Despite the Murdoch furore these are neither radical nor Republican times. For proof look at a sneaky little bill which will go through the Commons this week (Thursday) with most MPs on their knees rather than standing up for something approaching modernity.
The government is proposing to abolish the civil list – the current way the royal family is paid – and replace it with a proposed Sovereign Grant of around £35 million a year.
The old system of financing the royals goes back to 18th century when one of the Germans brought over to be British head of state cooked up a deal whereby he ‘gave’ the land the monarch reckoned he ‘owned’ to the state. In exchange the monarch received a mixture of moneys that ever since have allowed the royals to enjoy a lifestyle suited to Rupert Murdoch or Russian oligarchs.
In most civilised countries the land belongs to the nation unless sold or leased by the state. In Britain we maintain the fiction that the monarch owns huge tracts of land which have been generously leant to the people to raise some revenue to help government income.
The system, amongst other expenditure, allows Prince Charles to have 159 butlers, valets, cooks and dressers on his staff. Britain’s crown prince is the original curate’s egg. Last week he was at the 250th anniversary dinner of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. It was warm, moving, funny, gentle and pitch-perfect in delivery. Few other future heads of state are so sensitive to the history of the Jewish community at a time of rising antisemitism and anxiety over the future of the Jewish state.
But on the other side of the ledger is the deeply conservative hostility to modern architecture expressed by Prince Charles over decades. As a result the greatest generation of architects since Wren and Vanbrugh is without honour in their own land.
Osborne and Cameron, in best Bullingdon Club tradition, are proposing to keep the taxpayer forever shelling out for the royals. They want a Sovereign Grant which will provide 15 per cent of the revenues from the crown estates, about £35 million. Contrast this to the €8.4 million which covers all royal expenses in Spain or the €850,000 which is good enough for the Queen of the Netherlands.
If the crown estates cover most shorelines the planned explosion of wind farms built close to the coast could turn a modest profit into a windfall bonanza.
Worse is the Osborne-Cameron proposal to abolish the convention that the civil list is voted on at the start of each new reign. This is one of the very few occasions when a debate is permitted in the Commons. At a minimum the new law should also abolish the convention that MPs cannot raise any matters to do with the royal family except on a substantive motion. This is an out-of-date anachronism. It is absurd that every pub and paper can discuss the royals but not MPs.
Instead we are locking in for perpetuity gigantic sums of public money with no chance to discuss what we want and need from a head of state.
This is not royalist versus republican debate. The heroic efforts of Republic, the brave NGO that dares to say the royals are not needed, are worthwhile but without much support. The Kate and William marriage and next year’s 60th anniversary of the Queen’s service will place the royals somewhere beyond criticism. It won’t last long. Faultlines will appear as the royals are human, not divine.
And if one looks at modern Europe a paradox emerges. The countries that have delivered the most social justice, a fair society as well as functioning economies such as Sweden, Norway or the Netherlands have been monarchies. Spain’s transition to modernity owes much to its king and crown prince.
So a republican royalty may not be a contradiction in terms. But their financing need not be so lavish. And the Commons should not be silenced on the subject.
——————————————————————————–