A leading historian's analysis has ignited fresh debate about the British monarchy's relationship with transparency and democracy, with experts arguing its current opaque arrangements are no longer fit for purpose and require constitutional remedy.
Beyond Royal Discretion: A Systemic Problem
The debate was prompted by Anna Whitelock's recent examination of royal conduct, which questioned the institution's progress towards modernity. Paul McGilchrist, writing in response, contends that the analysis reveals a deeper, systemic issue. He argues that the extent to which royals avoid full taxation, public scrutiny, and legal accountability demonstrates a fundamental flaw that cannot be solved by the sovereign's personal choice to embrace openness.
Relying on royal magnanimity, or a reaction to adverse public opinion to allow in "daylight," is labelled as both inadequate and archaic. The core argument is that transparency and accountability should be constitutional requirements, not optional acts of goodwill from the Crown.
Scandals Expose Undemocratic Foundations
McGilchrist points out that the monarchy has long depended on opaque arrangements, with the government effectively underwriting the "little known" facts of its operations. However, recent crises have thrown the troubling inadequacies of this relationship into stark relief.
The most prominent example cited is the Prince Andrew-Epstein scandal. This case, it is argued, underlines the urgent need for the royal family to be made more directly answerable to Parliament. Furthermore, there are calls for the codification of moral and ethical principles against which royal conduct can be formally measured and held accountable.
From 'Magic' to Democratic Affront
The most damning critique centres on the protective veil of tradition. The letter states that when shameful royal conduct is hidden from scrutiny by protocol and precedent, the much-celebrated "reverence" and "magic" surrounding the institution transforms. It ceases to be a quaint fantasy and instead becomes an affront to democratic principle.
The conclusion is clear: the current system, which shields the monarchy from the level of scrutiny expected in a modern democracy, requires formal, constitutional change. The era of relying on secrecy and unspoken agreements, the argument goes, must end to ensure the monarchy's legitimacy in the 21st century.
The letter from Paul McGilchrist was sent from Cromer, Norfolk, and contributes to a growing public conversation about the future shape and accountability of the British monarchy.
