God save the Queen: Here’s how we should reform the monarchy

How was your jubilee? I know, it rained – our street party had to be diverted indoors. Still, the Buck House garden-party-style crustless cucumber sarnies and some jubilee ale went down nicely. I’m a mild monarchist rather than the full-on, kip-on-the-pavement-for-a-glimpse-of-Eugenie type, so I don’t dress up in the national flag or wear one of those disturbing royal masks with the eye holes – I possess some union jack boxers, only worn on state occasions, and that’s that for my patriotically themed gear.

However, I was a bit disturbed to see the polling that showed that the ancient institution of the monarchy is a bit unfashionable among the young, and to hear some of the republican grumblings on the higher-brow news shows. We’ve also got a cost of living crisis, nurses relying on food banks to get by, and too many children living in poverty. At times of hardship, conspicuous consumption by the royals becomes harder to justify, and a threat to this useful constitutional arrangement.

People living in some considerable comfort in palaces on the public purse need to be aware that they are not there by divine right, but by the consent of the electorate, and that means they should not be resented. This was understood well by the Queen, who declared in 1997: “I know that, despite the huge constitutional difference between a hereditary monarchy and an elected government, in reality the gulf is not so wide. They are complementary institutions, each with its own role to play. And each, in its different way, exists only with the support and consent of the people.”

It would be pretty shabby if all Her Majesty’s dedication to keeping the show on the road proves to be in vain as her reign comes towards its close. It seems to me that the royals need some help as we look forward to the next chapter in the story, to keep hold of the present happy “support and consent of the people”. So here is my plan to reform the monarchy.

First, nationalise them. I’ve never been very clever about where taxpayer money starts and finishes as far as the royal family is concerned, and how much of their vast wealth is truly theirs and private (such as Sandringham probably is), and what isn’t (probably such as Windsor Castle). I mean, who exactly owns the crown jewels? (Not that they’re going to be broken up, melted down and flogged off again, as Oliver Cromwell did during that unfortunate episode in the 17th century.)

The uncertainties and public confusions arose because they, the crown, “are” the state, even in an age when the powers and prerogatives of the sovereign have passed almost entirely to the prime minister (and doesn’t he know it). I don’t think there’s any great difference between the status of the Duchy of Lancaster (mostly state) and from the Duchy of Cornwall (private, for the Prince of Wales), or indeed the annual sovereign grant and other expenses covered by the government.

The idea here is to strike a grand bargain. The monarchy should be nationalised, in return for state support and, more important, a more secure basis in public opinion. There should be no suspicions about extravagance and waste, hangers on, and armies of servants that would undermine the institution in our modern, critical age. Thus the monarchy needs to have a defined role, a series of tasks it must undertake at home and abroad, and priceless national assets that need curating and protecting – no more uninsured Windsor fires, thank you. It all costs money, and rightly so, and the Treasury should fund “the Firm” properly.

In fact, “the Firm” can be usefully turned into something more like a firm. Their functions can be defined as political (for the sovereign only), plus ceremonial (including “engagements” and cities here and abroad), charitable and in ambassadorial and trade envoy roles. Those who are “working royals” should work full time, and be salaried, and have expenses, like MPs, and enjoy the help of a staff, like ministers or corporate executives. If they need a force of liveried employees for banqueting and entertainment, then that is obviously fine. But not blokes whose job it is to put the toothpaste on the Prince of Wales’s toothbrush for him.

The key to popularity is acceptance, and that depends on openness and transparency. So the monarchy should be transparent, and its spending publicly known, justified and scrutinised by parliament. The palace should be subject to the Nolan Principles of Public Life, to all legislation – so no exemptions from the Equality Act and Freedom of Information – and their affairs should be debated in parliament, suitably politely.

Obviously, they need to continue to pay income tax and all other relevant levies. Given that the assets, property, investments, art and so on, will belong to the people via the state, the issue becomes mostly irrelevant anyway, unless the Queen wanted to sell the St Edward’s Crown or the Canalettos, which is obviously absurd.

As to staffing, there is an obvious need to slim things down a bit. The impressive fertility of the House of Windsor over successive generations has yielded a vast tangle of “royals”. Queen Victoria had nine kids; Edward VII and Queen Alexandra knocked out five; George V and Queen Mary went for seven… The Queen has – at the time of writing – 25 direct descendants. Not all of these are, should be or even want to be “working royals”, with Harry and Meghan being the most obvious non-working royals (as well as Prince Andrew, for obvious reasons).

The titles, HRHs, grace-and-favour homes and police protection all need to be rationalised, as indeed Prince Charles and Prince William intend. A core team of Charles, his wife and his three working siblings, plus Prince William’s family would make for a more focused and coherent team – and a recognisable one with some celeb fame and trappings. I’m sorry to say that most of the British population don’t know one Kent from another, with the possible exception of Prince Michael of Kent who seems to make a living as a Czar Nicholas II lookalike in Russia (though business is currently a bit slow at the moment).

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

None of this would affect the holy vows taken at a coronation, the position of the established church, the hereditary principle of a job for life, and much of the mystique of monarchy would remain as it is now. We can keep the horses and the flummery, Beefeaters and Horse Guards, the silver sticks and purple rods, the Royal Victorian Order and the Court of St James, Royal Ascot and their images on the coins and stamps. But some prudent modernisation would seem appropriate in their relationship with the public.

One of the reasons, for example, why Meghan Markle was such a wonderful “recruit” was because she knew about celebrity and she helped the family reflect the multiracial and multicultural Britain and Commonwealth of today. She was fantastically popular before the tabloids went to town on her privacy. It would be nice if the “Fab Four’’ could reform in some way, but the institution does need to be a bit more diverse in any case.

The secret of the longevity of the British monarchy has always been its adaptability. There’s little chance of an end to it, if only because the only legitimate way to abolish it is via a referendum, and we’ve had quite enough of those. There’d be something like civil war (also something we don’t wish to repeat). Nor do the republicans know how an elected head of state, either by the people or by parliament, could avoid having a “competing mandate” with the prime minister, and be properly above politics.

So a republic is hardly imminent. Even so, royalty has gone through periods of intense unpopularity in the past because it didn’t respond to public opinion. That is the danger that a reformed, more accountable monarchy will be better placed to avoid in the long run. God save the Queen.