Can a slimline monarchy be relevant in the modern world?
King Charles III has a plan to slim down The Monarchy. Having ascended to the throne in September he is now beginning to shape the institution into he feels it should look. Currently there are 11 official working members of the royal family.
With one of the main complaints being that too much money is spent on the day to day running of the firm. The King’s hope is that by cutting down on the number of working royals who are attached to the sovereign grant, that it will create a royal family who are in touch with the modern world and are seen as relevant.
According to the republic it costs £345 million to run the royal family every year. However, according to the royal household’s annual financial statement, the actual cost to the taxpayer came to around £86.3 million for the period of 2021-22. This only comes to £1.29 per person in the U.K annually.
In 2017, investment monitor confirmed The Monarchy’s annual contribution to the economy was £1.76bn, it is clear to see that the royal family can be seen as value for money.
Dr Woodacre, founder of The Royal Studies Network said: “There has been a concern in recent years that The Monarchy is expensive. Part of that concern was about the idea of hangers on and that there are non-working Royals or members of the extended royal family, who are financially benefiting from being part of The Monarchy. Yet perhaps these members aren't pulling their weight, in the same way as others.
“One of the things that broke recently, was the Danish situation. Queen Margrethe of Denmark made it known that she was looking to slim down The Monarchy. Effectively, she is dropping off people that aren’t in the direct line of succession. They will no longer have those titles. Everyone's very aware of the fact that relationship, the titles hold their place in the line of succession.
“We're starting to really have a division in modern terms where there’s something different from being part of the family and being related by blood and being part of the working family itself.
“That's what Queen Margrethe was trying to do, she was trying to cut it right down so that you could focus on the working members of the family and be good value for money. Of course, that caused a great deal of hurt because it is effectively a family enterprise. And her second son and his children who are directly affected by that, are losing their status as Royals, because they are being dropped off with this slimmed down monarchy and that was very hurtful to them in a familial sense.
“Today, monarchy is taking on a very different feel it is in effect a firm, it is really a business. This is what this family does for a living. Monarchy has to continually change and adapt with the times. This is really reflective of the times, we're in a huge economic pinch. It doesn't look good for the Royals to be seen as costing too much or spending too much in this environment.
“One of the things that colleagues in the field of royal studies have been looking at in the modern era, is moving with the times has meant that The Monarchy is trying to be more approachable. But there is this phenomenon that's called royal ordinariness.
“So, as they come down off the pedestal, they try to be more approachable and more normal. Then it also kind of changes this feeling of Well, then why are you special? And why do you have this status?
“Their role is very complex. It's a job like no other. And so certainly, there's huge pressures on them, as we've seen, and then a lot of royals have not necessarily coped well with that level of scrutiny. And not just in this era. Historically, as well. Particularly in the last few centuries, that fascination or that focus on the royal family worldwide has intensified.
“So, if Charles is wise, he will consider that step carefully and consult extensively with the family. Because the last thing The Monarchy needs right now is a negative news story.
“In the current climate, people will respond well to it being slimmed down. While there is an interest in the wider members of the royal family, and I'm sure that princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, and all the rest of them will continue to be appearing in tabloids and Hello and Majesty magazine and all that kind of thing.
“It does mean there's fewer people to share the burden. I mean, one of the things that we talk about in Royal studies society is this idea of corporate monarchy, that again you share rule, and you share duties with people, you bring them in.
“It is the right move for him in the current climate.”
Looking at the example of the Danish royal family slimming down it shows that a monarchy can change suddenly. The news itself only broke in late September, however, it was confirmed that the members of the family losing their titles would have this done from the 1st of January 2023. Leaving a short transition period for the royals who would soon find themselves not needed by their monarchy.
It appears public opinion is with the idea of slimming down The Monarchy as well. With a poll conducted by YouGov showing that just three members of the royal family got more than 50% for support in them receiving money from the taxpayer. Overall, there was 16 members of the royal family included on the list.
It suggests that since at the time of the poll, the main working royals out with The Queen was Charles, William, and Harry the public believe only those carrying out the main workload should be entitled to receive money from the state.
Richard Fitzwilliam’s, a royal commentator who has been part of interviews for publications such as Sky News said: “Slimming the Monarchy down is essential because as far as some people are concerned there are too many working Royals. I would point out that The Monarchy is already slimmed down. Andrew stepped down in disgrace, The Sussexes have left. And the important thing also to bear in mind. Is that the Duke of Kent, Prince Alexandra, the Gloucesters are not young, and neither is the Princess Royal.
“So, what you've got is a huge number of patronages left from The Duke of Edinburgh and The Queen. It's not clear how they're going to be distributed. So, it is a question of perception. But it's become a catchphrase.
“If you actually look at what it means the royals do some 2000 foreign duties each year. They were attached to 3000 institutions, organisations etcetera. And that's going to change but it is unclear precisely how, and also its going to be a while before the Prince and Princess of Wales's children George, Charlotte, and Louie step in
“The Queen was someone who ruled superbly, for a very long time. However, with Charles we can’t yet be sure how he will deal with things such as royal residencies and their costs.
“It’s always a question of balancing that with the fact that it turns the world's eyes to Britain and Britain benefits in a whole variety of ways from tourism, business, the enormous amount of publicity and so forth.
“In 1953, a third of the people in the population thought that the queen was chosen by God. I mean, it was a very different time. Equally though, it was post-war it was very stringent and the whole point was that you illuminate people's lives but of course, you spend wisely.
“Naturally, how it's spent must show, but equally not to spend it because there are problems, and they're very severe problems at the moment. It's counterproductive because it means that you're in an area then where you can't do anything, essentially, anything spent on The Monarchy on that basis would be extravagant.
“It is relevant, I think it's part of our DNA. It dates back more than 1000 years; you're looking however at relevance. Firstly, the politics is a complete mess. You need an apolitical head of state. Secondly, is the use of soft power. It's extraordinarily effective. The facts are that it is a very potent use of soft power. And the Queen in Ireland was the best example of that.
“The other is of course of Commonwealth links they're very important. And the Monarchy is linked with King Charles as head of the Commonwealth. Look at what they do for charity. It's a tremendous amount. William and the Earth Shot Prize or mental health. Catherine for the early childhood and so forth.
“So Royal backing for something is still gives it worldwide publicity probity it is very relevant. It's way beyond just media interest, look at the way there's the viewing of The Crown.”
Latest results on YouGov show that in late October of this year 55% of people felt that The Monarchy was a good thing for Britain. So, it appears that under Charles reign The Monarchy has come out positively from his actions so far.
For the time being Charles has now decided to shelve his plans for a slimmed down monarchy at the moment, due to the timing not being right as a result of a number of working royals having already stepped down. How this monarchy will actually look when it comes to fruition is yet to be seen but with its main goal to be a royal family that works best for Britain, it could be interesting to see who exactly The King decides to cut from the inner circle of the most famous family in the UK.