Express gets in a royal tizzy over Green Party’s ‘republican activism’

The Express has got itself into something of a royal tizzy over proposals from the Green Party to change the way the Crown Estate and the monarchy are funded, presenting routine questions about public ownership and accountability as an outbreak of “republican activism”.

The newspaper, which is well known for its extensive and sympathetic coverage of the Royal Family, devoted a piece to claims that the Greens want to “strip King Charles of control over vast swathes of royal land and hand them to the state”.

The article headlined “Fury over Green Party plans for UK beaches and land owned by King Charles,” focuses on Motion A31, which could be debated at the party’s annual conference within weeks. The motion calls for Crown Estate land to be taken “out of the control of the monarch” and transferred to government control.

According to the Express, the motion claims that land owned by the monarch is “effectively in the public domain” and argues that it should no longer be managed by “a private group of Commissioners chosen by the monarch”.

The tabloid then wheels in Matt Vickers, deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, who accuses the Greens of prioritising “republican activism” over defence, welfare and border security.

“The Green Party is not serious about the challenges facing our country.

“They would rather waste time on republican activism than fund defence, cut the welfare bill or secure our borders.

“Unlike the Greens, the Conservatives are proud of our history and our institutions, and will always support the British monarchy.”

Quite why questioning the constitutional arrangements governing an estate whose profits go to the Treasury amounts to “wasting time” is left rather unclear.

Indeed, one of the Express’s central premises is somewhat undermined by a basic fact, that King Charles does not personally own the Crown Estate.

The Crown Estate is an independent commercial business with a special constitutional status. Its net revenue is surrendered to the Treasury, while the monarch has no right to the capital or revenues of the estate. So framing the issue as an attempt to seize the King’s personal property is, at best, misleading.

The Express also warns that a fresh Green policy paper on the “shoreline and seabed” could “open the door to a wider fight over who controls Britain’s beaches and who gets to use them”.

Given the state of Britain’s bathing waters, perhaps a serious debate about who manages and protects the country’s coastline would not be such a terrible thing.

Research has found that England’s swimming waters are five times more likely to be polluted than those in the EU, while experts have warned that the UK risks becoming the “dirty man of Europe” as it falls behind other countries on bathing water quality.

If anything, that makes questions about how Britain’s beaches, coastline and seabed are managed rather more relevant than the Express’s suggestion that raising them is some sort of republican plot.

The newspaper also takes aim at another Green proposal, scrapping the Sovereign Grant, through which public money is provided to support the King’s official duties and the running costs associated with the monarchy.

The proposal is hardly unprecedented. Campaigners have long called for the Sovereign Grant to be abolished, arguing that public money would be better directed towards public services such as the NHS and schools. Republic, for example, has highlighted the substantial increase in the size of the grant since its introduction in 2011.

Whether the monarchy should receive public funding is a perfectly legitimate political question. So is whether the Crown Estate should remain under its current constitutional arrangements. And so is whether an unelected head of state should have the role, powers and privileges currently enjoyed by the monarchy.

People can reasonably disagree with the Green Party’s answers to those questions. But describing the mere act of asking them as “republican activism” is hardly a serious contribution to the debate.

And, somewhat awkwardly for the Express, even some of its own readers appeared unconvinced by the paper’s outrage.

“‘Fury’ again from the no-news, and Know-nothing ‘Express’. Small point – King Charles does not own the Crown Estate – which profits go direct to the Treasury. No harm in nationalising it, except there’s not much point as the State already owns it,” one reader wrote in the comments.

Another asked: “Why should an unelected family have control of 2 immense duchies? They should be administered by the state clearly and openly.”

If the monarchy is as secure and popular as its defenders insist, perhaps its supporters should be confident enough to allow those questions to be debated without reaching for the royal panic button.