Abolish the Monarchy: Why we should and how we will

Product Information

You may also opt to downgrade to Standard Digital, a robust journalistic offering that fulfils many user’s needs. Compare Standard and Premium Digital here.

the monarchy is less staunchly supported than many think, and there are more than enough political mechanisms and resources for the establishment of a republic to come in the near future This is a very timely reminder of the constitutional absurdity of our taxpayer-funded Royal Family that is at war with itself. Whether you're in favour of abolition or a more slimmed-down monarchy in keeping with modern Britain, Graham Smith puts the case for reform eloquently and forcefully. Robert Verkaik, author of Posh Boys That letter written by 150 ex-service personnel to Elizabeth II, demanding that the Duke of York be stripped of his honorary military titles? Smith drafted it. The police investigation into then-Prince Charles and Michael Fawcett regarding Dumfries House and the cash-for-honours scandal? That was partly triggered by Smith. Initially a one-man-band (though these days his Republic party employs seven people), Smith is not just grit in the royal oyster, but a deep thinker and strategist, as his new polemic Abolish the Monarchy shows.

Republish this article

Yes, actually, although yes, it’s also great that the Queen can get on a horse at 93. At least she isn’t a menace on the roads. The result is a very timely work, though it is doubtful how relevant this book will remain outside of this year, let alone the coming decades.

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 has been long enough that monarchists and the democracy-averse refuse to engage with polemics that challenge their beliefs in hereditary rule and concentration of power in an secretive, corrupt, inbred and embarrassing bloodline. Smith correctly points out in this fantastic manifesto the fact that British media and public discourse does not allow for even a shred of anti-monarchy (thus pro-democracy) sentiment in the media or other spaces of debate, lest the lumpen learn that they’ve been duped into supporting their own (by all objective measures of wealth and political power) oppressors.

Even in my most evangelical of days as a teenager (I really must have been insufferable in my religious fervour) I could see that the belief the monarchy was somehow 'God-given' was simply not true. There is no biblical basis for it whatsoever. Charles, even before Diana's death, was clearly a selfish fool and his father was already infamous for his foul faux pas. In more recent times we've seen Charles can't even deal with a pen without having a hissy fit. Would Britain be soulless? Would it be (to caricature the monarchist position) just another boring country? The answer to both questions is no. We would still have our history and our culture, and we would have finally fulfilled the promise of our long and honourable democratic tradition. The best and most recent data come from an Angus Reid Institute poll released in April. Majorities everywhere oppose “recognizing Charles as King of Canada,” ranging from 53 per cent opposed in Ontario to 59 per cent or more opposed everywhere else. As for swearing an oath to King Charles “at some official ceremonies,” the lowest number is 57 per cent against. But what if we had both? What if we also had a written constitution, a fully democratic parliament, and an elected head of state—that is, what if we had a secular democratic parliamentary republic? History is for ever being made but is never lost. When we do take that step and become a republic, we will be making history all over again. It will be a moment witnessed by the world and never forgotten by this country. A republic is a legacy that we leave to future generations, something entirely achievable, profoundly democratic and that will make Britain a fairer and better place for all of us”.