Monarchy is Incompatible With Democracy

In England, there's a growing movement to remove the monarchy, spearheaded by the organization Republic.

Good riddance I say.

One cannot discuss the anti-democratic realities of the British monarchy without  someone piping up to say that the British royals "don't have any real power", or "they generate tourism".

I beg to differ.

The idea that the royals hold no power, or that they generate more money than they siphon off from the UK is a sign of the effectiveness of their Public Relations, nothing more.

The idea that one family would have access to public money, be able to influence legislation, and position it's members as inherently more important than others shows us that monarchy is incompatible with democracy, full stop.

You cannot support democracy and monarchy at the same time.

Like William S. Burroughs said of Elizabeth II, "She should be sweeping floors."

Let's just barely dip our toes into the corrupt waters of the 'Windsor' family.

Sign in or sign up to comment below.

Queen's Consent

The UK has a law called Queen's Consent, "which requires ministers to alert the Queen when legislation might affect either the royal prerogative or the private interests of the crown," giving her a window to request changes to legislation before it is made public.

This is a profound subversion of the democratic process, and it has been used many times over the years.

Perhaps the most egregious use was in 1973, when a law was changed to allow the queen to avoid transparency laws, and hide the'embarassing' extent of her wealth.

Concealment of the Windsor's true fortunes is on-going.

Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth

Monarch dispatched private solicitor to secure exemption from transparency law

The GuardianDavid Pegg

Prince Charles' Suitcase of Cash

Prince Charles, first in the line of succession, accepted a suitcase full of cash for his 'charitable foundation'.

The money from a former Qatari minister -whom Charles met with in private - is named Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani. He's also known as 'the man who bought London'.

What was the money for? 3 million pounds rarely changes hands without some quid-pro-quo. What else could this be other than influence peddling?

Charles “stupid” to accept €3M in cash as calls grow for new investigation

Prince Charles was reportedly handed €3 million in cash—including €1 million stuffed inside a suitcase—from a former Qatari Prime Minister.

NewsweekJack Royston

The Cost, Secrecy, and Dishonesty of the 'Royals'

While every monarchy is incompatible with democracy, there are many, many other problems with the Windsors.

I hope you'll take 12 minutes and watch this quick analysis on why they must go.

Let's make Elizabeth the last.