The monarch comes from the core of what the Empire State..., and as long as it survives in its present form it validates and reinforces the continuation of the Empire State at home – entrenching the rotten, unreformed political system and culture which continues to fail us.
The monarchy goes to the heart of what the UK is and what it is to be British. It is strange then that most discussions try to avoid the implications and consequences that flow from the power, influence, status and role in public life of the monarchy....
There are...the many activities, business wise, charity and lobbying, of Prince Charles, and the scandal of “cash for honours” where Michael Fawcett, head of the Charles foundation was found offering honours for charity contributions and had to resign. There is the experience of Harry and Meghan – who have moved to California and declared semi-independence.
And there is the issue of the extent of “Queen’s Consent” and how legislation can be altered when it affects the direct interests of the monarch. This effectively gives the Queen an opt-out from the consequences of democracy – and has implicated Holyrood as well as Westminster.
This brings us to how monarchy sits in a supposed democracy. The Queen is head of state, a constitutional monarch, and part of the constitution and British state. The entire mystic of monarchy is used to conceal the working of the executive through Crown powers and patronage – deliberately restricting democracy. This is the case put for it by the Victorian writer Walter Bagehot in “The English Constitution”....
Any debate about the monarchy would bring centre-stage the limits, shortcomings and pretensions of British democracy. The UK is not a fully-fledged political democracy. The political elite know this, and know that this indefensible situation works to maintain their place. The institution that is the Crown knows this and uses it to sustain their privilege.