by Owen Carter

Created on: October 31, 2009

The abolition of the British monarchy: a mainstay of popular radicalism that resonates even in the present day. Given the gradual erosion of the Royal Prerogative, and the extent to which powers traditionally vested in the Monarch now lie in the hands of the Prime Minister, is this old cry still relevant, and can it really be justified in terms of popular benefit?

Sceptics tend to point to the impotence of the monarchy as justification for preserving it. Whilst the monarch remains our nominal head of state, the function is largely ceremonial, and it is instead as a guarantee of international tourism, promoters of charitable causes and as advocates of public interest that the royal institution should be preserved. After all, they cry, what sense is there in destroying something so weak? Surely the issue is a trivial one when compared with the highly pressing topics of today? The perpetuation of the old adage - "if it ain't broke..." - tends to make for a difficult argument. There are, however, some contentious points that these champions of tradition largely gloss over.

First and foremost of these is the symbolic value of a monarchy. Whilst this is frequently utilised as an argument for conserving it, that is missing the point - the root of a monarchy always lies in the assumption that one personage or family is in some way elevated from common humanity, and so is entitled to rule over it. In this day and age, surely it is manifestly obvious that an accident of birth does not ensure one's capability to rule? In which case, all relics of this repugnant ideology should be expunged from the British political system. Whatever the practical limitations on the sovereignty of the crown, its existence in itself should surely offend anyone who aspires towards progressive thought.

An argument frequently made for preserving the monarchy is the issue of tourism. The existence of a monarchy in Britain makes it unique to many other European countries, and so the argument runs, therefore encourages people to visit this antiquated - and thus rather charming - institution. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it is not the monarchy itself they come to see, but the institutions of that same monarchy. This is an important distinction to make. Certainly, very few advocate the complete destruction of all the relics of monarchy - namely the palaces and treasures - and so to simply relieve the monarch of their title as head of state would have no pernicious effect on tourism. Indeed,

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>