Debating the monarchy's relevance, reform and public accountability in modern Britain

[LipglossAndLies]

Welcome to this thread! 👋 I am hoping it provides a dedicated space to discuss and debate the relevance, utility, and future of the institution of monarchy in modern times.

To help make this a welcoming space for genuine discussion, I would like to encourage everyone to follow a few simple guidelines:

💬 Respectful Challenge, Not Nastiness: let's keep the focus entirely on the ideas, not the people posting them.

👀 Focus on the roles, not the people: This thread is about governance, constitutional law, economics, and the function of a head of state. I think it would help to use the official roles and not personal names to keep the conversation completely agnostic.

🙏 Gossip free: Please avoid discussing personal family drama, media feuds, or the private lives of individual family members. There are plenty of other threads for that!

💁‍♀️ Report or ignore: If you feel someone is not commenting in good faith, or is trying to provoke a hostile reaction as it will help keep the conversation on track.

To kick off the debate, for me I would think its time for significant structural reform. Recent years have highlighted major blind spots in how official state roles such as official trade or investment envoy appointments are handed out, funded, and scrutinised by the public. When individuals holding these titles face serious scrutiny over their expenses, or how they utilise state-backed influence, it reflects heavily on the entire institution.

If the monarchy is to survive in modern times, it needs to move past a culture of internal deference and accept rigorous financial oversight, auditing, and transparency as any other government body receiving taxpayers money.

Thanks for the thread

I’d add that the Windsors need to be fully subject to the law- all laws, no exceptions . The current medieval system needs to be removed.

Apart from tax, which definitely has a few odd loopholes, what laws are they not subject to? Thanks

Thanks for this thread.

I fully agree if the monarchy is to continue it's going to need to become far more transparent both in finances and in what they are actually doing each day.

No more being left to speculate about whether they might be engaged in productive work for the country or are instead topping up their personal coffers.

I'd also like to see the Duchies rolled into the Crown estate and a return to a fixed sum and robustly debated Civil List.

Focus on the roles, not the people: This thread is about governance, constitutional law, economics, and the function of a head of state.

And literally the first reply goes straight for "the windsors"

I like your idea of streamlining everything. The current setup, where private incomes are drawn from the Duchies, feels overly complex and messy. There are definitely European monarchies with modern funding models that the UK could learn from.

For instance, I think the legal rule around bona vacantia where property or assets with no owner or clear heir automatically pass to the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster is long overdue for change. In the rest of the UK, ownerless property goes to the Treasury. I would much prefer to see all bona vacantia hand-offs go directly to the government instead, so the revenue directly benefits the taxpayer.

Thanks for the thread @LipglossAndLies.

The King, as monarch, is the source of justice under our constitution.
He is exempt from statute in the UK unless specifically included* ('the Crown is not bound by statute save by express words or necessary implication').

All other members of the Royal Family are subject to all other laws.

*Of note, since 2010 this has not been the case for Acts of the Scottish Parliament, and since 2020 for Acts of the Senedd.

Parliamentary briefing which may be helpful for this thread
Crown and Constitution

Im not going to police this rigidly I just hope people understand my point is not to get into William doesn't do engagemrnts he is lazy. Instead as best possible lets talk about what acitivites should a King, the heir, the spare do (if at all). Because the actual person in that role does change.

I don't think it will be possible to completely avoid it but best endeavours 😁

So you introduce the concept of 'William is lazy'... totally contradicting your initial claim of what the thread is about

Indeed.

Indeed.

My opinion - I think the British monarchy is an outdated institution that has no convincing place in a modern, democratic UK. It rests on inherited status and privilege rather than merit, achievement or democracy. I don’t believe anyone should be treated as inherently deserving of deference simply because of the family they were born into.
It offers nothing of value to society other than highlighting a deeply unequal system of inherited wealth and privilege. I don’t think its traditional status should automatically command respect, and I certainly don’t think ordinary people have any obligation to defer to members of the royal family.

Respect should be earned through someone’s actions and character, not inherited through a title. For me, that is one of the clearest reasons why the monarchy feels increasingly out of step with a modern Britain.

@YouSawBrigadoon I completely agree with you.

I see. So this is the aim.

👀 Focus on the roles, not the people: This thread is about governance, constitutional law, economics, and the function of a head of state. I think it would help to use the official roles and not personal names to keep the conversation completely agnostic.

And yet you, within three posts, went in with

“I just hope people understand my point is not to get into William doesn't do engagemrnts he is lazy.”

I think I understand.

So how does a statement like that ‘help’ how you stated you wanted the thread to trundle along?

Genuinely. It just seems like a contradiction to me and as long as folk go under the blanket to offer it as an example, folk can squeeze in any old shit they like.

Meritocracy and democracy may be great in theory, but have deep, deep flaws in the real world. Not least corruption by money.

IMHO, there is a lot to be said for a hereditary head-of-state, because it stops the role becoming an elected presidency. It is a place-filling role to stop a worst alternative. Just a shame for the poor sods born into it, although they can opt out by abdication.

Equally, I believe there is a huge (massively huge) advantage to the HoL being unelected. Who want a second chamber full of more elected career politicians? One of the reasons given against abolition of the monarchy is that it would trigger a house-of-cards tumbling and you would have to do the Lords and a great deal of other legislative reform at the same time (don't know if that is true).

But I do thing the monarchy needs massive reform - particularly the duchies as mentioned upthread.

Handy as well saying that the thread wasn’t going to be policed rigidly by you and then go on to put in that little comment.

Very handy indeed.

I think the immediate thing we need to remove is the culture of deference infecting our institutions. Parliament should be scrutinising the Monarchy's finances far more closely and questioning far more frequently whether a family with 2 billionnaires should have £££ on top to do duties. Some, maybe for expenses but the amount seems excessive and has gone up by something like 40% in 2 years. Why? If they ask for exemptions from the Law ( which the Monarch and PoW can and do) they should have to request it to Parliament, with justification. Apart from arguably the Monarch who has a Constitutional role, the rest of them should not be allowed to hide their wills.
I think they, the cost of them, their properties and their titles should all be severely reduced. No grandchildren of the Monarch should have Prince/Princess titles unless they are the children of the heir. Only the Monarch, the heir and spouses should be expected to have full time Royal duties, and none before they have finished full time education ( University/training etc).

I like to see the British Monarchy as a kind of caricature of a life goal.

If I work hard enough I can generate enough wealth that generations of my family (if they are clever enough to hold on to it) can live a life of luxury above the daily grind of every day life.

This encourages me to work harder which benefits society in my paid taxes as well as the wealth distribution through the people I employ through my businesses, as a customer in many other businesses and by hiring contractors.

It's a vast subject. I'll make a brief, general, contribution but it barely touches the surface; like everything that grew up over centuries it's going to take at least decades to change.

Whilst I remain a constitutional monarchist I do believe that there needs to be financial transparency and clear expectations of the monarch, the heir and the interplay of family vs institution. None of that is going to be achieved quickly but that doesn't mean it can't happen. The biggest problem I see at the moment is the failure of our politicians to ensure rigorous oversight of even the rules that are currently in place. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Treasury, all those who technically oversee the finances of the Crown Estate and the Royal Duchies need to actually provide oversight rather than pretend that they are powerless in the face of the King, or the palace or whoever they are currently blaming.

The long reign of the late Queen led, imo, to an unhealthy deference in the parts of the establishment that are meant to provide checks and balances to the monarchy. They behave as if the King is an absolute monarch and he isn't. We need to call the palace to account for the things they are doing that we want changed, but we also need to make the establishment take responsibility for their part too. There is no point is achieving financial transparency if the government is going to continue to pretend it doesn't have power over the monarch.

Forgot to add. I do believe that a constitutional monarchy, as opposed to an elected Head of State, working alongside the Government and an independent judiciary, does provide a certain stability to the life of the nation. There are alternatives of course but at this point I'm not sure the upheaval and financial cost is worth it. I'd rather fix the system we have than enter into an expensive decades long debate about how to completely change it, with no guarantee we'll end up with anything better. It certainly won't be fairer, whatever the system

This has already been answered to some extent ( and not being legally obliged to pay tax is ridiculous) but there are around 160 laws that Charles - and his estates and household operations - are exempt from. William is also exempt from tax laws ( he offers a self selected amount but it has been estimated to be much less than it would be if he was subject to the law )
link below. BTW these exemptions were covered up and the guardian spent 10 years fighting through the courts to reveal this . This links to the undue deference that posters have mentioned above .

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immunity-british-laws-private-property

You’ll see in that article that the police cannot enter some Windsor properties without permission. This was why Andrew was rushed to Balmoral .
It’s all relevant .

But how does their existence encourage you to work harder? If anything, it highlights the opposite principle: that in Britain, your starting position can still be determined enormously by the circumstances of your birth.

The royal family have been born into wealth, privilege and status, and all of that advantage is inherited rather than earned. Inherited status isn’t an achievement.

@YouSawBrigadoon

Yes there is a strong argument that unelected

privilege sends the wrong message .
It’s a dead hand on progress and innovation.
The UK is struggling and I’d argue that the Windsors in their robes and gaudy golden coach trigger dissonance and make the UK look foolish and backward .

I’d be happy to start with having us all equal under the law. All laws .

Because once I get there I keep it for future generations.

I am not working for me, but for my Children and their Children. So they can be useless and rich if they choose.

Edited to add

I despise hefty inheritance tax. I have worked bloody hard for my money, I pay tax on it as I earn it, as I spend it and as I save it. What is left when I go I want to give to my children, without being taxed again.

Well the monarch does not pay inheritance tax . Just the rest of us .