In the year 2018, the United Kingdom remains a monarchy… why?  What possible justification can there be for a country to be a monarchy – what validity does this system of government hold.  Indeed, what validity has any monarchist system ever held?

The definition of a monarchy according to Collins is:  “A system in which a country which has a monarch”.

The United Kingdom has a monarch, thus the United Kingdom is a monarchy.  Although other labels may apply, it should be noted that the definition goes on to confirm that a monarchy is “a form of government in which supreme authority is vested in a single and usually hereditary figure… whose powers can vary from those of an absolute despot to those of a figurehead.”  The reigning monarch of the United Kingdom is the Head of State, and has the power to dissolve parliament – that is supreme authority; and that role is hereditary.  The British monarchy is further maintained by every new parliament in the United Kingdom – yet why should this be?  What is it that legitimises a single family to maintain constitutional or political control over an entire nation (or in the case of the British monarchy, an entire Commonwealth of nations)?

In my naïve state, it would seem logical and ethical to me that any position held should be a position earned – that a particular role be filled by a person who has been adjudged competent for that role.  Modern legislation against discrimination in many countries even explicitly requires that candidates for a role may be judged only on criteria which are relevant for the position.  If such be the case, then what are the criteria for being ‘royal’?  Unless I am mistaken, the only criteria for being a member of the royal family is being a member of the royal family – either through birth or marriage.  Yet even this is not true in any historical sense, since there are many occasions when the throne of a nation has been claimed by a person not of noble blood simply through the act of winning a war.

Despite this absence of any empirical test, it would seem that there is a belief amongst monarchists that the members of such a family are special (if not superior) in some way when compared to others.  And although this ‘superiority’ defies definition, it seems to remain the most tangible of the justifications.  Personally, I struggle to understand why anyone can think it acceptable that an individual (let alone a family or dynasty) should be set above other people simply by virtue of an accident of birth.

Putting this to one side for the present, if it can be supposed that the argument in support of a monarchy is such that a particular family be destined to rule because of some form of superiority that they innately possess (be that a genetic code or otherwise) then how can a monarchy continue to be justified when it ‘dilutes’ its supposed innate superiority through marriage to persons of a non-superior non-royal) nature?  Surely the introduction of non-royal people to the royal family should remove their automatic right to reign?  In simple terms – if their blue blood has been diluted, is it any longer blue?

In 1936 the then King of the United Kingdom (Edward VIII) fell in love with Wallace Simpson: a divorced woman hailing from the United States of America.  Mrs Simpson was not only a divorcée, but both of her ex-husbands were still alive – a fact that caused concern to the Church of England since it only approved of re-marriage if the previous spouses were deceased!  Following political pressure from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, King Edward VIII abdicated, choosing to remain with the woman with whom he had fallen in love rather than to perpetuate the perceived constitutional crisis/ scandal.  80 years on, another member of the British Royal Family, Prince Harry has fallen in love with a divorced woman from the United States of America – and her ex-husband is also still alive.  On this occasion however, there seems to be little (if anything) in the way of public debate concerning this outrageous departure from tradition, and the wedding goes ahead with the full support of the Royal Family itself, and the nation.  (This follows the marriage in 2011 of Prince William to Catherine Middleton, a woman who comes from a non-royal family, albeit one with distant ties – whatever that means – to the aristocracy.)

How then can those that support the concept of royalty the superiority of a single family over all others) at the same time support the inclusion of non-royal blood into those families?  The logical conclusion of accepting a marriage between a royal member and a non-royal member is that the progeny of such a union would not be royal – they would only be half-royal.  If that is the case, should they only be half-head of state?

The concept that one family may be superior to another is an anathema to the concepts of equality and fairness that governments all over the world – including the government of the United Kingdom – seek to introduce through anti-discrimination legislation.  It is simply not tenable for any government (or anyone) to support equality laws and a monarchy at the same time.