The recent death of Queen Elizabeth II and the Coronation of King Charles III has opened debate on whether the UK should have a monarch or an elected president.

This is essentially two questions: do we need a monarchy, and do we want a monarchy? And they are two very different questions. I can’t account for what people think they want – but I can point out some of the arguments.

First of all … Do we need a monarchy? Put simply, no, a monarch as head of state isn’t necessary. Many countries operate quite effectively as republics with an elected President – see France, Germany, Ireland – as head of state. What a country does need is a head of state, who is empowered (within whatever the constitution is) to make final decisions on ministers etc. and to represent the country at the highest level. The buck has to stop somewhere and, for the avoidance of factionalism, that has to reside in a single person be they a president or a monarch.

So should the UK have a monarchy? Well, just because there are more presidential republics in the world than there are monarchies, doesn’t mean they are necessarily better. Let’s look at some of the arguments.

1. Cost. Monarchs are generally well off; presidents maybe not be so much. But in both cases the state will be paying much of the cost of maintaining the head of state. This will encompass their personal maintenance, the cost of state apartments/palaces, and duties performed as head of state (including transport and security). There are also, of course, state occasions like banquets (usually for other heads of sate) and ceremonial (like regular inaugurations, irregular coronations, opening parliament, state funerals). Whether you have a monarch or a president these costs are going to be much the same. A president will not de facto be cheaper.
   Given sufficient wealth a monarch or president may maintain their own private residence(s), staff, etc.; and this may help constrain the cost to the public purse. Monarchs, likely being wealthier, are perhaps more likely to do this.
   Result: a draw
2. Appointment. Monarchs are in most cases hereditary, so the succession from one to the next is fairly assured, relatively smooth, relatively infrequent, and relatively low cost. The major cost is just that once in a while state funeral and coronation.
   By contrast presidents have to be elected every few years. Hence there is the cost of the regular elections and regular inaugurations. And the inaugurations may require just as much pomp and pageantry as a coronation. Additionally, past presidents are often paid huge “pensions” for life, and a country could be paying several of these concurrently – as the US currently is.
   Let’s look at this another way. Those regular presidential elections are a recipe for farce, charade, deceit and a completely overwhelming media and political circus. Just think about the US Presidential elections: do we want an unedifying circus, US-style, every four or five years? Because that’s what we would get; we have a track record of picking up bad habits from the US. We already have general elections, local elections, and in many places mayoral elections; aren’t they sufficient circuses?
   Result: win for monarchy
3. Malfeasance. In general, these days, with constitutional monarchies the monarch doesn’t have their hands on the country’s finances. This is not the case with (a lot of) presidents. In consequence it is much easier for a president to have their hand in the till and to syphon off money etc. into their own pockets. Presidents are much more likely to become newly wealthy at the expense of the country. Another weakness of a republic is that it can afford too easy an inlet for foreign corruption.
   Of course this was not always the case and in times past many monarchs lined their own pockets via all varieties of taxation – but then in those days there was little differentiation between the state’s money and the monarch’s; something which disappeared with the separation of state and monarchy (during the 18th-century in the UK).
   In the UK, the royal family are super-wealthy, and much of that wealth has arisen via their ancestors, and not all acquired honestly. We may decry that, but whether right or wrong by our moral code, such were the “rules” of the day – and good legislation is not retrospective. But not all the royals’ money comes from their ancestors; much comes from business activity – whether that’s things like the Duchy of Cornwall or the late Queen dealing in racehorses.
   So yes, perhaps the royal family should not be so wealthy, but at least these days they have relatively little opportunity to have their hands in the till.
   Result: win for monarchy
4. Property. Do not run away with the notion that everywhere the UK royals live is theirs. Many (most?) of the properties belong to the state (Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Holyrood House, Kensington Palace), and some belong to the royal dukedoms (eg. Highgrove is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, and hence is now under Prince William’s control but not ownership). Only a few properties are actually owned by the royal family per se: eg. Sandringham, Balmoral.
   Result: a draw
5. Popularity. This is where having a president may be preferable. With an unpopular, inept or corrupt monarch it is almost impossible to get rid of them; although most monarchies are constitutional (or parliamentary) and the head of state can do relatively little damage. On the other hand an unpopular president can be removed at the next election; but in the meantime will often have more power to do untold damage – see events of recent years in the US.
   Result: a draw
6. Tourism. The British Monarchy is well respected abroad, a profitable brand, and our pageantry is second to none. Which all brings in tourists – and hence money – from around the globe. This is much less likely to happen with a president: for instance, boring motorcades are much more likely than horse-drawn gilded coaches.
   Result: win for monarchy
7. Partisanship. Most monarchs, and the late Queen was an exemplar of this, are above partisanship. Whereas presidents, almost by definition, will always be partisan. Monarchs are not involved in the day-to-day activity of government; by contrast a president is so often the head of government and has day-to-day control – so there is no-one outside government to try to see the bigger picture and provide impartial advice.
   Monarchs generally offer steady, self-effacing leadership, whereas grubby politicians come and go, they cut deals, and win elections by dividing their country.
   Result: win for monarchy

So in my estimation, a monarchy wins 4-0. But as always YMMV.

Sources

• https://www.aei.org/op-eds/having-a-president-vs-having-a-monarch/
• https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-constitutional-monarchy-system-and-presidential-system
• https://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9294955/queen-elizabeth-constitutional-monarchy
• https://www.historicalindex.org/what-is-the-difference-between-a-president-and-a-king.htm
• https://netivist.org/debate/constitutional-monarchy-vs-republic