Abolish the Monarchy: Why we should and how we will

Product Information

The British Monarchy appears so invincible and unassailable that it’s defenders are getting complacent. I don't think it is possible to assess the quality of the written word without addressing the subject matter but that may just be my limitations.

There is no engagement with the writings of the German historian Ernst Kantorowicz, who exposed the sophistication of monarchical conceptions of the state. Nevertheless, nobody should be arrested for advocating what should really be common sense in this day and age. Smith, understandably, stays silent on the cases of the Commonwealth and the Protectorate, involving as they did regicide, military dictatorship and ultimately the kind of dynasticism that republicanism is meant to impede. Despite the scandal, the outrage and falling support, MPs and the wider establishment have turned a blind eye to this issue, just as they try to avoid other questions of wider constitutional reform.We should abolish monarchy, he says, because it stands for prejudice, elitism, favouritism and the like, values which are anathema to the British people. I think this helped dispel a common straw man argument hurled at Republicans that we disdain our history and have no interest in people looking into it. The 2020s should be the decade when we finally get to decide who we have as our elected head of state.

A book filled with myth busting, clear evidence of ridiculously bogus claims of fiscal value of the royals and proper grown up logic about governance - is the very type of book you need to avoid reading is you want to believe in something nonsensical .

Reading this book will give you the confidence to speak up, and to understand that we, the British people, (and I must say, those in the land of my parents), deserve a fairer society. It is a waste of time and money that should be avoided by anyone who values history, democracy and good writing. He does not resort to caustic insult, and what barbed remarks there are have a good reason for being there. Smith’s sixteen hours in police custody has generated more publicity for his organisation than the eighteen years he’s toiled away campaigning to replace the monarch with an elected head of state.

It’s a disarming opening, for sure, but – on the principle that you should always lead with your strongest suit – also an odd one, for, as Smith himself eventually says, questions of tourism are irrelevant to constitutional arrangements. Could also be said for the supporters of his point of view but it is effectively a donation in part if it goes unread. There is no reference to Thomas Hobbes or Edmund Burke, let alone other, less famous, theorists of monarchy. Like Smith says in the book itself, if you are a monarchist, this book is probably not for you - which is the precise reason I would recommend it to all the monarchists out there. It is a missed opportunity to have a serious and constructive debate about the future of the monarchy.While he does admit that the Union may not survive long enough to see a republic, he does appear to, ultimately, want our current political and economic system to stay mostly the same, but with the royal cyphers filed off. I appreciated the author’s direct but informative attempts to speak about republics in a hopeful but practical way. I would say that in places it could use a bit more humour to break up the dense constitutional discussion. If you were hoping that the fall of the Windsors would at least mean no more tampon metaphors, think again. The book also sets out a clear blueprint, not just of what kind of republic we should aspire to be – something that is often lacking in other republican texts – but also of the road to that republic.

This only adds urgency to the need for wider political reform, beyond the limited tinkering proposed by proponents of electoral reform or an elected upper house. Transworld have bought world rights in Abolish the Monarchy by the Chief Executive of Republic, Graham Smith, and publish next year. Unwilling to make the case for republicanism on its own merits, Smith builds his argument on the apparent shortcomings of monarchy itself.

Charles, even before Diana's death, was clearly a selfish fool and his father was already infamous for his foul faux pas. With Charles on the throne, that first line of defence is gone, in her place a man few would hesitate to criticise if they felt it was warranted.