Is the Royal Family still relevant to contemporary Britain ?

History geography video ( 8 minutes ) for Mrs. Patel

Welcome to …. Where we will be discussing the following question “ is the royal

family still relevant to contemporary Britain?” We will explore the political, social,
and economic pros and cons surrounding the Royal Family today, hearing different
perspectives from Dara, Jemma, Anna, and Farah. Each of them will delve into
various aspects of this ongoing debate, from political relevance to taxpayer costs
and social equality.
Anna - political pros

The Royal family is an advantage to the British government as they ensure

Britain’s popularity around the world through the use of soft power and their
supposed status of Britain’s public diplomat. The late Queen Elizabeth II’s
ability to co-opt using culture, political values and foreign policies during her many
state visits and overseas voyages (to Ireland in 2011, to Thailand in 1996 or to
Sudan in 1965) was greatly bene cial for Britain’s national image, in uence and
trade. She promoted Britain through her own open-mindedness and understanding
of countries’ cultures and politics, creating mutual links which enhance dynamics
between Britain and other states.

Moreover, Britain has a constitutional monarchy, which means that the originally
“supreme” power held by the monarch is now mostly ceremonial and formal, with
the actual political power exercised by the government. And although the King still
maintains prerogative powers, these powers can only be exercised with the consent
of the Prime Minister. This neutral position held by the Crown ensures that Britain
stays a democracy, while making a constant statement to the country’s monarchical
past.

Dara - political cons

• Political neutrality: As Anna said, it is important for the royal family to

stay politically neutral. Any indication of political bias or involvement can
undermine public trust in the institution and raise questions about its role in a
modern constitutional monarchy. One notable example of concerns regarding
their neutrality is the controversy surrounding King Charles' 3rd perceived
in uence in political matters when he sent private letters to government
ministers between 2004/2005. They were known as the "black spider
memos". Another example of concern is the debate surrounding Prince
Harry and Meghan Markle's decision to step back from their roles as senior
royals. This move raised questions about the monarchy's involvement in
contemporary social and political issues, as well as the boundaries between
personal beliefs and public duties. This situation can be politically challenging
because it blurs the line between personal decisions and the traditional
fl
fi
fl
 expectations of the royal family. Such actions may fuel debates about the
relevance and accountability of the monarchy in today’s society.
• Furthermore, the monarchy is seen by some as a symbol of British
imperialism and colonialism, which has left a painful legacy in many
countries. By the way, There are increasing calls for the UK to deal with its
colonial history. The role of the royal family in representing that history is
contentious, especially among former colonies within the Commonwealth.
For example, Certain Commonwealth nations, including Jamaica and
Barbados, have publicly talked or implemented measures to depose the
British monarch as their head of state, saying that the monarchy no longer
embodies their political identity or principles. In 2021, Barbados, wanting to
remove its ties with Britain, became a republic and chose to remove Queen
Elizabeth the II as head of state.

Anna - economical pros

The Royal family is an advantage to the British government as they ensure Britain’s
popularity around the world through the use of soft power and their supposed status
of Britain’s public diplomat. The late Queen Elizabeth II’s ability to co-opt using
culture, political values and foreign policies during her many state visits and
overseas voyages (to Ireland in 2011, to Thailand in 1996 or to Sudan in 1965) was
greatly bene cial for Britain’s national image, in uence and trade. She promoted
Britain through her own open-mindedness and understanding of countries’ cultures
and politics, creating mutual links advantaging dynamics between Britain and other
states.

Moreover, Britain has a constitutional monarchy, which means that the originally
“supreme” power held by the monarch is now mostly ceremonial and formal, with
the actual political power exercised by the government. And although the King still
maintains prerogative powers, these powers can only be exercised with the consent
of the Prime Minister. This neutral position held by the Crown ensures that Britain
stays a democracy, while making a constant statement to the country’s monarchical
past.

• Economic pros

The Royal Family is a costly family, but they do bring income to Britain. Let’s
look at the estimated bene ts to the UK from the Royal Family in the year
2023-2024.

The net non-recurring bene t (which was mainly King Charles’ coronation that year)
was 761 million pounds after having taken off the year’s costs.
fi
fi
fi
fl
 In addition to this net bene t for the Coronation Year, the recurring bene t of the
year was 197 million pounds, so the total bene t was 958 million pounds.

These bene ts come from various sources of income linked to the Royal Family,
which include Royal Warrants, which is a seal of approval of a company by the King
showing their partnership and cooperation, and tourism, as every year more than
50 000 people visit Royal Households, such as Buckingham Palace or Westminster
Abbey, … Merchandise is also a source of income, along with Global Media
Coverage, which has had its share of insight and information on interesting and
sometimes scandalous matters within the Royal Family.

This shows that the Crown is not only a diplomatic and royal gure, but a
source of pro t for the UK.

Farah - Economics:

Con: cost to taxpayers: The British monarchy represents an unjusti able

nancial burden on UK taxpayers, draining public resources that
could be better spent on essential services. The Sovereign Grant,
which funds most of the royal family's expenses, cost taxpayers a
staggering £102.4 million in 2021/22, marking a 17% increase from the
previous year. This sum is particularly displeasing given the economic
challenges faced by ordinary citizens.The royal family's lavish lifestyle,
funded by public money, highlights the big inequality in British society. As
Rhiannon Mills of Sky News pointed out, they will "inevitably always face
the criticism of 'how can they understand?' when their family is one of the
most privileged in the country". Furthermore, extravagant ceremonial
events like coronations place an additional strain on public nances, for
example the coronation of King Charles III which was estimated to cost
around £100 million, primarily funded by the UK government. This
excessive expenditure on the royals is dif cult to justify, especially
when many citizens struggle with the cost of living crisis.

Jemma - social pros

The royal’s popularity with the public

Recent polling suggests that despite various challenges, the monarchy continues to
hold a rm place in the hearts of many of the British, though its appeal differs
across generations. King Charles III’s level of public support remains signi cant,
even though the past two years have been turbulent for the Royal Family. They play
an important social and civic role as they connect with local communities, advocate
for social causes, and encourage volunteerism. Their presence at events, whether
opening hospitals or recognizing ordinary citizens, helps foster a sense of national
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
pride and unity. While the monarchy still enjoys strong overall support, attitudes
toward the institution differ sharply across age groups. The Royals are still
supported by 36% of younger British people favor keeping the monarchy, compared
to 79% of those over 65. The royals’ role in promoting civic engagement and social
causes helps keep them connected with the public.

National unity for the country

Supporters of the constitutional monarchy argue that it provides a lasting

connection to the country’s past and ensures a head of state who remains above
party politics, promoting stability. The monarchy’s role is to promote national
identity, unity, and pride, while offering continuity and recognizing excellence and
service. The monarchy’s ability to unite the nation through traditions and its visible
presence at events like jubilees and coronations fosters national togetherness. The
monarch's ceremonial role through public appearances and symbolic duties,
reinforces its importance as a stable, unifying force. Unlike politicians, the royal
family’s neutrality allows them to represent all citizens. By acknowledging societal
contributions and supporting local causes, the royals deepen the public’s sense of
belonging. Ultimately, the monarchy is more than a ceremonial institution; it
represents shared history and values.

Farah - Social cons :

• Con: no place in equal society: Critics regarding the royal family may
say that British royalty is a perpetuation of hierarchical power
reinforcing class division and inequality. Eve Livingston, author and
journalist for the Independent stated that the royal family “exists as a glaring
symbol of the unearned privilege and inequality that pervades the roots of
British society”. The vast wealth disparity is highlighted by The Head of
Inequality Policy at Oxfam International who calculated that the late Queen
owned 3,200 times the wealth of the average UK citizen. And there is not
much change since her death as it is well documented that the king
Charles has avoided paying any inheritance tax on the vast fortune he
inherited from his mother as a result of a clause agreed by then Prime
Minister John Major back in 1993.
• Race Within the Royal Family: One of the more recent discussions
around the royal family has been the introduction of an African
American by way of Prince Harry's decision to marry Meghan Markle.
Since they renounced their titles and Meghan opened up about her struggles
to fully integrate into the royal family in an interview with Oprah, people have
been wondering if they still represent a closed and outdated mindset. But this
is not the rst time the royal family has been suspected of this kind of
behavior. Some reports suggest Princess Diana faced resistance from certain
royal family members regarding her relationship with Hasnat Khan back in
fi
 1995-1997, potentially due to his ethnicity and religion. A few years later, in a
2001 interview, Diana's former butler claimed that a senior royal had
expressed concern about the "bloodline" if Diana married Dodi Fayed.
Furthermore, historical documents uncovered in 2021 showed that
Buckingham Palace had banned "coloured immigrants or foreigners"
from clerical positions until at least the late 1960s, further supporting
claims of systemic racism.

Plan :

• introduction dara and Jemma

• Pros and cons
• Answer the question Anna
• Conclusion ( personal opinion ) short

Overall, the Royal Family is not relevant to contemporary Britain economically, as

people pay tax for a non-practicing symbolistic head of state? However, the King is
still involved in some government decisions, such as the dissolving of Parliament,
and he and the Royal family are a world-wide symbol of English culture.