I have written in the past about various things the US Framers got wrong, like, for instance, slavery and Presidential Election procedures. You can view these things different ways- as products of the time, as necessary political compromises, or as reflections of immoral beliefs and practices the Framers knowingly participated in. But there’s no doubt that there were plenty of areas where the Framers, despite their status as secular deities in US political discourse, were on the wrong side of history.
But there’s one very key thing they got right- they hated monarchies. George Washington, very famously, refused to be crowned King after leading the victorious colonial armies to defeat the British in the Revolutionary War. The Declaration of Independence is a list of grievances against the sitting British monarch. And- most notably- the Constitution contains very specific prohibitions against monarchy, going to the point of prohibiting the United States from even employing anyone who holds a royal title: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
This last point is important, because it’s easy to read the American Revolution as fundamentally about opposing tyranny, not opposing monarchy. After all, many of the grievances of the colonists were about such public policy matters as general search warrants that allowed overbroad house-to-house searches, and high taxation. But no, actually, the monarchy issue was important, and our Framers, for all their faults, were very clear-headed about the need for a republican government, with elected officials, separation of powers, and internal checks. One of the major goals of the enterprise, writ large, was to ensure that we would not ever have a King or Queen, and our Constitution flatly prohibits that form of government.
This week, after the death of Queen Elizabeth, we have been treated to a pretty persuasive demonstration of the correctness of the Framers’ judgment on this matter. There’s a sense in which people view the British monarchy as something of a theme park, with old castles, crowns and sceptres, and plenty of costumes. But in fact, even though British monarchs no longer exercise absolute power, the institution still causes lots of harm. Consider:
The cost. British monarchs have accumulated far, far more wealth than they could ever need to live comfortably- tens of billions of dollars in total. Nonetheless, the British taxpayers are required to pay them tens of millions of additional dollars every year. (In contrast, US presidents make $400,000 per year plus $50,000 in expenses, and live very comfortably.)
The loot. It would be one thing if all that wealth was generated by parliamentary expenditure from the public fisc (the MP’s who vote for such things could be voted out of office if the British public were outraged). But much of the British crown’s wealth is looted from the Third World. Indeed, the physical crown itself- actually a number of crowns- comes loaded with precious gems that were taken away from impoverished populations such as African diamond miners. The royal family loves these crowns and exhibits them in public in London- they have no intention of giving these gems back.
The infringements on freedom. Part of being the King or Queen is people have to kiss up to you. That’s what makes the job fun. Everyone bows to you; everyone has to call you “your royal highness” and “his majesty”. Accordingly, and unsurprisingly, British local police forces have been arresting people for protesting the monarchy in the wake of Elizabeth’s death.
The racism and unfairness of a hereditary system. Why isn’t the next King a Black man? This is a serious question. Why does it have to be Charles? I, of course, fully understand why it “has” to be Charles, but that’s the point. The notion that this supposedly important position, the Sovereign of a G-7 country, has to be held by a member of a certain family, and thus, by an ultra-rich, spoiled white man who went to all the nicest schools, is something you shouldn’t just accept. Why couldn’t the son or daughter of a British coal miner hold the post, or one of the many domestic workers who care for the children of British aristocrats? How about a tech worker with ancestry on the Indian subcontinent? Hereditary systems are de facto racially discriminatory (yes, it is true that the slightly darker-skinned Meghan Markle was grudgingly accepted into the family, giving birth to two very light skinned royal children who are distantly in line for the throne and might claim to be “non-white”, but that’s a far cry from any sort of actual equality). And they are just bad. They don’t give you the best people (many times, the children of a super-competent person turn out to be a lot more entitled and incompetent) and they are simply unfair to all the people who never qualify because of their birth.
The ticking time bomb of formal royal power. As we know, the British monarch acts as a figurehead. But it’s important to know that the actual legal system goes to great lengths to pretend that he or she is not one. Royal assent is still given to all bills coming out of Parliament, all prosecutions are brought in the name of the monarch, and the monarch still receives ambassadors. What would happen if a monarch decided to exercise some of that power? Well, we don’t have that far to look- Elizabeth did it, intervening (through her subordinates) against an elected Australian Labor Party Prime Minister and installing a Liberal Party PM instead. And Elizabeth also influenced legislation behind the scenes in Great Britain. Nothing in the British system prevents a monarch from deciding to retake some of the office’s historic power. Who is going to stop him or her? Every major government institution in the UK swears allegiance to the King or Queen. They have no formal constitution that checks royal power. One day, the UK could face a dire constitutional crisis because of this.
The sucking up of media oxygen. Every inch of newspaper coverage and minute of television coverage that is devoted to the doings of Charles, and Harry, and William, and all the rest, is an inch/minute not devoted to actual world events. This week, Ukraine made major breakthroughs against the Russians in the Ukraine War, and it got far less coverage than it merited, because the media was busy executing plans drawn up long ago to flood the zone with coverage of the substantively unimportant royal death. Indeed, outside of the UK, it’s even worse: US television has broken into programming and gone with wall to wall Royals coverage, but major networks didn’t carry President Biden’s major address on right wing extremism last week. Indeed, while US TV is agog with speculation about the supposed “changes” and “turning point” that is being brought on by Charles’ accession to the throne, when the UK actually changed Prime Ministers a couple of weeks ago, the US media only superficially covered it and did not really engage in any analysis at all as to how Liz Truss- a woman with actual power- might change the UK.
Everyone losing their mind. Obviously, people who enjoy the sport of public intellectual dishonesty are going to engage in it with or without a royal death and succession, but it is fascinating how many people, including many people who ought to know better, have gone on and on about what a supposedly consequential historical figure Elizabeth was. “She met SO many world leaders!” Well, yes, if a powerful country forces you to meet their figurehead to do business with the people really in charge, the figurehead is going to meet a lot of people. “She maintained the dignity of the royal family through all the troubles.” What a low bar that is! You give me ten billion dollars and I’ll conduct myself with dignity in public. The reality is when you get public silliness like this, there’s usually a reason for it, and so there is here- monarchists are quite aware that the Queen was irrelevant. Indeed, they slip back to that defense in pure motte-and-bailey fashion whenever someone attacks the Queen as an instrument of colonialism. “She was not”, they say. “She was just a figurehead, and other people made those decisions.” Quite so. But the monarchists don’t want her to be seen as a figurehead- they want the institution they worship to be seen as important. So they pretend doing things like shaking Nelson Mandela’s hand after South African authorities let him out of prison (back in the day, Elizabeth cavorted with the white leaders of the racist state), and not cursing in public make her a great historical figure.
At bottom, the British monarchy is indefensible. Obviously it’s their country, and they can have a King if they want one (many countries do, including some other democracies), but it isn’t a good thing. It’s a bad thing that still has demonstrable bad effects and carries potentially even worse risks (such as if the King or Queen decides to exercise real power).
And most importantly, to get back to the Framers, this is something AMERICA should reject. We spent years refusing to build an embassy in Jerusalem, contending that even though Israel might claim it as their capital, to us it was disputed territory. And yet we appoint Ambassadors to the Court of St. James (i.e., the royal family), rather than to the Prime Minister. Why? Why do Presidents meet British monarchs, and throw state dinners for them, as if they, rather than the Prime Minister, actually lead the country? Why are US flags right now flying at half-mast, literally lowering the American flag into a subordinate position to the institution whose tyranny gave rise to the rebellion in the first place? Despite 1776, even we apparently can’t quit the British monarchy. (And don’t even get me started on our media, from the networks to the supermarket tabloids.)
We are forgetting, and slowly repudiating, what was a true great accomplishment of this country’s Founders. At a time when there is so much division about American history, this is something we all should be able to come together on: our country was founded on opposition to hereditary Kings and Queens. We were right, and they were wrong- and still are.