The Crisis of the British Monarchy

The extent to which Britain is in deep crisis can be seen that even such a liberal and bland publication as The New Statesman is calling, not just for Prince Andrew to be isolated, but for the monarchy to be disbanded [Abolish the monarchy – New Statesman].

In his scathing feature article, Will Lloyd, the magazine’s Deputy Editor, writes:

“William should stop the rot and acknowledge the truth when his father dies. The mystique is gone. Charles III should be the last King of England. He is the last Windsor who really believes in any of the hocus-pocus of his house. William doubts that God exists. How can he go through with a coronation in Westminster Abbey without acknowledging that God has put him there, on the throne?”

“Abolition would be contested and vicious. Or, the monarchy could end very beautifully. There are inalterable facts in our lives and the lives of nations. As Charles’s favourite poet wrote centuries ago: “All that lives must die, passing through nature to eternity…” The old statesman’s body in a casket on the Royal Train. Crowds would gather along the route as they did for Elizabeth, to watch its journey as dusk falls, to hear its pistons hiss through the meadows, the Crown and the King being carried sadly back to the old chapel in Windsor, home again to the green heart of England, the royal throne of kings royal no more. A final human sacrifice. There would be no more kings. But there would be no more princes either.”

The article is interesting because it is so rare that any mainstream publication airs this view, but also that it is so passive. We should wait until William decrees that the monarchy is over, rather than demand it.

Here, Ed Balls looks on incredulously as Will Lloyd makes his case before making a spirited defence of the monarchy. Interesting that Lloyd suggests that Andrew should be “packed out to a shed in the Outer Hebrides”. Why is Scotland always seen as the repository for unwanted goods and people?

False Consciousness

What’s missing from this analysis is a sense of a people’s movement, a Republican cause to rally around. Lloyd writes:

“Nobody with any sense of reality in June 2000 believed that Andrew was anything like the man presented. They thought he was cavalier in his personal relations, profligate in his financial dealings, immensely entitled, stupid and cruel. Such truths were not meant for the pages of Tatler, however. This is how false consciousness works. Faced with the reality of monarchy, people simply do what they always do: they become blind.”

“The truth is that an estimated £13m of public money helped to fund the decades-long Caligulan lifestyle of a prince who cavorted with, among others, a convicted paedophile, a Libyan arms smuggler and a Kazakh oil baron. This truth was obscured, denied or ignored – that is, until Andrew’s world began to collapse in 2011.”

This is the truth: the Windsors are so embedded into British everyday life, to remove them is literally unthinkable. The coterie of royal correspondents, the endless merchandising, the sycophantic press and broadcast media that surrounds them, has spouted out such propaganda that people have been convinced that they are irreplaceable even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are corrupt, useless and dysfunctional.

Ed Balls supine response to Lloyd is instructive. As Tom Nairn once wrote: “Genuine socialists have always detested the Windsor monarchs. They appear to confront a nation sucked into helpless crown-worship, without a single ounce of decent republicanism in its make-up. While they dream of communism, the country has not advanced out of this old feudal rhapsody. The ‘serious’ bourgeois Sunday papers lead their bloodshot cousins into new levels of hysteria. Given the opportunity Labour councillors slobber over the Regal fingers and the Dynastic feet. Huge crowds and street fêtes in Jubilee year testified to the continuing popularity of monarchy.”

The latest news, that Andrew is to be stripped of his titles and flung out of the Royal Lodge [Andrew stripped of prince title and set to move out of Royal Lodge] smacks of more desperate measures by the Royal Family trying desperately to circle the wagons and distance themselves from their errant son.

Here’s a thing: let’s put some shoulders to the wheel and help the (slightly half-hearted) dissenting voices here. Absolutely front and centre of the case for Scottish independence should be a Scottish Republic. No ifs, no buts. Not My King.

Tags:

Comments (18)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. KIM LONGINOTTO says:

    When people look back on 2025, they will be amazed that we still had such a ridiculous institution as a royal family, complete with Knights of the Garter , palaces and entitlement

    1. BSA says:

      They will be a lot more disgusted when they learn that in 2025 the Crown in Parliament was sovereign, that the PM effectively exercised unchecked power on behalf of the medieval monarch and the people were subject cannon fodder unprotected by any constitution. Getting rid of these clowns will just be scratching the surface of what will have to follow.

  2. SleepingDog says:

    Yes, as I’ve been arguing for decades. The British Royals are many things: the winning organised crime family that captured the State; overseers of a global atrocity spree spanning multiple centuries; military dictators; domestic abusers; anti-democracy supervillains; heroes to misogynists and racists and sycophants; patrons of evildoers; friends of despots; enemies of freedoms; symbols of extreme nepotism; hoarders of loot; murderers of animals; despisers of merit; the elite of hierarchs; defenders of Anglican abuses; spongers and scroungers; and much more. What they are not, is irrelevant to British politics.

    Most significantly, the British Royals are also the capstone of official secrecy. If you want to bring an end to the British Empire, cast light on imperial crimes and plots, or make secession optional for an electorate, then the surest and swiftest path starts with taking down the Monarchy.
    https://www.republic.org.uk/royal_secrecy
    So, none of this slinking off while maintaining this cloak of impunity: no deals should be cut, no whitewash, no bending of knees, no amnesty. Open the archives and set the records free. Dethroned, the royals will be ungagged to present their own defences.

    As for their ill-gotten riches, #royalreparations

    Treason law must be swiftly updated, and moves towards a new, codified constitution (hopefully one that leapfrogs the theocratic and humanist examples with their oh-so-obvious flaws and sets the living planet atop the inverted pyramid of power). All oaths must be remade, no longer to a monarch, but to some transitional entity before a new constitution is in place. I advise cancelling all awards, titles, and royal appointments, which will mean a huge clearout in some departments.

    Some indigenous peoples might want to have their treaty obligations addressed first, since they may regard the British royals as honour-bound to uphold their rights in a way that successive Parliaments are not held to. However, this power might be better delegated to an international law commission or other alternative.

    1. Denise Marr says:

      Hello. I didn’t get a lot of what you said, but on the surface, l think l agree !

  3. James says:

    Hi Mike, do you think the SNP (or the YES movement) are missing an opportunity here to discuss the future of the mornachy, or just the future in general. Also, I couldn’t access the article but I listened to the Dugmore / Lloyd conversation and strike me that this is English people discussing England as England. Does the represent a shift in thinking in the centre of UK politics in how they think about Anglo-British identity or am I reading too far ahead.

    1. Hi James – yes 100% I think the Yes movement are missing a trick here. Independence needs to be famed as a dynamic future-facing transformation and its unfathomable how you would present a new Scotland as still being tied to the monarchy imho.

  4. John Mooney says:

    “The king of england”the usual pathetic crock of shit from the so called media pandandrums of the britnat press corp,even today we had some of this shower suggesting andrew be sent into exile in the Hebrides another pushed for the Shetlands,enough of this fucking crap the sooner we break away from this sclerotic rotten carcass of monarchy and “england” the better,a plague on both their houses time for the Scottish polity to stand up and be counted, I am nearly into my eighth decade and have had enough of this crew of carpetbaggers and charlatans!

    1. Margaret Brogan says:

      I couldn’t agree more.

  5. Margaret Brogan says:

    Yes, indeed. An independent Scottish Republic!

  6. Daniel mccahon says:

    A Republican Scotland is the only way forward

  7. James mills says:

    Not my F*cking King , either !

  8. Bill says:

    This action is being carried out, not as a punishment for inappropriate behaviour, nor as an action to support or get justice for abused women – but to protect the continued corruption carried out by the Mountbatten Windsor family. The ability to alter legislation not to their liking. The secrecy over finance and any other issue that they deem important to them – that would show them in their true light. Monarchy is past its sell by date and we in Scotland need to end the the contract and become an independent republic. The SNP need to adopt a republican approach, as more people would support independence if it were free of the Crown.

  9. Voline says:

    Good read. A longer and better-informed version of Patrick Freyne’s hilarious screed:

    “The contemporary royals have no real power. They serve entirely to enshrine classism in the British nonconstitution. They live in high luxury and low autonomy, cosplaying as their ancestors, and are the subject of constant psychosocial projection from people mourning the loss of empire. They’re basically a Rorschach test that the tabloids hold up in order to gauge what level of hysterical batshittery their readers are capable of at any moment in time.”

    https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/harry-and-meghan-the-union-of-two-great-houses-the-windsors-and-the-celebrities-is-complete-1.4504502

    1. SleepingDog says:

      @Voline, more like killer clowns with nuclear weapons. Establishment historian Peter Hennessy in The Secret State: Preparing for the Worst 1945-2010 (2nd edition) writes that the Queen (then, as King now) retained the power of military command, a royal prerogative for war (while her Prime Minister could only ‘authorise’). While Elaine Scarry explains what Thermonuclear Monarchy means in practice and policy.

      One of the functions of the Royal Yacht Britannia, Hennessy writes, was in the event of nuclear war to take the British Royal Family to safety on the sea, with a cutdown Privy Council, who would be able to launch (further) nuclear strikes, with the Queen (or surviving ranking heir) empowered to replace any defence minister who refused to carry out her Armageddonist orders.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMY_Britannia

      The Royal Prerogative for War, the status of the monarch as the supreme commander-in-chief of the British imperial military, who swear personal oaths to serve them and their heirs, is as such a prize for those intend on a military coup to seize power here. Nazi Steve (Captain Manwhoring) dropped heavy hints on this site that (before Reform became an enticing distraction) a far-right military coup would elevate an out-of-favour royal to the throne to provide formal backing. Now, I’m thinking that wasn’t going to be Meghan (clearly an undercover CIA operative anyway, before the Trumpist anti-DEI purge at least). And now of course we now that the old-school German Nazis planned that exactly that trick before, using another dodgy geezer as their puppet.

  10. Douglas says:

    All well and good, but why is no one drawing the logical conlcusions from this latest debacle? What we might cal the “wider issues”…

    Stephen Frears, the BBC, the entire tabloid press, the whole British elite establishment – including countless writers, artists and actors – are also guilty of fawning over royalty (Andrew’s entire gambit) to such an extent that the two heads of a Child Protection Charity (Fergie and Randy Andy) are involved in the trafficking of minors for sexual exploitation…

    Is it worse than the king of Spain’s son-in-law using a charity for disabled children to cream off millions (for which he was jailed, his excuse in court that it was the King of Spain who put him up to it)? Yes!!!!

    Suddenly Andrew is the easy scaepgoat, but the entirety of the British establishment – and that very much includes all those who went down to bend the knee and take an award from that family of German – Scots delinquents – have their portion of blame to endure…

    But above all, Stephen Frears. See what happens in Britain? A highly talented film-maker ends up sinking his career making UTTER MINCE about the Royal Family, and the same could be said of Peter Morgan…

    What a bunch! Now they’re all condeming it… total hypocrites and liars…

    Stop just following the media headlines, Bella, and join the dots…

  11. Daibhidh Stiubhairt says:

    There should be no place for this grasping entitled mob in our coming free nation, one in which the people are sovereign.

  12. Nash says:

    A King Charles is still better than a President Starmer.

    1. John Wood says:

      I do not agree. We currently have both a king Charles and a president Starmer, neither of them seems to be accountable to the public. But at least in theory Starmer can be voted out whereas the king rules ‘by grace of God’. Charles is above the law and what’s worse is that he can grant crown immunity to anyone he pleases. And he does. The very first thing that needs to happen is to re-establish the principle that the head of state is there by popular consent and that consent can be withdrawn. In Scotland in principle, the people have always been sovereign. We need to assert that and put it to a referendum.
      Crown immunity is insidious and it makes a mockery of democracy and the rule of law.

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.