy: UK society. The best way to measure a society’s meritocratic extent, is by social mobility. Simply put, social mobility is the measure of how easily a given citizen within a society can move between social strata. For example, in a country with theoretically ideal social mobility, a child from a poorer working class family would have just as good a chance at becoming Prime Minister or a CEO as a child from a rich, well-connected family. In 2020, the World Economic Forum published their Social Mobility Index. This compares 82 benchmark countries based on social mobility. This is not dissimilar to the democracy index cited in the previous section. The top five ranking countries for social mobility from the top down, and therefore the top five meritocracies, are: Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden and Iceland. As before, three of these five are constitutional monarchies like the UK. The Netherlands, Belgium, the UK and Spain come in at 6, 8, 21 and 28 out of 82 respectively. Of these monarchies, the USA scores higher only than Spain at 27, and France just beats Spain and the UK at 12. There are no monarchies of any kind in the bottom 5 scoring countries. Only republics. A link to the index can be found here:
The UK has had two female heads of government and three female heads of state since the Act of the Union. France has had only one female head of government and no female heads of state since becoming a republic. The USA has had none of either. Ever. More anecdotally, but still of interest, is that he current Chancellor of the Exchequer is of Afro-Indian descent. Additionally, the current Mayor of London (the world’s second financial capital alongside NYC) was born to a bus driver and a seamstress in humble, but no less worthwhile, circumstances. We come back to the same issue we had with the argument for democracy. Republics are no better for social mobility or any more meritocratic than constitutional monarchies. This argument, as with the argument for democracy, implies that becoming a republic is a panacea for problems which evidence overwhelmingly shows constitutional monarchies are disproportionately effective at tackling. Once again: having an elected head of state has not prevented issues of social mobility for republics, and the Monarch has not created these issues for the UK. Therefore, the meritocratic argument is at best one on principle, alone. In reality, there is no evidence that becoming a republic would make the UK any more meritocratic.
The Argument of Cost
This argument is likely to be the most difficult to discuss, as it depends entirely on one’s personal assessment of the value for money the Monarchy is able to provide. The Sovereign Grant is a good place to start and its accounts show that, for the 2020–2021 financial year, the Monarchy cost £85.9million to the British taxpayer which equates to £1.29 over the course of a year per person. See the link below for the financial reports
Starting with this figure, the question becomes whether the British people feel they are getting their £1.29 per year’s worth. This is something for people to make their own minds up about. However, aside from the positive aspects of the neutral figurehead incumbent in Monarchy alluded to in The Argument of Meritocracy section, there are further financial aspects to consider. I will give both perspectives sides airtime.
The Republic UK movement claims that the monarchy costs £350million to the British people. I do not need to spell out that Republic UK are approaching the matter with a degree of some bias. Quite aside from that, they come with this estimated figure based on costs incurred by local authorities and police forces whenever a royal visit is made to an area. This rapidly comes undone when you consider than an elected head of state would incur exactly the same costs when they make visits. In fact, the Presidency of France cost around £87million in 2017 according to Statista (link below), a business data platform. This is a very similar figure to the most recent Sovereign Gant. Of course, an elected head of state is one person, where as the UK has a whole family of royals and this no doubt elevates costs. However, HRH Prince Charles has made it very clear that, once he is King, his ambitions are for a stripped down monarchy with fewer privileges for minor royals. He wants to cut costs. Republic UK also claim that the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, from which the royals draw private income and to which they incorrectly attribute a “cost” incurred by the taxpayer “belong to the nation”. These are privately owned by the Queen and the Prince of Wales and are not publicly owned, so that statement is entirely false. You can find their argument here:
Some argue that the Monarchy brings wealth into the economy by drawing tourists. Often these figures are estimates, but are worth considering. An independent financial report into the Monarchy and its financial impact on the UK economy was released in 2017 by Brand Finance. It found the Monarchy in a very positive financial light. This estimate was carried out by an expert Brand Valuation Consultancy rather than a Republican movement and therefore has more credence. The Monarchy is not a business, and nor should it be seen as one, but Brand Finance are able to offer certain financial insights by evaluating it as one. The link can be seen below, but some key claims in the report are:
- In 2017 the tourism sector was uplifted by £550Million due to the Monarchy.
- Royal Warrants and coats of arms uplifts the profile of around 800 brands, mostly in the UK.
- Royal patronage is uniquely situated to raise the profile of certain businesses, causes and events.
- It costs the British taxpayer a “very low expense” at only £4.50 per person, per year, or just over 1p per day. (This latter point include expenses outside the Sovereign Grant such as those mentioned by Republic UK).
As stated, whether the Monarch is worth the cost is an individual judgement, but I do believe that this will have demonstrated that being a becoming a republic would not pay any significant quantity of literal financial dividends to the taxpayer.
Conclusion
Becoming a republic would be a long, weary and costly process. It would inevitably involve a referendum to decide, which would divide post-Brexit Britain yet further. The process of drawing up an amended constitution would take up immense amounts of parliamentary time to get right. There would then be elections for an extra political figure, whose job would be to unite the country. As this is an election they will have to contend and they will put their case to the people. Some will vote for and some against. This will result in another layer of divisions of the kind that are already aflame in the UK, divisions which are to be avoided wherever possible — a topic for another article, maybe. At the end of this, will the UK be more democratic because of it? The evidence says no. Will the UK be more meritocratic because of it? The evidence says no. Will this have saved the British taxpayer their just over 1p per day? No, because they are now paying for a president instead, a president many of them do not even like. That is not to say it could not or should not be done, if the people wish it then it should be so, that is to say that the being a republic will not improve the lives of the UK’s citizens. If anything, it will distract from the good governance of the country.
