Following the Andrew Windsor scandal support for the monarchy is ebbing says Ken Ritchie
Since its birth, Labour has accepted the monarchy as part of the architecture of the British state. Keir Hardie and many other early socialists were staunch republicans, but they were disciplined in what they were campaigning for – representation for working people was achievable, but overturning the British constitution was not. In the century that followed, Labour always had republicans in its ranks, but the party itself appeared happy to co-exist with a king or queen.
Nevertheless, Labour’s values are totally incompatible with those of the monarchy: there is nothing democratic about a hereditary head of state, and nothing socialist about one of exceptional wealth and privilege. The monarchy is about rank, titles and class – it underpins a form of society which Labour exists to oppose. What has tied Labour to the monarchy, however, has been the public support which the monarchy has enjoyed. The question now is whether recent exposures of royal wrong-doing has loosened the knot sufficiently to allow Labour to take a more assertive position on the monarchy’s future.
Claims that the monarchy is above politics are absurd. We know of Charles’s support for grammar schools and hunting with hounds. Dominic Grieve opposed the release of his lobbying letters because they might damage the perceived neutrality of the then Prince – in other words, the letters were not politically neutral. His wife, Camilla, is a Conservative thoroughbred.
Royal branding is everywhere, from charities to cornflake packets. Even the Labour government is “His Majesty’s Government”: although we can elect our politicians, they can’t do anything for us until they’ve sworn allegiance to His Majesty, his heirs and successors. Some argue these are only words, but the words we use shape our perception of society. The royal brand conveys the subliminal message that some are born much more important than we are and that there is a benign establishment which will act in our best interests. The monarchy’s very existence thus promotes a culture of political passivity rather than a society of engaged citizens.
However, although royal popularity remains quite strong, what people like are the images created by the Palace’s media teams. Those who wept when the late queen died were mourning the loss of a symbol – they never knew the woman who for many years refused to have non-white staff, who made dodgy investments in tax havens, who exempted the monarchy from the Equalities Act, who got legislation changed to allow her to conceal her wealth, who extracted money from public service budgets through claims based on feudal entitlements, etc.
There was plenty of evidence to damn the royals without the help of Andrew and Epstein, but they have added some detail and a touch of colour. Andrew’s banishment was inevitable, but it leaves questions for the other royals. They must have known Andrew was lying in his 2019 Newsnight interview, and if they really believed his protestations of innocence, why did the royals pay around £12 million to keep Virginia Giuffre quiet? The late queen must have been aware of Andrew’s financial dealings and the nature of those he was doing business with, and she must have known his sale of Sunninghill Park (her wedding present to him) to a Kazakh billionaire stank of corruption. Why did the monarchy not act to curtail his activities years ago?
The monarchy is nothing without public support, but that has been shaken. Normally loyal papers such as the Mail and Sun have raged at royal greed, and even the BBC allowed David Dimbleby, its doyen of royal reporting, to ask what the monarchy was for and why it needed so much money. Until a decade ago, polls found more than 70% wanting a monarchy. In February, Ipsos found only 37% thought Britain would be worse off without one (25% felt we would be better off, and the rest didn’t think it would make a difference). Amongst younger people and Labour voters, a majority prefer an elected head of state.
Although more people want an elected head of state than want a Labour government, it is clearly too early for Labour to propose such a change. It would, however, be a mistake for Labour to ignore the public mood and do nothing. A thorough review of the monarchy’s finances – what it needs and how that support should be provided – would be a good starting point and would appeal to many who are not yet abolitionists.
Labour must also, however, make space for debate. Whether or not we have a monarchy is not just about deviant princes and royal extravagance – it is about the sort of society we want to create. Republicanism must not be seen as peripheral to Labour policy but as an essential part of a wider discussion on how our constitution must be reformed if Labour is to deliver on its values.