What if the United Kingdom stopped being a "kingdom"? What would change? Who would benefit?
Where would power shift? And what would happen to all those palaces? Keep watching for the answers.
Whatever you may think about all the other British royals, one insurmountable fact remains:
nobody really likes Prince Charles. From his harsh treatment of Princess Diana to his meddling
in British politics to that time he went to the opera while his 8-year-old son was in surgery,
Charles hasn't done much to earn the respect of the British people over the years.
The queen, on the other hand, still enjoys immense popularity. According to Newsweek,
she has a 68% approval rate, with public opinion polling suggesting she tends to stay popular
even in the midst of her family's many scandals. But Charles is so deeply
unpopular that, according to Newsweek's poll,
more than half of Brits would prefer to see the throne go straight to his son William.
"I, myself, don't think he would willingly step down from the destiny he's waited for so long."
Many people think that any big push to abolish the monarchy will come after Queen Elizabeth's death,
before Charles is officially crowned. Of course, the royal family is likely prepared for this,
and the chances are they'll make sure Charles'
coronation takes place before any republican sentiment can take hold.
Considering no mainstream anti-monarchy movement exists in the United Kingdom at the moment,
however, it seems that they won't have too much to worry about. But hey — you never know.
It's important to note that the people of Britain couldn't just wake up one morning
and kick the royals out of Buckingham Palace. That's not to say it's never been done before,
of course, it's just that things don't really work like that these days.
It's much more likely that an act of parliament would be required to abolish the monarchy.
But that means there would have to be a lot of agreement amongst people who don't usually agree
with each other, and even then it would be almost impossible to pull off. Why? Because in order to
abolish Britain's monarchy, you have to get the monarch themself on board with the idea. Any act
of parliament has to be signed and approved by the king or queen, and although it is true that this
is entirely a ceremonial role, it may just be that this is the one thing they're not willing to do.
One of the most common arguments British royalists make in favor of the queen and her family is that
they bring in money through tourism. In 2017, the consultancy company Brand Finance published
its Brand Finance Monarchy Report, which suggested that the monarchy is worth roughly £67.5 billion.
More importantly, the report claimed that £1.77 billion of that money goes right back
into the British economy, and much of that is thanks to tourism.
Nevertheless, other experts don't see this as an especially scientific argument. After all,
who's to say the people won't still visit royal palaces and other historical sites long after
the monarchs themselves are gone? India still attracts plenty of visitors to its once-royal
buildings despite the fact that they are no longer occupied by a king, and the same can be said for
ex-monarchies all over the world. Besides, it's not like the queen herself is having tourists
to tea — so it's hard to imagine that visitors would really miss her presence all that much.
Either way, the royal family is unlikely to disappear from public
life immediately after the dissolution of the monarchy, and the antics of the
former royals will almost certainly still make tabloid headlines. Take the Italians,
for example — they abolished their monarchy just after World War II, and even today the
former royal family squabbles over who would get to be king if the country ever changed its mind.
In the Brand Finance Monarchy Report on the economics of the royal family,
the authors argued that the monarchy made more money for the country than it cost.
The total annual cost of the monarchy to each individual taxpayer, the authors claimed,
is the equivalent of about 1p a day — or roughly 1.4 American cents. This would essentially mean
that the British citizen spends about £4.50 a year on the royals, or around six bucks.
If you multiply that out by the total number of British citizens it's about £292 million.
If the monarchy goes away, all of that money can go elsewhere. But would it
have the same return as Brand Finance says the monarchy offers? That's up for debate.
The answer would depend on whether the British government decides to use the money for things
such as housing, healthcare, job creation, and so forth, or whether it goes elsewhere.
Still, when you consider the vast costs of governance, £292 million is actually a pretty
negligible amount. Social protection costs British taxpayers £285 billion,
followed by healthcare at £178 billion and education at £116 billion. All money well spent,
but it does suggest that the cost of the royals to individual Britons is basically non-existent.
Despite what they might like you to believe, the royal family doesn't actually own Buckingham
Palace. They don't own Windsor castle, either. In fact, these properties are owned by the Crown
Estate, which, while technically run by the queen, are only hers so long as she's actually queen. So
when she dies, Buckingham Palace and everything else held by the Crown Estate goes to Charles.
If Charles, the queen, or any of their successors were to lose the monarchy, all of it would go
to the government — who would likely give the former royal family an eviction notice.
So what would become of the royal residences? Well, the British government
would almost certainly want to capitalize on their existence as much as possible.
They'd probably be at least somewhat mindful of the argument that tourism could dry up as
the former royal family vanishes into obscurity, so don't be surprised to
see Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle turned into full time tourist attractions.
When the royal family finally closes the doors of Buckingham Palace for good,
what happens next? Will the royals become homeless, begging for scraps on the streets
and depending on the kindness of strangers for their next gin and Dubonnet? Well, probably not.
Much of the royal family's money and property belongs to the Crown Estate, but the royals do
have money and property of their own, too. Some sources suggest that the queen alone is worth
about $520 million, much of which comes from the Royal Grant, the percentage of the profits earned
by the Crown Estate that goes into Elizabeth's pocket. Similarly, Charles is reportedly worth
$400 million. Prince William, meanwhile, is apparently worth between $25 and $40 million.
The queen also privately owns Balmoral Castle in Scotland and Sandringham Estate in Norfolk,
the latter of which has 775 rooms and its own postcode. The queen also owns the 18,433-hectare
Duchy of Lancaster, which includes some of the most valuable real estate in London.
Realistically, the chances are that the royals wouldn't have to get real jobs in
a post-monarchical world. Most of them could be quite comfortable for the rest
of their lives living in their massive castles doing pretty much nothing at all.
But don't bet that this would be the last you saw of them.
For one, the younger royals would almost certainly land contracts worth millions.
Since leaving the royal family, for example, Harry and Meghan have been doing more than just fine.
In 2020, they moved into a $19.4 million home, while they have reportedly secured
a $53 million podcast deal with Spotify and a $198 million deal with Netflix.
"Boom."
Evidently, not being royal has worked out just fine for Harry and Meghan, and it's likely that
the majority of the better-known royals would settle easily into whichever new roles they found
for themselves. The older members of the family, such as Charles, would probably get by just fine
living in retirement and occasionally popping up to help open a museum. In essence: they'd be okay.
One of the things that makes the British state so British is all that pomp. America
doesn't really do pomp, of course. In the White House, everyone wears suits and shakes hands and
generally tries to keep things as un-silly as possible. The British, on the other hand…
"Close the door!"
Yes, the British government isn't afraid of a little colour. It even often uses the over-the-top
ceremony of the monarchy as a way of impressing important visitors. Indeed,
state visits are counted among the queen's most important duties. At the request of the
Prime Minister, the queen basically throws a royal party for a visiting head of state,
complete with extravagant lunches and a whole banquet. The point of all this
isn't really spelled out, but there can be no doubt that it's done to impress the visitor,
in the hope that they'll become much more willing to take Britain's interests to heart.
The dissolution of the monarchy would mean an end to all that, and future Prime Ministers would
have to learn to be happy with the American way of doing things. Inevitably, that would
fundamentally and permanently alter Britain's political culture, as well as the way the country
does business on the world stage. It's hard to know what the real consequences of that might be.
The queen is the hereditary head of state of the United Kingdom and all the other nations
in the Commonwealth Realm. This means all those countries lack the equivalent of a president.
Instead, they have a Prime Minister or something similar, but the queen still outranks everyone.
There is some question as to whether or not that really matters, though, since the queen never
actually uses any of her constitutional powers. She doesn't even vote, and instead mostly just
makes speeches, greets diplomats, and sits quietly while the head of government does their thing.
So if the queen were no longer head of state, Britain would theoretically need to elect a
new one. Whatever you may think of the queen, she does dedicate a lot of time to her work,
and it's likely there would be too much of it for the Prime Minister to manage.
As such, someone else would need to take on the queen's old role.
Many countries elect presidents to do just that, but no one is really sure what that
position would look like in Britain, or how much it would change the face of British politics.
Fundamentally, the principal argument for abolishing the monarchy is the
modern notion that political positions should be elective,
not hereditary. But the queen isn't the only hereditary politician in Britain.
There's also the House of Lords, otherwise known as The Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Lords is the second chamber of parliament and mostly spends its time reviewing legislation
and making sure the House of Commons doesn't step too far out of line.
It also includes 92 hereditary peers,
who are people who get to be in the House of Lords because they inherited the right to be there.
Over the years, the British government has reformed much of the House of Lords.
Up until 1999 every last one of 750 hereditary peers were allowed to sit in the House of Lords.
The House of Lords Act changed that, and now there are just 92. There has been far
more political appetite in recent years for the total reform or abolishment of
the House of Lords than there has been for the monarchy, however.
As such, it seems probable that, were the royals to get the boot,
the hereditary lords would be following them post haste. Otherwise, what's the point?
Check out one of our newest videos right here!
Plus, even more Grunge videos about your favorite stuff are coming soon.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit the bell so you don't miss a single one.