Back in 2021 I wrote two posts, one on the Monarchy and one on the Commonwealth, just clarifying and demystifying both subjects, because they are both widely misunderstood and spoken of in overly generalised terms, and I’m so tired of it. Four years on from those initial posts (not the first on those subjects!), I am far from an expert in this subject, but am still learning about the Monarchy, for two reasons: the country I am from (Canada) and the country I live in (the UK) are both constitutional monarchies, so it behooves me to know how their very similar governments work; also, if you are going to be in favour of something, I think it’s generally sensible to know something about it and support it in an informed way, rather than just blindly. I want to be better at defending the Monarchy, and the Commonwealth as well, when people speak up against them. I shouldn’t need to be doing any defending, but here we are.
The point of this post is twofold: first, to update that 2021 post, written in the reign of Elizabeth II and therefore in definite need of an update, and, second, as with anything I write about the monarchy and Commonwealth, to just give you something to think about. While updates do need to be made, much of what I said in the old version of this post remains true, so some of it will sound essentially the same. And, it is worth clarifying, I speak for the institution of monarchy only in the British and Canadian contexts, and as with the Commonwealth post (an updated version of which is coming imminently), we’ll structure this around common objections I hear. They are largely the same objections as 2021, with one slight change.
‘It’s an unelected government’ – Not quite so. If you live in the UK, or Canada, for instance, you have an elected government. You get to vote for your parliamentary representatives. The head of state (i.e. the monarch) is a hereditary role and therefore not elected, but the head of government is elected. The King holds a different role as head of state. The head of state is also not meant to be directly involved in politics; they are a bit like the glue that holds the structure of government together, and only intervene in very exceptional circumstances. It’s not like the Monarchy is some sort of dictatorship, and it is certainly not tyrannical, which was a description I once heard: consider what tyranny actually means – government by one person who acts for their own benefit and without taking any advice – and how this does not describe the Monarchy anywhere remotely…in fact, constitutional monarchy is specifically designed not to be tyrannical… In addition, the institution of monarchy has historically adapted with the times, while still maintaining a sense of continuity, so the argument that it is somehow an outdated institution does not hold up.
‘It’s expensive/taxpayer funded’ – It is, in part, taxpayer-funded, and yes, it might look expensive, but apparently not as expensive as other forms of government. Have a look at the sources linked in the further reading, which break down the cost of the monarchy in Canada and in the UK. The Canadian one discusses what the money is actually spent on, which is interesting, and compares the Monarchy with other institutions, like the House of Commons in Ottawa, and the CBC, both of which are more expensive than the Crown. In Canada at the time of writing, the cost of the Monarchy is $1.61 per person. In the UK it is £1.29, and this money is largely for the upkeep of the historic buildings associated with the monarchy and for supporting the King’s official duties as head of state. The Canadian taxpayer only pays for the King’s role in the Canadian context: we don’t pay for anything to do with his residences in the UK. We pay for things like the maintenance of the Government Houses for the vice-regal representatives in each province (historic buildings which would be maintained anyway), for when the King is physically in Canada as our head of state, such as when his Majesty opened Parliament this year – because there are always costs associated with hosting a visiting head of state, even if they are ours – and for the work of the Governor General, who is the King’s representative in Canada. It’s not like that money is all just the King’s pocket money.
A related criticism is of how rich the royal family are: yes, they are very wealthy people, but I’m not sure that ‘the Royal Family are rich therefore I do not like them’ is a very constructive criticism. And it is not like the King and the senior members of his family sit around and do nothing: think about the role of head of state, of politically neutral figurehead on a global, Commonwealth, scale, and all of the engagements the King has successfully carried out, not just as King but in his long-held role as Prince of Wales; think of how the late Queen Elizabeth II fulfilled her role for seventy years, up until she was 96. Other jobs are obviously far more difficult, of course, but that doesn’t mean that the role of Sovereign is just a sinecure, so the argument that the Monarchy is somehow sponging off of society does not quite add up.
In Canada, you might hear the complaint that the Monarchy is some foreign institution: no, my compatriots, it is not. His Majesty’s role as ‘King of Canada’ is separate from his role as King of the United Kingdom, or of Australia, or of New Zealand, or of [insert Commonwealth Realm here]. He may be physically based in the UK, but he is our King every bit as much as he is the King of each of the other Commonwealth Realms.
The number of people who made such a fuss about not wanting Charles to be King, and the number of people who continue to say some pretty horrible things about Queen Camilla, is very tiresome. People are so hung up on Diana. Let it go. It was a sad situation, but Charles is the King now, because that’s how the succession works, Camilla is doing an excellent job as queen, and that is the way things are. The Monarchy, as I once heard it masterfully described, is not a popularity contest. While there might be some admirable individuals, it is about the institution rather than its individual members. People also have an ignorant tendency to seize on one negative thing, one person who slipped up, and use that to criticise the entire concept of monarchy and completely ignore any good things it has done, or, in this case, not be able to see past what could have been and instead be bitter about how things have turned out. Also I would like to mention that when protestors showed up to the King’s visit to York in 2023, spouting their ‘not my king’ nonsense, the Minster bells drowned out their chanting. Make of that what you will.
‘Monarchists are either just royal watchers, or rich old conservatives’ – This is a huge generalisation. Sure, it was all terribly exciting when Elizabeth II drove past my family and I during a visit to Edinburgh, and you bet I went down to the BC Legislature when the then Prince Charles and Duchess of Cornwall visited Victoria; it was all very exciting. And when the King and Queen shook my hand during their visit to York in 2023, I felt like I could conquer the world. But these were not mere celebrity encounters: I support the institution of monarchy itself, and the stability, unity, and continuity it provides, and that, for me, was why these moments were so thrilling. I’m not keen, therefore, on terms like ‘royal fan’, ‘royal watcher’, etc; they are very superficial, and reduce even senior members of the Royal Family down to celebrities. And yes, many political conservatives support the Monarchy. But I’m not one of those people. You can support the institution of monarchy and not be politically conservative in other areas. Living in a tolerant, fair, society is not incompatible with living in a constitutional monarchy: we can favour stability and common sense over extremes. I think of this as ‘the middle way’ and it needs its own post, I think.
Having said all of this, what alternative to constitutional monarchy would you propose, and would that actually be any better? The Monarch is politically neutral, so we have a head of state who stands above all of the political change, someone who is a focus for continuity and unity in a way an elected head of government would not be. The King is head of the Church of England as well, but that shouldn’t put you off either: just because he is associated with a particular branch of a particular religion, does not mean that he cannot represent the freedom to follow other faiths, or none, and in fact, the King is very committed to doing exactly that.
What problem do anti-monarchists think they are trying to solve? ‘Not being elected’ is not a problem that anyone needs to solve when part of your government is, in fact, elected. Being tax-payer funded is not a monarchy-specific problem because many governments are funded that way, and being an ancient institution is not a problem because ancient institutions can, and do, adapt with the times, and provide a sense of stability. If you removed the Monarchy from somewhere like Canada, for example, the elected government would still cost money to run. In the UK, the elected government would probably still be making all the same poor decisions it currently makes. How would a republic be any better? (Hint: it wouldn’t.)
In the original version of this post, I had come fresh off watching The Crown, and declared that it has a lot answer for, particularly at a time when many people are so misinformed about the monarchy. I still think this. I couldn’t face watching the most recent season; I think last I saw they had made it to about 1992 (season 4, I think), so no updates on that, I’m afraid.
Next time, we’ll explore the Commonwealth from the vantage point of 2025. Two new countries have joined since my last Commonwealth post, and neither of them were previously part of the British Empire.
Further reading:
The 2024-2025 financial reports on the cost of the crown in the UK, are freely available online: https://www.royal.uk/media-pack/financial-reports-2024-25
The Monarchist League of Canada works to increase awareness of the Monarchy in Canada, including how much it costs, which is all helpfully broken down here:
https://www.monarchist.ca/cost-of-the-crown/ (the League will readily say ‘you can criticise the Monarchy…but at least get your facts straight before you do’, so I have confidence in the information they present)
Finally, some answers to some common questions about the Monarchy in the Canadian context: https://monarchist.ca/index.php/our-monarchy/myths-about-the-monarchy
How It Was Because 