For a country that prides itself on being a modern democracy, it’s remarkable (and very much not in a good way) that we still allow one family, by pure accident of birth, to sit at the apex of our constitutional system.
The United Kingdom (yes, we may need to think about what we call our country too) should be a place where every child grows up knowing that they could aspire one day to becoming our Head of State – not whew that role is reserved for one bloodline.
This isn’t about personal animosity towards the Windsors (though, it has to be said, no one surely any longer can really look up to them as in any way our moral superiors as has previously been inferred). In truth, they deserve to be freed from the absurd cage and set of expectations that is the modern monarchy just as the rest of us deserve to live in a fully democratic state. A life of ceremonial servitude (again albeit an extremely privileged and enriched one) isn’t freedom – it’s gilded captivity.
The late Queen, to be fair to her, was at least somewhat of a stabilising figure in turbulent times but such stability shouldn’t depend on the longevity or temperament of a single individual. It should come from strong democratic institutions, accountability, and respect for the will of the people. We don’t like unelected power in the Lords and rightly call for change – so why we should we accept it for the very highest role in the land?
Supporters of the status quo often argue that the monarchy is ‘harmless’ or ‘good for tourism’ (neither of which is actually true, by the way). But democracy isn’t a theme park attraction. The constitutional principle matters. Power – even largely symbolic power – should flow from the people, not be bestowed upon them by inheritance. We could, and should, have a Head of State chosen by us – one who represents the whole country, not a family line, just as the Republic of Ireland this past weekend elected left-wing candidate Catherine Connolly to be its President on a wave of popular approval (though, yes, many also spoiled their ballot paper… but even that sort of protest is an important part of a functioning democracy).
A President of Britain and Northern Ireland (unless and until any constitutional change for the latter), elected on merit, could still perform ceremonial duties, open hospitals, represent us abroad, and lead our Remembrance commemorations, but they would do so with a democratic mandate – as our equal, not our supposed superior.
And just imagine the message that it would send to the world, that Britain, after centuries of hierarchy, had finally chosen equality, that we trust our democracy enough to let the people decide who represents them, that the words “We, the people” mean something here too.
Liberalism, lest we forget, is about freeing individuals from arbitrary power – and the monarchy, for all of its pageantry, is the ultimate symbol of it. As Liberals, we believe in the sovereignty of the individual, not of a crown.
The time had come for our party to say plainly and clearly: the future of Britain should be democratic, republican and free.
So let’s thank (at least some of) the Windsors for their ‘service’ (because we Brits are nothing if not polite) – and then set them, and ourselves, free.
In praise of… Lib Dems in Local Government
Week after week, Liberal Democrats up and down the country are proving that local politics still matters. The steady stream of by-election victories-sometimes in long-held Conservative or Labour areas-shows that (more often than not) where we work, we win.
But behind every headline result is something more important: hard work.
Tireless councillors and campaigners knocking on doors, fixing potholes, listening to residents, and standing up for their communities. Whether they serve in administration (such as in Hinckley and Bosworth, where I live) or opposition (such as in Liverpool and Southwark), they are the living embodiment of Liberalism in action-community politics, rooted in action. While Westminster shouts, our councillors quietly get things done. They protect local services, champion green initiatives, and make sure residents have someone who actually listens. And they do it not for the limelight, but for the love of their communities and belief in what Liberal Democrats can achieve locally.
So this week I want to say thank you to our Leader in Local Government, Councillor Joe Harris, and every single Lib Dem Councillor – at whatever level, parish, district/borough, county, city, unitary – who keeps faith with our values and shows what real public service looks like.
You are the backbone of our movement, and the reason people still trust us to deliver.
Introducing… Mathew & Andy
I’m delighted to share something new and rather special. My dear friend and fellow Lib Dem, Andy Chandler, and I are launching a brand new podcast – Mathew & Andy.
Think of it as the audio equivalent of a cosy cuppa or your favourite warm jumper. Two friends, chatting about politics, pop culture and people -about life, love, and loss, about faith, family, and the small moments that make us who we are. It’s honest, heartfelt, and sometimes a little daft – but always rooted in kindness, curiosity, and a shared belief that talking, listening, and laughing together still matter.
If you enjoy conversations that wander from Parliament to pop music, from policy to personal stories, Mathew & Andy might just be your next watch/listen. Find us on YouTube and Spotify.
Thank you.
* Mathew Hulbert is a former Councillor, is a regular commentator on TV and Radio, and is Co-Host of the Political Frenemies podcast.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
Reform makes first gain from Conservatives in this by-election cycle
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Geoff Reid
Tom Bailey
Leonora Scipio
Kira Collins
Daniel Walker
16 Comments
“Power – even largely symbolic power – should flow from the people, not be bestowed upon them by inheritance”
Ultimately power does flow from the people under the current system – or from Parliament at any rate.
Parliament ultimately decides who may or may not become the monarch. For example under the coalition the law was changed so that the monarch’s first born is the heir (instead of the first born son); in 1936 Edward VIII was effectively forced out because his government didn’t want him (saying the people would not accept him) Parliament didn’t want him; and all Catholics are (still) banned from the throne by the Bill of Rights 1689.
@ Tristan Ward It’s not just by Parliament, Tristan…………………… according to the Coronation Service it’s “By the Grace of God”……. though I’m not sure who HE is accountable to.
And an election might have produced Margaret Thatcher and could still produce Tony Blair. Better the devil we know?
Thank you, Mathew, for including me in this. I’m so grateful to be doing this pod with you, and I really value the sense of safety and openness we’ve created together. I couldn’t ask for a better friend or co-host, and I’m genuinely excited about this new venture.
On the subject of the Monarchy, I wanted to revisit something from our Community WhatsApp group, because I don’t think I expressed my point clearly there. What frustrates me is that, on the one hand, they warn that without the Monarchy we might end up with a “President Farage” or some Trump-like figure — as if the Monarchy acts as a safeguard against demagogues or the abuse of power. But in the same breath, they’ll insist the Monarchy is merely symbolic and ceremonial, with no real political power or influence.
These two arguments don’t sit comfortably together. If the role is truly symbolic, then by definition it can’t be a safeguard against tyranny — because it lacks the power to intervene. You can’t claim it’s both politically neutral and a bulwark against dangerous leaders.
And, if we’re honest, I’ve yet to hear any Monarchist seriously argue that King Charles would — or even could — block a future Prime Minister Farage from rolling back civil liberties or undermining democratic norms. So if the Monarchy won’t or can’t act in those moments when it’s supposedly most needed, then what is its real purpose beyond pageantry?
Just a quick note that this whatsapp group is for a lgbt+ organisation that we are both involved in and not connected to LibDems or LibDemVoice. It was something that ironically got passing mention in today’s chat and we ended up talking about it – with of course me and Mathew arguing from an entirely anti-monarchist perspective 😉
I am a Republican by conviction as I do not believe in hereditary monarchy. The late Queen was terrific but the system breeds inequality and extreme privilege. Ireland just elected a new President but we have no such luxury. When the king dies William succeeds, no debate and no say for any of us….
Thank goodness we have !Kking Char?as 111, who even whilst being ill, is doing so much good work to smooth out international diplomatic relationships.
A democratic Republic would enlighten our nation and loyalty to one family on a pedestal would end. Despite good intentions, the Windsors do not understand about the real problems people face as everything is done for them and they are bathed in extreme privilege. I want to be a citizen of my country not a subject and don’t like the fawning, curtesying and bowing. No one needs to do that as the royal family are no better than any of us, merely accident of birth.
The LibDems did well at the last General Election and are currently on track to do even better at the next one. If you want to throw those gains away just get Ed Davey talking about abolishing the Monarchy!
‘Britain should be democratic, republican and free.’ And how is that working out in the USA at the moment?
Because when the middle of those three decides not to play by the rules, the other two parts can go really quickly out of the window.
And I bet they thought they had safeguards to prevent it as well.
“When the king dies William succeeds, no debate and no say for any of us….”
What might happen if some time in the future the then heir to the throne flatly refused to do the job when the then monarch died?
Why would gains be thrown away by supporting a democratic Republic where the role of head of state would be a citizen of Britain rather than a subject? Accident of birth and control of this role by one family is hardly fair or democratic. People say that the royals are good for tourism but no one stops going to France or Germany because they are republics. The deference and elitism of monarchies is downright wrong and in addition they are treated in law differently. Fair?
On an additional point many think that the monarchy is symbolic only. Remember that the King meets the PM every week and we never know what they discuss. It could be that the sovereign seeks to influence the pm and ministers by pursuing a desire to influence legislation. Remember the monarch has no democratic legitimacy but hidden influence as the pm is supposed to be appointed by the monarch. The British unwritten constitution puts a hereditary monarch at the apex of our country and we are all his or her subjects.
David “Why would gains be thrown away by supporting a democratic Republic where the role of head of state would be a citizen of Britain rather than a subject?”
Because millions of people support the monarchy and many of them voted for the LibDems at the last election. To most people there are far more important things to worry about – why risk upsetting some of your own supporters.
Andrew apparently is due to receive a £9000 a year state pension when he becomes 66 next year. This is really unjust and unfair and he and Harry are clear recruiting agents for a Republic.
A proper written constitution might contain rules pertaining to our so called constitutional monarch. It would contain a list of the powers and responsibilities of those acting as part of our Royal Family. There would also be penalities for not following those rules.