Britain is a secular and multicultural society, but such aspirations sit uneasily with the practices of the head of the state
Queen Elizabeth II has become the longest reigning monarch and head of state in British history. Coverage in the sycophantic tabloid press suggests that the monarchy is popular, though that has never been tested through a referendum. Popularity, or otherwise, should not stand in the way of debate about the consequences of the constitutional arrangements.
An ordinary Briton, no matter how educated, capable or popular, cannot be the head of state. That position is reserved for a member of a privileged family. This can’t be reconciled with claims of being an equal opportunities society.
Britain is a secular and multicultural society, but such aspirations sit uneasily with the practices of the head of the state. The head of the state has to be the head of the Church of England. Under the 1701 Act of Settlement no one from outside this religious denomination can be the head of state. There is no formal separation between the state and religion, often considered to be a key feature of a modern state.
The Queen appoints the bishops and the archbishops of the Church of England, albeit with the prime minister’s and Church commissioners’ recommendations. Archbishops of Canterbury and York and 24 other bishops sit in the House of Lords and act as unelected legislators. A secular society contains people of diverse religious and spiritual beliefs, as well as atheists and agnostics, but they there are no reserved seats for them in the House of Lords. Thus, religious discrimination is built into the system perpetuated by the monarchy.
In a democratic country, elected representatives of the people should be able to scrutinise the effectiveness of the head of the state. However, members of the House of Commons are not permitted to table questions about the conduct of the monarch even though they approve the Civil List and allocate millions of pounds for the running of The Queen’s Household.
In legitimising his austerity politics, David Cameron famously claimed that ‘we’re all in this together’. Such claims would have greater legitimacy if they applied to the monarchy as well. Most Britons have to pay income tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, corporation tax and other taxes. How does all this apply to the monarch and the heir apparent?
The Queen is not compelled to pay all taxes. She voluntarily pays capital gains tax, and since 1993 has paid personal income tax though the amounts are not known. The estate of lesser mortals has to pay inheritance tax at the rate of 40 per cent on assets above £325,000, but the Queen does not pay inheritance tax. She inherited £50 million from her late mother’s will and her privileged position is thought to have saved her £20 million.
The wealth of the royal family is shrouded in secrecy. Some have estimated the royal family to be worth £44.5 billion plus £11.5 billion of commercial property. However, the fortune can be passed to the Queen’s heirs without the deduction of inheritance tax.
These economic privileges are available not only to the Queen, but also to her heir apparent Prince Charles. The Prince is well known for his attempts to influence ministers and then taking legal action to prevent public knowledge of his interventions. As Duke of Cornwall, the Prince controls the Duchy of Cornwall. The Duchy makes laws which affect people, but the Prince has asserted that the Duchy is somehow exempt from the freedom of information laws.
The Duchy trades in property, house building, holiday rentals, organic food, jam, marmalades and biscuits. It owns 53,400 hectares of land and property in 23 counties of England and Wales. These include Dartmoor Prison, the Oval cricket ground, a Waitrose warehouse in Milton Keynes, a biomethane injection plant, pubs, shops, hotels and a building occupied by King’s College in London.
The Duchy’s net assets of £871 million generated £19.7 million of profit for Price Charles. The entire profit is the property of Prince Charles. The official information is that it is used for the performance of his official duties, even though he receives public grants to cover his travel costs.
The Duchy competes with other businesses and makes full use of the infrastructure funded by taxpayers, but it does not pay corporation tax on its profits or capital gains tax on its asset sales. Upon becoming King, Prince Charles is permitted to pass the entire estate of the Duchy to his heir, Prince William, without any inheritance tax.
The above is a brief glimpse of some of the social and economic consequences of the monarchy. In the twenty-first century they do not sit easily with concerns about equal opportunities, institutionalised discrimination, lack of parliamentary accountability and failure to pay taxes. How long before the UK has a referendum on this?
Prem Sikka is Professor of accounting at the University of Essex
Want to read more posts like this? Then *sign-up to Look Left* and make sure you have the facts to rebut right-wing spin
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
27 Responses to “Comment: Why we need a referendum on the monarchy”
Selohesra
As with many things if we started with blank sheet of paper we might not come up with Monarchy as Head of State but we have one that has served the test of time and its now part of British identity. This is something that is not broken and there is no need to fix unless its part of plan to undermine Britishness including the importation of hundreds of thousands of non-Brits over the last 50 years who don’t share our heritage and now want to change the country that has welcomed them. Its like religion – if you don’t like your churches teaching go and join another rather than change for everyone else what they believe in.
Syzergy_Point
Thanks for the article, I enjoyed reading it. Although on most issues I’m a bit of card-carrying lefty, liberal; I actually think that history shows that an established church and apolitical monarch have been a bulwark against religious oppression since the 16th century. The modern Church of England was a means of keeping at bay the ‘enthusiasm’ of Cromwell’s puritans. Take France’s ‘Laïcité’ or political secularism. This has seen the rights of religious groups curtailed. In other words secularism doesn’t mean neutrality, you can have either a secular or multicultural society, not both. I tend to agree with you about the bishops in the Lords, although I’d rather they were there than hundreds of political toadies; they’re actually more in touch with ordinary people than most of the rest of them. I wouldn’t support a referendum on the monarchy unless there was considerable evidence that people were unhappy with the status-quo. I’m a reluctant left-wing monarchist.
Mick
No, we don’t need a referendum on the Monarchy.
To join the reasons below, Her Majesty has actually been part of the modern checks and balances in constitutional politics. She does comparatively little but in her counsel, many a prime minister has considered her invaluable.
And suppose we get a mad king? Like Jeremy Corbyn, for pure argument’s sake? They don’t actually last long, as Edward VIII proved. And with Elizabeth II working so effectively as head of state that you paradoxically don’t notice her doing it, we would really miss her when she’s gone.
….Unless, of course, we see a new President Cameron to continue limiting the madness of a fresh Labour government later!
Oh god Left, that will be so GOOD! Right, gimme that banner! No more Queen!
Shinsei1967
Where to start ?
The Civil List was abolished in October 2010.
If you can’t get something as simple as that right then one has to question most of the other points you raise.
The Royal Family is worth £45bn ? Yet the Duchy of Cornwall is worth only £900m and the Queen inherited £50m. Where are the other tens of billions ? Perhaps you are referring to the Crown Estate, Buckingham Palace & Windsor Castle and the Crown Jewels & Royal Art Collection. But these are not the property of the Royal Family. They belong to the UK state.
The Queen’s personal property extends to Balmoral (bought by Prince Albert), Sandringham, George V’s stamp collection and an investment portfolio most value at a couple of 100 million not tens of billions.
jj
You want a referendum on the Monarchy? Ok. Look at the latest Yougov article and you will see the latest poll showing the monarchy to have overwhelming support from people from all walks of life, they are so many more issues that require an immediate referendum than this institution that has actually ben benefiting the economy, and employing many for centuries, but you know, LFF and their obsession with the ‘injustice’ of monarchy continues, yawn!