By Mark Langabeer, Hastings and Rye Labour member
According to a recent Panorama programme on ‘will King Charles reform the Monarchy’, 58% of people surveyed support the Monarchy. But still, 26% said that they supported an elected head of state. In fact, support for the monarchy has dwindled: ten years ago, it was 75%. More important, among 18 to 24-year-olds, support is only 32%.
One of the spokespersons on the programme, the historian Professor Anna Whitlock, suggested that the monarchy’s lower support among the young is likely because they epitomise the gross inequalities within society. Norman Baker, a former Lib-Dem minister in the Coalition Government of 2010-15, explained that while many were facing hardship, the Royals are still raking it in. Their ownership of land, property and even the sea beds off the coast are the principal sources of their wealth, all of it inherited, of course, and not a penny earned.
Another telling statistic is that 60% of young people think that the Royal family is “out of touch with ordinary people”, probably the understatement of the year. Prince Andrew’s association with Epstein, the convicted paedophile, and the departure of the Sussex’s over allegations of racism within the Royal household will all have contributed to reduced support.
Anna Whitlock pointed out that the King was not required to pay inheritance tax, following the death of his mother. It’s one rule for them, another for the rest of society. The BBC and the media try to keep hidden all the benefits that accrue to royalty – like Charles’ tax-dodging, and his right to see any legislation (and amend it) before it goes into law – but modern social media makes it increasingly difficult to keep such secrets hidden.
One can only wonder how little the support for the monarchy might be – especially among the young – if it weren’t for the mountain of daily propaganda and flag-waving conducted by the national media. The BBC is particularly sycophantic, drooling over just about every ‘royal’ story there is.
Charles has yet to experience any hardship in his life
One of the people interviewed in the programme was Lord Soames, a former Tory MP and a personal friend of King Charles. He and others think that the Royal Family are ‘good value for money’. They point out that the cost of supporting the monarchy was £1.29p per person last year. Soames suggested that Charles supports the idea of a ‘slimmed down’ monarchy, but there is clearly no ‘slimming’ down in the vast fortune that Charles has and which has been exposed recently in the Guardian to be as much as £1.8bn.
Some of Charles’ supporters argue that he really does connect with young people and the Prince’s Trust is cited as an example. But watching news reports of Charles ‘engaging’ with young people shows a gulf of awkwardness between youths often in unfortunate circumstances and a, super-rich monarch who hasn’t experienced hardship once in his whole pampered life.
The programme noted that there may be problems looming with some Commonwealth nations. The monarchy in the past actively supported slavery and made a lot of money on it. Some regret about that past role has been expressed, but a proper apology and perhaps some economic redress might be more in keeping. As we know, after abolition, it was the slave owners who were compensated, not the slaves themselves and Charles certainly has the wherewithal to make a significant gesture in that direction.
What the programme lacked was any examination of the constitutional powers held by the monarchy. In modern times the King/Queen is alleged to be ‘neutral’ in political life, but we know that is not true. Imagine the scenario where a left-leaning Labour Government threatened the wealth and power of the bosses. There is no doubt about the role the monarchy would play in defending their privileges and the wealth and power held by their class as a whole.
