Opinion:
It’s time to end the monarchy. Of course, it was an archaic system during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, but since the monarch no longer had any actual political power, she wisely used her position to change an empire into a commonwealth of nations, to increase the charitable presence of the monarchy, and to influence those who did have political power. And because she was a deeply respected individual who did her work calmly and quietly, she was listened to by many of those in positions of responsibility. After she passed, for instance, I heard at least four politicians speak of her influence in defeating apartheid in South Africa. For someone who was not supposed to be seen as a political force, she certainly made herself heard, but did so discreetly.
The Queen’s passing has certainly signaled the end of an era and yes, things have changed. Had the monarchy passed to Princess Anne, for instance, who holds patronage over more than 300 charities and actively participates in several of them, including Save the Children, there may have been a smoother transition. But the position is hereditary to the eldest child and while Charles is also a huge charity patron and is expert on contemporary matters, such as climate change, he seems also to be a controversial figure. More controversy accompanies his heir, since difficult family matters are not being handled with grace and calm, but rather with competitive and rather unpleasant turmoil. It seems clear that influence has been abused to sic the twisted pseudo press onto some members of the family, with a small knot of active haters attempting to orchestrate their downfall. What has been happening is seen by some as shaming the memory of a decent, dignified and very private Queen.
So clearly, the monarchy has outlived its usefulness. It is an antiquated institution that, without the guidance of the Queen, is apparently destined to sink into a quagmire of toxic misuse. This is the stuff of ancient sovereigns and why power was gradually taken away over time. Tourism has been one reason to keep the institution alive, but those castles and palaces owned by the state can still be open for tourist traffic without any royals living there. The royals will just have to move into their own properties, such as Balmoral and Kensington Palace. And the red-coated guards with whom tourists like to be photographed can certainly be maintained in sufficient numbers to satisfy that need. Souvenir shops can continue to carry mementos of the Queen as the last and longest living monarch in British history. Tourist bus tours of castles and cathedrals need not stop.
Of course, the separation of state and monarchy still won’t be easy. There are properties and their incomes to be divided up in fairness to the people of Britain. Historically, many treasures were come by dishonestly and should be retained by the people. Similarly, the generous tax breaks accorded the royals need to be stopped so they pay the same taxes as everyone else. There will likely be long drawn-out litigation to divvy up the resources, and many of their PR duties will have to be dispensed with or assigned to non-royals in some juicy employment opportunities. Lawyers will no doubt do very well in all this. The Commonwealth, however, will best be served to start now to make the necessary political adjustments to facilitate the end of the monarchy and set us on a fresh path, with our head of government being elected by the people. It’s time.
