How secure is our monarchy? While the late Queen was alive, there was no doubt about the answer: the overwhelming majority of Britons believed that the monarchy was the main factor in our ‘Kingdom’ being ‘United’.
After all, we are a deeply divided country. Many Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish resent the Westminster government, as well as the London ethos and economic bias of our society.
But the King is a wonderful antidote to this. It is true that Buckingham Palace is in London, but the King speaks Welsh. His Prince’s Trust helped revitalize many deprived areas of Britain.
And his love of Scotland, the country where he went to school and has a home, Birkhall, on the Balmoral estate, is palpably obvious. No politician has such reach or has met so many different types of people.
When we heard the choir’s hymn after the King laid a wreath at the Cenotaph this month, many of us must have felt the words, ‘Under the shadow of your throne, your saints have dwelt safely’, applied not only to our religious hopes but also our political opinions.
But now the opposite point of view is gaining strength. During the reign of the last queen, republicanism as a serious political discourse did not really exist. However, in recent weeks we have seen well-funded and well-organized expressions of republicanism by intelligent people trying to abolish the monarchy.
We should take them seriously because, despite the monarchy’s strengths, embodied in King Charles, the institution is not as stable as my initial comments might have implied.
Earlier this month, the Sunday Times and Channel 4 Dispatches program investigated the finances of the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which provide huge personal and private incomes to the King and Prince of Wales.
This month’s Channel 4 Dispatches found that several beloved institutions are having to pay rent to royal dukedoms, including the NHS.
Crowds line the shopping center to celebrate King Charles’ birthday at Trooping the Color in June
It discovered that several beloved institutions have to pay rent to royal dukedoms, including the NHS. Many Britons consider the health service sacred, even more so than the Crown.
And yet it is being charged a huge sum – £11.4m over 15 years, no less – to rent a warehouse for vital ambulances.
Despite having the patronage of the King himself, the RNLI also pays £600 a year to use the duchy’s beaches for six of its lifeboat stations. And that’s not to mention the charities – including Macmillan, Comic Relief and Marie Curie – who paid prodigious rents to use an office block in London.
This is a huge conflict of interest that cannot be easily resolved and, unfortunately, is a problem created by the Royal Family itself.
In 1837, politicians begged the young Queen Victoria not to pocket the huge profits from the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster, but to put them into the public purse.
She refused and became the richest woman in the world thanks to the income she received from lands such as Liverpool Docks and the Yorkshire spa town of Harrogate. She then bought the Sandringham estate and built Balmoral Castle, placing her and her family firmly in the ranks of the super-rich. As Prince of Wales, Charles agreed to pay some taxes on the dukedoms, but has always had a blind spot about the disastrous legacy left by Victoria.
During the Queen’s reign, AN WILSON writes, republicanism as a serious political discourse did not really exist.
Until his reign, monarchs depended on Parliament for most of their money, which came through the Civil List. Although they lived in palaces and castles, these were no more theirs than the Vatican is the private fiefdom of the Popes. However, the reforms introduced by Victoria paved the way for the monarchy to preserve private wealth.
It seems that the King has stubbornly continued to do this, and William shows no signs of being any different. This fact alone makes them seem little more than what they are (in a private capacity): not representatives of national unity but members of the super-rich club, along with large landowners and international billionaires.
These things really matter for those of us who treasure the monarchy and feel gratitude towards those royals who have kept the show going.
Last week, campaign group Led By Donkeys (whose targets include the Conservative Party and Elon Musk) launched an online protest in response to the Dispatches investigation. After writing “Charles, stop fleecing Britain” in the sand on a Cornish beach, the group photographed them from the air and sent an image of the slogan to countless phones.
All of this happened at a time when Prince William, on a visit to Northern Ireland, was interrupted by crowds of pro-Palestinian protesters.
Aware that it would be a disaster if he or the King ventured into the incendiary area of Middle East politics, William has followed a cautious line, professing deep sorrow for the plight of refugees and civilian casualties in Gaza. But it is unthinkable that crowds of any political persuasion would have shouted at the late Queen, particularly in ultra-loyal Northern Ireland.
AN WILSON points out that, at present, the monarchy arguably appears strong. However, three of its key pillars – the king, Queen Camilla and the Princess of Wales – have battled illnesses over the past year.
She was so amazed that when she bravely held out her hand to IRA officer Martin McGuinness, he smiled sheepishly and bowed as if he were a royalist.
But of course the entire republican cause in Northern Ireland is based on the idea that – north and south of the border – the monarchy will be dismissed.
The people of Wales, except for the most ardent cottage enthusiasts and members of the Free Welsh Army, sympathized with Prince Charles when he attempted to learn Welsh at Aberystwyth University. But William has made no such overtures to the principality and it is not difficult to imagine Welsh Labor voters, as well as Plaid Cymru, becoming broadly republican.
What about England? One of the things that made the monarch seem part of the English fabric was the Church, of which the King is Supreme Governor. The shameful resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury has left the CofE in tatters and Prince William makes no secret of the fact that he is not particularly religious.
Meanwhile, in Westminster, Keir Starmer is abolishing the right of the few remaining hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. Apart from the monarchy, there is no area of national or political life where the hereditary principle seems to apply anymore. In such a context, the republican argument – that it is absurd for a head of state to be the product of an accident of birth – seems stronger than ever.
When the King and Queen Camilla went to Australia, they were booed in Parliament by a woman who wanted greater recognition of Aboriginal rights. This kind of thing never happened when the late Queen was still alive.
So we monarchists feel nervous. Nowadays, yes, you could say that the monarchy seems strong. However, three of its key pillars – the king, Queen Camilla and the Princess of Wales – have battled illnesses over the past year.
We appreciate you and wish you the best. But… no one wants to write these words: imagine a Royal Family with Charles, Camilla and Kate removed from the scene. How strong would everything look then?