Crown or Country? Why Britain Must Rethink the Monarchy
Dr Adam North discusses why it's time for Britain to move into the modern era.
Anyone who knows me knows I’ve never been a fan of the monarchy. Now, I want to explain why — and what I believe the UK should do next.
The British Royal Family has long been seen as a bedrock of continuity, tradition, and national identity. Yet, in a modern democracy where equality, transparency, and accountability are fundamental to many of our deeply held beliefs and values, the continued existence of a hereditary monarchy is a contradiction. The time has come for the UK to have a serious consideration whether it still wants a monarchy, and eventually let the people decide through a national referendum.
1. Democracy and Hereditary Privilege Are Incompatible
At the heart of the UK’s political culture lies a commitment to democracy. Parliament is elected, laws are debated, and public officials are held accountable (although not as often as we’d like). The monarchy, however, is the ultimate symbol of inherited privilege. The idea that the head of state should be determined by birth, not merit or choice, is at odds with our fundamental principles of equality and fairness.
By maintaining a monarchy, the UK implicitly endorses a social hierarchy where one family enjoys status, immense wealth, unique legal protections, and public and political influence solely due to birth right. Do we want to continue to accept this as a social and constitutional reality?
2. Lack of Accountability and Transparency
Unlike elected officials, members of the Royal Family are not held to the same standards of transparency. While their funding is sometimes scrutinised, the Royal Household is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. This means the public has limited insight into how royal finances are managed, how decisions are made, and the true cost of maintaining the monarchy.
This secrecy erodes public trust. In an era where we should demand transparency from even the smallest public institutions, the royals’ choice to hide the truth is indefensible and immoral.
3. Cost to the Taxpayer
Defenders of the monarchy argue that it brings in more money through tourism and public interest than it costs to maintain. Many tourists visit the UK for its rich culture and history, not for the royals. If tourists did visit just to see the royals, then we should be ashamed of our lack of cultural identity and work to change this reality. Defenders of the monarchy often claim it generates more money than it costs, primarily through tourism and global public interest. But this argument doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Most visitors come to the UK for its rich culture, historic sites, and museums — not to catch a glimpse of the royal family. In fact, places like Buckingham Palace would likely remain major attractions even without a monarchy, much like Versailles in France or Schönbrunn Palace in Austria. If our tourism appeal depends on a hereditary institution rather than the strength of our national culture, that’s a deeper issue we need to address.
The Sovereign Grant and other royal expenditures amount to hundreds of millions of pounds annually — money that could instead be used to support public services, tackle poverty, or invest in communities. In a cost-of-living crisis, the public has a right to ask whether funding royal ceremonies is the best use of public money.
Additionally, the Royal Family benefits from special tax exemptions. For instance, the royals pay no inheritance tax. Under normal UK law, inheritance tax is set at 40% on estates above £325,000. If this rate had applied, the tax bill on the Duchy of Lancaster alone would have been approximately £260 million (40% of £650 million). In a country where ordinary families face steep inheritance taxes, council tax hikes, and squeezed wages, it’s fair to ask: does this feel just?
4. Scandals and Reputational Damage
In recent years, the Royal Family has been plagued by scandals — from Prince Andrew’s association with Jeffrey Epstein to public allegations of racism and dysfunction from Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. These controversies have drawn global attention and harmed the UK’s reputation.
Rather than serving as a unifying institution, the monarchy has become another source of division. It increasingly appears out of touch with the values and realities of modern Britain, especially among younger generations who are more diverse, progressive, and sceptical of inherited power.
5. The Case for a Referendum
Abolishing the monarchy would be a profound constitutional change, and it should not be taken lightly. But the people deserve to have their say. A referendum would allow a national conversation on what kind of state Britain wants to be — and to put forward a new vision of the future. It would give legitimacy to whatever outcome emerges, whether it be the continuation of a reformed monarchy or the beginning of a republic.
This is not about disrespecting history or denying tradition. It’s about asking whether those traditions still serve the nation’s best interests. Other nations — such as Ireland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Finland — thrive as republics with ceremonial presidents instead of monarchs. There’s no reason the UK couldn’t do the same, if that’s what the public chooses.
6. The Benefits of Having a President
A republic would allow us to choose our head of state. Instead of a position defined by aristocratic bloodlines and colonial legacy, we could elect someone who represents our democratic values and modern identity.
Presidential republics are not without flaws — but they offer something the monarchy never can: choice. That alone is a powerful democratic principle.
Conclusion
The UK stands at a crossroads. As it grapples with economic pressures, social change, and questions about its identity in the post-Brexit era, it must also confront the role of the monarchy. A mature democracy should not be afraid to re-examine its institutions and its cultural legacy.
Whether you support or oppose the monarchy, one thing is clear: the status quo should not be taken for granted. In an intelligent, kind democracy — which I believe the UK can be — no institution should be immune from scrutiny or reform.
It’s time to democratise the debate. Let the people decide.
If you’re interested in learning more or supporting this conversation, visit Republic.org.uk, the campaign for a democratic alternative to the monarchy.
Hi & thank you for the comment.
While I agree with you that the UK having a first-past-the-post voting system which creates a two party system can seem unfair, I believe - and I don’t want this to come across as rude- you are fundamentally missing the point here.
Since we are talking about democracy here in general, I will ignore the fact that the royal family have shielded an accused paedophile from any kind of prosecution, (enough reason to see the back of them for me) there are examples of better forms of democracy abroad and the continued presence of the royal family prevents us from adopting these systems.
Take France’s presidential system for example, it works with both a President and Prime Minister which actually increases the power of your vote and - in most cases - are more representative of the electorate, leading to stronger democratic foundations. Many countries in the world consider the UK’s form of government antiquated and in America - worst of all - the patronising adjective of ‘cute’ is attached.
However in the UK, the reason why you may feel that our democracy is unfair is because our head of state is - like you say - a narrow elite.
To even suggest that the people’s vote is ‘less equitable than a true monarchy’ is bizarre. I’d recommend more reading about electoral systems and the benefits of a proportional representative system.
Democracy is often seen as fair, but in practice, it's less equitable than a true monarchy. In a democracy, particularly in majoritarian systems, the will of the 51% dominates the 49%—and in cases like the UK, it's often closer to 30% ruling over the rest due to voter turnout and electoral mechanics. This gives a numerical majority disproportionate power to impose its will on minority groups.
In contrast, a monarchy—while seemingly authoritarian—is structurally more vulnerable, as its legitimacy and continuity rest on a single family or a narrow elite. This fragility means that even small, determined minority groups can exert significant influence or even overthrow a monarch. Historically, this dynamic gave local or cultural groups, like Cornwall, the leverage to maintain quasi-autonomy for extended periods—something much harder to achieve under centralised democratic governance.
Paradoxically, this makes monarchy more responsive to minority pressures than democracy. Tyrants in monarchies are often deposed or pressured by popular resistance. In democracies, however, the system tends to entrench the majority’s power, making it harder for marginalised voices to effect real change.
This is why the Magna Carta (or the Charter of the Forest) is not pro-people but actually pro-elite.