Strata of Thought: king-sized edition!

This week the media has been focusing on the UK's Royal Family. On Tuesday Prince William announced his engagement to Kate Middleton, and on Friday Charles hinted Camilla might become 'Queen' should he ever become king himself. The TV and the Internet have united together to discuss every aspect of Kate Middleton, including her lineage, character and fashion sense, or simply to say that they just don't care (Americans being the current leaders of this).

I would imagine that irritation and hostility is not just confined to myself. Alongside the worry that the wedding will be paid out of the public pocket, or that Charles & Camilla won't make the best state figureheads for the country, sits the age-old and forever feeble question: 'why do we need a monarchy anyway?'

Republicanism has never been a very strong movement in Britain. A MORI poll conducted in 2006 showed that 72% of 1006 people still favoured monarchy, and 85% were satisfied with the current queen. However, solid support to me seems vague; in 2000 ICM revealed 46% of 1094 16-24 year-olds thought the monarchy was necessary, compared to 43% who argued contrary, and in 2007 a Populus poll showed 53% of 1004 people thought the Royal Family were not 'out of touch', compared to 43% who thought so.

So most people want the Royal Family, but evidently aren't happy with them. So what's the benefit of keeping them?

1. Value For Money

Let's jump straight into the practical considerations: value for money. According to pro-royal think-tank Sovereignty, the cost of the Royal Family to the taxpayer is £37 million per annum, which is far below the revenue they produce. Legally the Crown Estate must give all surpluses to the taxpayer, and all other forms of income are taxable in the firstplace. According to BBC News, the 2010 surplus was £210.7 million. Sounds good, right?

Wrong. Firstly, Sovereignty purports that current Royal residences would be maintained even in a republic, and that non-occupied residences, such as Hampton Court, are maintained already through visitor money. So surely without the cumbersome Royal Family the former could support themselves? Secondly, the site suggests that in a republic the 3000 events the Royals attend and pay for themselves would be paid for by the taxpayer, although in this scenario the Royals would not exist. Their successors, the presidents (perhaps) -even considering protected former presidents- would not in total number the same as the current Family. Nor after a certain period of time would they be need to be protected at all, or even need to be funded. Thirdly, one presumes the Queen's private money is not raised through working, or working as everybody else defines the term. This is money derived through various property given/taken by the Crown from others. Fourthly, Sovereignty ignores the fact that the Crown Revenue surplus is the sum profit of all the Sovereign's revenue, including the visitor-run properties they were so quick to exclude, and the Crown Jewels, et cetera. So, would this be produced even without the Royal Family?

2. Tourism

According to a survey by VisitBritain.com, the Queen is 3rd on a list of top 10 international visitor attractions, presumably because of the glamour of the wealth surrounding the family, its celebrity nature, and the fairy-tale veneer of royalty that our republican neighbours did away with centuries ago, and subsequently don't have. They apparently become so central to tourism that occasionally appear on tours specifically designed to promote it. And next year's Jubilee year, so Britain has a lot of business to look forward to, to boot.

This argument has the immediate effect of devaluing the integrity of the Royal Family. As rich, controversial and historic magnets of interest they have no intrinsic importance. Their title is the importance; you could potentially label anyone 'sovereign' and they would automatically do the same 'job' just as 'effectively'. The obvious counter to this is that they couldn't -the Royal Family owes its legitimacy to its geneaology. But is this the only form of legitimacy? Of course not! Whose to say that this role -if it is needed and couldn't be performed in an abstract sense by the People, the State, or the Nation- couldn't be granted to a truly, organically popular person? This person would be, I suppose, 'preside' over the national image, but I'm sure no such precedent has been set by any other republican country. Right? As for the tourist board, I'm sure the old houses will be just as popular, more accessible, and more profitable under new management (look what happened to the Louvre, after all). No tourist ever gets to see the Royal Family in any case, so it's hard to imagine their absence causing much distress.

3. Our Heritage

My argument directly above anticipates the age-old notion that the Royal Family is part of our Great British Heritage. It has been singled out as a reason for others to visit Britain, is fully integrated into our past through geneaology and the built environment, and represents the country in one single, united face. Sure, it's not perfect, some members aren't as dignified as others, but on the whole the Queen is "known for her resilience and “stiff upper lip”", as england.mu puts it, "a kind of quiet toughness which captures the British personality and spirit". An inseperable part of our history!

Not that I'm condoning violence, but royal families have proved perfectly seperable to many countries, such as France, America, Russia and Germany. And although these countries didn't all have smooth histories from that point onwards, what country has? These histories were instead determined by people, to a degree determined by the the level of democracy. And who in the world has a finer pre-existing democratic tradition than the UK? More importantly, Britain can be viewed in all kinds of ways, is made up of all kinds of people, and is characterised by all manner of supposed national traits (many of which are contradictory). One person cannot embody them all, or claim to represent them all.

4. Unity/Stability

Which brings me to the final claim: unity and stability. While I have already demonstrated that the Queen cannot possibly unify the nation in representing them, monarchists claim that the Royal Family is a constitional institution capable of rising above petty party politics and acting as a safety measure against it by being techically higher in stature than the Prime Minister.

Which ignores the fact that kings have caused wars. Surely no one believes that the English Civil Wars of the 17th century had nothing to do with Charles' long history of extorting of the taxpayers? And wasn't Edward VIII considered a potential threat even after his abdication because of his extreme right-wing sympathies immediately before and during the civil war? It is impossible for monarchs to be fully objective and rise against party politics - haven't the social sciences over the last 40 years spent most of the time trying to demonstrate that nobody can be truly objective? Where was objectivity and tactful reserve when Italy became fascist? Victor Emmanuel III personally selected Mussolini to serve as Prime Minister after all, and look how that turned out. Both the German and Spanish ruling houses merely fled in times of national disaster -what makes the British one different?

But all things aside, no, they're worth it.

-Edited at 23:30.