King Charles set for coronation as British Monarchy faces uncertain future

Charles' coronation is scheduled for the sixth of May this year. Alongside the recent news that Prince Harry will be in attendance without his wife Meghan Markle, and the broader controversies of their relationship, questions remain over the future of the monarchy under the reign of a new King.

In recent weeks, the pressure group Republic have been keen to point out the lack of interest in Charles' upcoming coronation. Graham Smith of Republic has claimed that despite being high in certain areas, "global interest" compares poorly to "sporting or other major national events."

Indeed, a poll conducted by YouGov suggests that much of the public is apathetic to the upcoming coronation of King Charles III. Of all adults, only nine per cent said they care "a great deal", with 24 per cent saying they are a "fair amount". In contrast, 35 per cent said they care, but "not very much", and 29 per cent "not at all". A breakdown of these figures correlates with age, with young people more frequently tending to care not very much or not at all. For example, of 18 to 24 and 25 to 49 year olds, 35 per cent indicated they do not care at all.

Furthermore, Charles' first months as monarch have been met with negative reactions in Edinburgh, as a protester calling for the abolition of the monarchy was arrested. Members of the public expressed alarm at reports of protesters being arrested merely for articulating views against the monarchy in the form of public protest. Booing was also reported, as Charles attended a proclamation ceremony.

Should we abolish the monarchy?

The results of a YouGov survey conducted in March 2023 show that 61 per cent of respondents think that we should "continue to have a monarchy", with just 24 per cent thinking we "should have an elected head of state instead". A notable 15 per cent said they don't know.

However, as mentioned above, age is important, with younger generations showing less favour to the monarchy as an institution, and more openness to the idea of an elected head of state. Of the 18 to 24 year olds YouGov surveyed, 35 per cent said the monarchy should be replaced by an elected head of state, with 33 per cent preferring its continuation, and 32 per cent saying they don't know.

Between 25 to 49 year olds, the numbers in favour of keeping the monarchy were notably higher at 52 per cent. Meanwhile, 29 per cent of that age range favoured an elected head of state, with 19 per cent not knowing. The numbers get more conservative as respondents get older, with 70 per cent of 50 to 64 year olds preferring to keep the monarchy, and just 21 per cent preferring an elected head of state. For those aged 65-plus, the same figures were 81 per cent and 14 per cent respectively.

UK public attitudes towards the monarchy as an institution

So what explains Britain's hedged preference for the continuation of the monarchy? Most obviously, YouGov polls indicate that most of the British public thinks that monarchy has been good for Britain. However, whilst thinking the monarchy has been good for Britain could lead one to favour its continuation, the view is commensurate with thinking that an elected head of state (or some other constitutional alternative) might be better. In other words, you can agree that monarchy has been good for Britain, but also be in favour of constitutional reform.

There are a variety of reasons why the monarchy has arguably been good for Britain. They include being a source of political stability, providing support for the UK's reputation abroad, providing public morale and a sense of unity, and stimulating activity in the UK economy. Brand Finance, a business valuation consultancy, published a report in 2017 analysing the value of the British monarchy. They estimated the capital value of the UK Monarchy to be £67.5 billion, contributing £1.766 billion to the UK economy in 2017.

In March 2023, when asked whether they thought the monarchy was good or bad for Britain, 58 per cent of all YouGov respondents thought it to be good for Britain. Only 13 per cent said they thought it was bad for Britain, whilst 7 per cent said they didn't know and 22 per cent said they thought it was neither good nor bad.

Just like younger adults are more likely to favour moving on from the monarchy, they are also more sceptical than average towards the benefits of the monarchy. From the ages of 18 to 24, around 27 per cent thought the monarchy to be good for Britain and 22 per cent bad. On the other hand, 31 per cent responded saying it is neither good nor bad, and 21 per cent said they don't know.

Interestingly, back in July 2019, YouGov found that 48 per cent of 18 to 24 year olds thought the monarchy was good for Britain. Therefore, there has been a decline in positive opinion towards the institution amongst young adults according to these statistics.

In contrast, older generations were more inclined to see the monarchy as a good thing. Amongst the 65-plus age group, 76 per cent said the monarchy is good for Britain, and just 6 per cent bad. Only 2 per cent said they don't know, and 16 per cent indicated they think it is neither good nor bad.

UK public attitudes to Queen Elizabeth II

One possibility is that the reputation of Queen Elizabeth II has acted as a positive advert for the monarchy as an institution. YouGov polls show that when asked to put their views about the monarchy as an institution aside, the general consensus among all adults is that the Queen did a good job.

Whilst YouGov asked people to differentiate their view of the Queen and their views of the monarchy as an institution, given that Elizabeth was the leading figurehead of the royal family for 70 years until her death in September 2022, it is potentially flawed to think that people's overall impression of the Monarchy as an institution is independent of their impression of the late Queen. Her committed and conscientious approach to her role as monarch and head of state has given the majority of the public little reason to favour constitutional reform and an elected head of state.

In May 2022, across all adults surveyed, 58 per cent of respondents thought the late monarch did a "very good job", with a modest 24 per cent stating she did a "fairly good job". Whilst 11 per cent said they didn't know, only 4 per cent thought she did a "fairly bad job" and only 3 per cent a "very bad job".

However, again, YouGov statistics show that amongst younger people, fewer numbers think the Queen did a fairly good or very good job on the throne.

From the 18 to 24 year olds, 36 per cent of respondents say she did a fairly good job, with just 24 per cent agreeing that she did a very good job. The number of don't knows increases to 25 per cent in this age group. However, whilst the proportion that thinks she did a fairly bad job is 8 per cent, and a very bad job 6 per cent, this is still a limited amount of negative opinion.

In contrast, amongst the 65-plus age group, 79 per cent of respondents think the Queen did a very good job, with 16 per cent thinking she did a fairly good job, and only two per cent and one per cent thinking she did a very bad job and fairly bad job respectively. The story is similar between the ages of 50 to 64, with 76 per cent thinking she did a very good job, and 15 per cent thinking she did a fairly good job.

The case against the constitutional monarchy

In the midst of these broadly positive attitudes towards the late monarch and the monarchy as an institution in general, the pressure group Republic has campaigned against the monarchy, arguing in favour of a directly elected head of state. Republic argues that there is no constitutional mechanism to hold the monarch and the royal family accountable for their behaviour. Instead, they are free to abuse their privilege, use their public influence inappropriately, and waste money.

Republic also claims that the monarch gives "vast arbitrary power to the government", excluding the public from decisions which pertain to the national interest and that the monarch is bound to act only in the government's interest, not those of the public.

Republic advocates for an elected head of state with "very clear and limited powers". However, this head of state would not be political but instead operate like a judge in a court of law. That is, operating in line with the law, and not exercising personal opinion. In the vision outlined by Republic, the powers of the elected head of state would be written down in a codified constitution.

Is the UK Republic feasible?

When YouGov asked whether Britain will still have a monarchy in 100 years' time, 43 per cent of adults said yes, 37 per cent said no and 20 per cent said they don't know. As you might predict, between the ages of 18 to 24, the balance shifts slightly, with 38 per cent saying yes and 42 per cent saying no. Amongst 25 to 49 year olds, there is a greater expectation that the monarchy will endure, with 45 per cent answering yes, 35 per cent answering no, and 21 per cent saying they don't know.

However, whilst there may be greater expectation amongst younger generations that the monarchy will be abolished at some point in the distant future, it is difficult to imagine how such a significant constitutional change could come about anytime soon. Moreover, given the current and ongoing UK political climate, abolishing the monarchy seems like an unfeasible idea.

Brexit demonstrated how controversial and polarising constitutional political reform can be. Scottish independence is another issue which has the potential to upset the status quo in British politics. When you combine the UK's domestic divisions and challenges with the pressures of an increasingly hostile multi-polar global international system, the likelihood of any mainstream Westminster party ever successfully advocating for the abolition of the monarchy seems slim.

Of those who voted conservative at the 2019 general election, a dominant 87 per cent think we should continue with the monarchy. Only 8 per cent preferred an elected head of state. Amongst Labour voters, the same figures are 48 per cent and 38 per cent respectively. Given Labour's failure to get back into government at the last three general elections, we can safely assume that Sir Kier Starmer won't be advocating for an elected head of state any time soon. Whatever you think about the monarchy, such a proposal could surely only damage Labour's dominant position in the national polls. Given the above statistics, the issue would likely divide and not unite the party if put at the centre stage of a Labour vision for government.

With a hot war raging in Ukraine, and Western power and norms increasingly challenged by the rise of an authoritarian China, allowing the country to become consumed in a political battle over the future of the UK constitution could be strategically disadvantageous. Arguably, the attention of political elites and the wider public should focus on the issues which have a more direct effect on individual living standards and Britain's position in the world now.

Even if a consensus that the monarchy should be abolished could be miraculously created amongst the public and political elites, divisions would still likely arise over the exact role an elected head of state would play in the place of a monarch. Or indeed, whether it should be an elected head of state that replaces the monarch at all. For these reasons, whilst the long-term future of the UK monarchy might be uncertain, the institution is certain to remain for the time being.