Why The House Of Windsor Must Reform

I believe the monarchy will have to reform to survive. The tree that does not bend will surely break. Nowhere is this truer than in the uniquely generous financial arrangement the monarchy enjoys. Why should the one of us who happens to be monarch benefit from a highly advantageous tax position - exempt from inheritance tax and capital gains tax, able to determine what level, if any, of income tax is paid, exempt from the requirement to publish details of what is bequeathed, and so on. Then there is the far from insignificant amount of public money lavished on them, even despite recent so-called cost cutting exercises. Because the 1991 Civil List settlement was so absurdly generous, a record "reserve" of £37m on the civil list fund has been built up. The law does not allow the annual payment to be continually increased and none of the vast surplus can be reclaimed by the Treasury. Instead, bits of expenditure are desperately being reallocated to the Civil List to try to bring the surplus down, but still it grew by £2m in the past year despite the fall in stock market values. It is also worth remembering that the Queen has a private wealth estimated at well over £1bn, which includes a stamp collection worth £100m and wine cellars of £2m.

Streamlining the Civil List is urgently needed. I would like to see the appointment of a Minister for Royal Affairs along with a reduction of the Civil List review period to 3 years and payments only to be made to the monarch and heir apparent. The bicycling monarchies of Scandinavia are far more cost effective than the House of Windsor. Why not extend 'best practice' from abroad to our monarchy?

A financially limited monarchy is far more palatable than the status quo. This important step would provide the foundation for future reform to the fabric of the British constitution.

While many argue that the Queen is a figurehead with no real power, the fact remains that the Royal Prerogative remains a convenient and comfortable cloak for Prime Ministers to hide behind, and from where war can be declared, peace treaties signed, honours doled out, Peers appointed, and Royal Pardons issued, all without any democratic or parliamentary check whatsoever. There is also the problem of the Act of Settlement, which governs the law of succession and enshrines religious discrimination in the constitution. Roman Catholics are excluded from inheriting the throne. This piece of legislation is surely incompatible in a liberal democracy which preaches religious toleration. I believe this should be repealed immediately.

The usual defence of the status quo is starting to ring hollow: 'they are good for tourism'. Should we really base our constitutional arrangements on what attracts tourists? This doesn't seem to me to be a sound foundation on which to base our political system. In any case, the most popular royal palace in Europe is Versailles, and France stopped being a monarchy in 1848. And while many respect the Queen for what she has done for our country, that should not inhibit sensible debate about what reforms would be successful.

Reforming the monarchy is a step down the road of reforming the constitution. Britain needs to take that step. Let us accept that we are in the 21st century, not the 18th, and frame our constitutional arrangements accordingly.

|Home

|Issues

|Local

|National

|International

|Press

|Norman and his work

|Useful Links

|Contact Norman

|Site map and Search

|Norman's flickr page

|Norman's Facebook page

|National LibDem site