Why does the UK love the monarchy?

A young girl wears a homemade crown as she waits to see Queen Elizabeth II visit the town centre of Accrington as part of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee tour of the country on 16 May 2012

I have recently been accused on Twitter of being both a royalist "uber-Toady" and the author of "the most anti-monarchist report you could want to view".

Both tweets related to the same item, a report for the BBC News at Ten that tried to answer a straightforward question: why does a country that has become so cynical about other institutions (Parliament, the City, the press, the police) remain so loyal to the monarchy?

Whatever republicans might wish, less than a fifth of the Queen's subjects in the UK say they want to get rid of the Royal Family - a proportion that has barely changed across decades.

According to polling data from Ipsos Mori, support for a republic was 18% in 1969, 18% in 1993, 19% in 2002 and 18% last year. Three-quarters of the population want Britain to remain a monarchy - a finding that has been described by pollsters as "probably the most stable trend we have ever measured".

Given the enormous social change there has been since the current Queen assumed the throne 60 years ago, it might seem surprising that a system of inherited privilege and power should have retained its popularity.

Mark gauges the mood during a royal visit to Lancashire

But reading some of the comments on Twitter, it seems that even to raise a quizzical eyebrow at the approval ratings of the Windsors is regarded by some monarchists as tantamount to treason.

Republicans, on the other hand, believe that to highlight the conspicuous lack of progress they have had in winning the nation to their cause is evidence of obsequious knee-bending.

I recently re-acquainted myself with the work of two seminal figures in the long-running debate between republican and monarchist thinkers in Britain - Thomas Paine and Walter Bagehot.

I was searching for an answer to the same question: "What is it about our country that we retain such affection for a system which appears at odds with the meritocratic principles of a modern liberal democracy?"

In January 1776, Paine's pamphlet Common Sense began to be passed around among the population of the colonies of the New World, a manifesto for American independence and republicanism.

Who was Thomas Paine?

"Possibly the most influential writer in modern human history" - that's the billing Thomas Paine got from one of his biographers.

Yet few people know much about him at all. Brendan O'Neill looks at Paine's life and legacy.

"There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of Monarchy," Paine declared. "One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of the hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion."

He contrasted the common sense of his pamphlet's title with the absurdity and superstition that inspired the "prejudice of Englishmen" for monarchy, arising "as much or more from national pride than reason".

To this day, British republicans refer to Paine's Common Sense almost as the sacred text. But monarchists have their own sacred text, written almost exactly a century afterwards. Walter Bagehot's English Constitution was a belated response to the revolutionary arguments of the New World republicans.

"We catch the Americans smiling at our Queen with her secret mystery," he wrote, with a suggestion that Paine and his kind were prisoners of their own "literalness". Bagehot didn't try to justify monarchy as rational (indeed he accepted many of Paine's criticisms), but his point was that an "old and complicated society" like England required more than mundane, dreary logic.

Walter Bagehot c.1865 Walter Bagehot wrote about the "mystic reverence" essential to "true monarchy"

"The mystic reverence, the religious allegiance, which are essential to a true monarchy, are imaginative sentiments that no legislature can manufacture in any people," he wrote. "You might as well adopt a father as make a monarchy."

Bagehot had identified a developing national characteristic. As colonial power and the riches of empire declined, there was an increasing desire to define greatness as something other than wealth and territory. Britain wanted to believe it was, intrinsically, special. "People yield a deference to what we may call the theatrical show of society," he wrote. "The climax of the play is the Queen."

Wind the clock forward to 1952 and plans were being made for the Coronation of the new Elizabeth II. Despite post-war austerity, it was decided the event should be a fabulous, flamboyant, extravagant affair with all the pomp and pageantry they could muster. There would be feathers and fur, gold and jewels, anthems and trumpets.

It was a giant gamble. Britain was re-evaluating many of the traditional power structures that had shaped society in the 1930s. How would a population still subject to food rationing react to a ceremony that almost rubbed its nose in the wealth and privilege of the hereditary monarch?

Two sociologists, Michael Young and Ed Shils, had joined the crowds in the East End of London, dropping in on street parties to find out. Their thesis, entitled The Meaning of the Coronation, accepted that there were some who had dismissed the whole affair as a ridiculous waste of money.

Children in London's East End enjoying a street party in celebration of the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, June 2nd 1953 Street parties for the Coronation were judged "a great act of national communion"

But overall, they concluded: "The Coronation provided at one time and for practically the entire society such an intensive contact with the sacred that we believe we are justified in interpreting it as we have done in this essay, as a great act of national communion."

Britain - battered, bruised and broke - appeared determined to embrace its monarchy and hang the cost. The paradox is that austerity was positively comfortable with ostentation; institutional challenge spawned a passion for hereditary authority.

It wasn't just that Britain wanted a distraction from hardship and uncertainty. Enthusiastic support for monarchy seemed to run counter to the new liberalism which was guiding the politics of post-war Britain.

The explanation, I think, is that the 1950s were also a period in which the country was anxious about how global, institutional and social change might threaten its identity.

The impact of Americanisation as well as colonial and European immigration upon British life were a source of great concern. Despite winning the war, it appeared that national power and influence were being lost. Institutional authority was being questioned.

Your life in the '50s

1950s images

Transport yourself back to the decade in which the Queen came to throne - use our tool to find out what your life would have been like in early 1950s Britain

There were fears, too, that the values and traditions which underpinned family and community life were also changing rapidly. War and financial hardship had combined to shake up and challenge ancient orthodoxies.

Monarchy represented a bulwark against rapid and scary change.

Sixty years after our Queen assumed the throne, many of those same anxieties remain. Concerns about how globalisation and immigration are changing Britain continue to trouble us. Respect for institutions has declined as the global financial crisis has ushered in a new era of austerity.

In Accrington earlier this month, I watched a down-to-earth, no-nonsense town go slightly mad for the Queen. Thousands lined the streets, hung out of windows, climbed lamp-posts to catch a glimpse of their monarch.

They stood for hours in a chilly wind wearing daft hats - a metaphor for the attitude of their country. Times are tough, the challenges are great and we respond by cheering an aspect of our culture that, for all its irrationality, is uniquely ours.

The British have always chosen the quirks of our history against foreign rationalism. The Romans brought us straight roads and decimalisation. As soon as they left, we reverted to impossibly complicated Imperial measures and winding country lanes.

Start Quote

In trying to explain the unlikely success of the monarchy, we shouldn't expect the answer to be based on reason ”

End Quote

The Normans commissioned the Domesday Book to try and impose order on bureaucratic chaos but had to compromise at every turn. That is how we ended up with something called Worcestershire - a place that foreigners find impossible to pronounce, never mind spell.

The British don't like straight lines. When we look at those maps of the United States with ruler-straight state boundaries, we feel pity. Walter Bagehot understood that our identity is found in the twists and turns of a rural B-road, not in the pragmatism of a highway.

It is the same with our system of governance. Logic is not the most important factor. We are happy to accept eccentricity and quirkiness because they reflect an important part of our national character.

So in trying to explain the unlikely success of the monarchy, we shouldn't expect the answer to be based on reason.

It is not a pocket-book calculation of profit and loss - how much does the Queen cost compared to what she brings in for the tourist trade?

It is not a question of prevailing political attitudes - how can a liberal democracy justify power and privilege based on an accident of birth?

The British monarchy is valued because it is the British monarchy. We are an old and complicated society that yields a deference to the theatrical show of society.

Mark Easton Article written by Mark Easton Mark Easton Home editor

Whitehall v town hall

David Cameron promised to give local government more power, but local councils continue to shrink, relative to central government.

Read full article

More on This Story


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 592.


    5year terms were not the Queens idea. She has no say, remember? She represents, she doesnt rule.

    You think by investing exec. power in one plutocrat, and the written constitution that would entail, the govt will be MORE accountable to us? Ultimate power will be up for sale to the highest bidder, dont believe otherwise. You have your head in the clouds if you believe in some socialist utopia

  • rate this

    Comment number 591.

    589. Colin The Truth

    on what grounds am I racist? are republicans a designated ethnicity now? they are certainly a minority, I suppose.

    a benign, apolitical monarch actually enhances democracy in that those who actually DO wield power - the prime minsiter, the new elites etc - derive legitimacy from her and must prostrate themselves (figuratively) before the crown, like any other citizen

  • rate this

    Comment number 590.


    I'm quite happy with my 'grasp' of history thankyou

    As it stands I am unhappy that within the system operating at the moment the so called British government has far too much power and is not accountable to us the people enough. Ticking a box every 5 years is not democracy

    Again, more information on what 'The Crown' actually is would be a start

    'royals' are just window dressing.

  • rate this

    Comment number 589.

    It's nothing to do with money. The closer a socity comes to a meritocracy the better, if you can't grasp that then there is no hope for you. Your use of "you people" says it all. The same type of language used by the racist right all over the world. You might as well donate your brain to the Daily Mail as they seem to be working it like the puppet they want you to be.

  • rate this

    Comment number 588.

    587. Colin The Truth

    It's not about the monarch being 'better' than me. Individually she isn't (though she works A LOT harder than I do). But an oath made to the Crown is like an oath to the nation as much as it is to the monarch herself. And besides, I guess I just don't have a problem with people who have more 'dosh' than I do, coz that's what i think it comes down to with you people.

  • rate this

    Comment number 587.

    Continue on being ruled by your "betters", it obviously makes you comfortable, maybe one day you will get to bow and scrape before them like a good little dog. I have far too much self respect I'm afraid. In 100 years they won't exist, I'm just sorry I will miss their demise.

  • rate this

    Comment number 586.

    583. Surely not

    Early republics were as chauvinist as any autocratic regime. But can you not see how The Crown has evolved with our society and politics? The very fact we still have a monarchy is testament to the soundness of our democracy and the pragmatism of our society (compared to the rest of the world).

    Your grasp of history is as weak as your grasp of how British politics really operate

  • rate this

    Comment number 585.

    Colin The Truth. Actually, you've got it the wrong way round. Constitutional monarchies are represented by the monarch, whereas most presidential systems (USA, France, etc.) are ruled by the president.

  • rate this

    Comment number 584.

    I will never understand those who want to be "ruled" by a monarch rather than represented by a president. It shows just how little you think of yourselves. And those who think people come to the UK because there is a queen rather to see our history or other reasons are just sheep repeating a myth that the BBC and the Daily Mail keep re-enforcing. WAKE UP!!!!

  • rate this

    Comment number 583.



    The reasons for having a pantomime dame, male or female, that is referred to as 'royal' in this country were originally a genocidal piece of scum in 1066.

    Followed by greedy backstabbing war mongers.

    Tudors were religious bigots.

    1600's. A power vaccuum filled by bankers with a Dutch frontman.

    System is still the same

    They are part of the problem, not the solution.

  • rate this

    Comment number 582.

    579. Surely not

    OK: The Kingdom of Denmark is Number 1. Monarchy wins!

    The point is an egalitarian society with high social mobility has nothing to do with whether they have a monarch or a president. Take your protests to the bankers and politicians - THEY hold the reigns of power.

    BUT a constitutional monarch is a firewall between a slippery, ambitious plutocrat and total executive power.

  • rate this

    Comment number 581.

    578. Surely not

    You were trying to make out Elizabeth II's remit as the same Abdullah Al Saud, which is clearly nonsense.

  • rate this

    Comment number 580.

    Tourism is not the strongest argument for keeping the monarchy. A lot of tourists come to Austria to see the remainders of what used to be the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Revolting nationalities and losing WW1 swept it away. Today there are very few Austrians, who seriously want it back. Same goes for nobility/aristocracy.

  • rate this

    Comment number 579.


    Let's look at your democracy index shall we ?

    The UK is at number 18, Iceland, parliamentary democracy is at number 2.

    Care to play more ?

    Being Scandanavian,which we were, seems more relevant than tolerating a so called king or queen.

  • rate this

    Comment number 578.


    May I suggest that instead of attempting to create a strawman argument,which you just did, you instead look at what happened in Bulgaria ?

    'Royalty' undressed.

    Politicians are simply are necessary evil. The less of them and the less power we give them, the better. At the moment, ours hide behind 'The Crown'. They abuse that position. Remove it and we start to move closer to democracy.

  • rate this

    Comment number 577.

    576. Amroth

    In fact, of the top ten 'most democratic' democracies (study by University of Zurich and the Social Science Research Center Berlin), 7 have monarchs.

  • rate this

    Comment number 576.

    575. Surely not

    'To those who prefer monarchy, Saudi or Lesotho are nice and warm.'

    That's like saying Sauli Niinistö is cut from the same cloth as Robert Mugabe.

    Such lazy, misleading comparisons serve only highlight that republicans don't have a leg to stand on.

    Finland was named one of three best democracies in the world in 2011 - the other two were Belgium and Denmark, both monarchies.

  • rate this

    Comment number 575.


    Whilst a good idea in principle, once Betty had won, the parasites know reality would dawn for the deluded.

    She'd be out on her arse come the following vote, a la Bulgaria.

    Whilst figures suchas Putin gets derided for wanting to stay, we're told to celebrate Windsor wanting even more time.

    To those who prefer monarchy, Saudi or Lesotho are nice and warm.

  • rate this

    Comment number 574.

    I am so glad that their royalnesses have decided to distribute their wealth to ease the suffering of lesser folk.

  • rate this

    Comment number 573.

    Dev I have read most of the posts in this link - I have responded to some in the tone they originally posted - there is a lot of whining about the royal family, the politicians, the taxes, ashamed to be British etc etc... To all of those may I suggest - there is freedom to settle in any of the European republics- If Britain and Monarchy are so bad please renounce citizenship and leave


Page 1 of 30



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.