It’s time for the royal flush

The British monarchy isn’t worth your attention 

SPENCER BISPHAM / CONTRIBUTOR  / THE USD VISTA

Of all the places I imagined visiting during my semester abroad, the coronation of King Charles III was not one of them. His recent succession to the throne followed the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, at age 96 last September. She was the longest-ruling monarch to ever hold the position and spent more time as head of a nation than any other woman to date. As her eldest son, Charles, watched her preside over more than 30 countries (some now independent) during her reign. This past Saturday, I was in London when the traditional coronation ceremony marked his official appointment to king. 

Originally, I hadn’t even planned to be in the city for this event. It was my mom who convinced me to stay an extra day to “witness history in the making,” and to say I was hesitant would be an understatement. Anyone who has even mentioned the royal family around me knows how much I resent the attention they receive from the rest of the world. To me, they represent the failure of their government to provide for its own society, as well as the troubling legacy of British colonialism. 

At first, I dismissed this hesitation as my own bias. As an American, I was taught that my country was birthed out of a similar distaste for British royalty. However, after spending time in London leading up to the coronation, it’s even more clear to me now that shining the spotlight on King Charles III and his family is doing more harm than good.

The first consequence of the coronation and the royal family is their impact on the United Kingdom’s social welfare system. For those who are unaware, last weekend’s ceremony took place amidst a housing crisis in Britain that dates back decades. Due to national policies on building/developing new properties, there are simply not enough homes for people to live in. This has caused existing homes to skyrocket in price alongside a decrease in subsidized housing options. Given this information, asking UK taxpayers to bear the burden of Charles’ coronation is less than reasonable. ABC News estimated the ceremony cost almost $125 million, and that’s not even touching the regular expenses incurred by the royal family. Just last year, the royal family cost taxpayers £102 million. It can be argued that this is the price of preserving tradition, but I would rebut that the needs of the people should come first.

Unfortunately, royal affairs drain pockets in more ways than one. On the morning of my arrival to London, I spoke with Gyuntay, an immigrant from Bulgaria who currently works as an Uber driver outside the city.

“I can’t work,” Gyuntay stated. “Normally I drive in the central area [of London], but with the events this week, it is too congested.”

Of course, there are bound to be disruptions to normal life with any kind of government rite of passage. However, at a time where simply having a roof over one’s head is a challenge, inhibiting residents’ ability to provide for themselves is downright offensive.

Aside from the financial burden imposed on the United Kingdom, continuous media coverage of the royal family and their proceedings makes no sense. Since the latter part of the 17th century, the UK has been officially ruled by an elected parliament and prime minister (as a constitutional monarchy). The current king or queen is obliged to follow whatever decisions are made by their democracy, which begs the question: what real purpose do royals serve? At times it seems they serve as nothing more than expensive entertainment for the rest of the world; their drama is broadcasted for all to see.

Not only is this a waste of time for those consuming this content, but it’s also an invasion into the private lives of the royal family members, whom millions seem to care so much about. For example, four days before the coronation, I spent the afternoon in London’s Soho neighborhood; I wandered somewhat aimlessly into shops and restaurants, all of which were decorated for last weekend’s big event. All of a sudden, a swarm of people started crowding a pub, streets were blockaded and a news helicopter hovered overhead. Immediately, I was informed by some locals that Prince William and Duchess Kate were allegedly going to this pub for a beer. I couldn’t stop thinking, “What if I were mobbed like this everytime I wanted to go out for a drink?” I didn’t stay to see if they showed up, but either way it was quite the spectacle.

This cult of celebrity that surrounds the royal family isn’t inherently negative; it is only the context which changes its value. Fast forward to the night before King Charles’ coronation when the streets were swarmed with Londoners and tourists alike. 

During my night out, I had a conversation with another young man who told me, “The royal family is one of the only things that makes us British.” I was slightly taken aback by this comment, but I was curious about what being “British” meant to him. Throughout history, the royal family itself has been composed of rich, straight, white individuals whose direction perpetrated some of the most brutal colonialism in modern memory. It’s not like they represent the diversity that makes up the UK today, be it the immigrants who have settled there or the Gaelic cultures still under British influence. I found it interesting that, for this man, the royal family and their affairs were something that he could find solace and tradition in, when I know that’s not true for everyone else.

In all honesty, it’s unlikely that the British royal family will be out of the news cycle anytime soon. Many eyes are on King Charles III for the influence he may have on the nation’s politics. Be that as it may, Charles and his family are linked to a long history of oppression which continues to affect many around the world today. Whether it’s former-colonies turned independent nations struggling to make it on their own, or the housing crisis that plagues his own backyard, the new King and his family have a lot of opportunities to make amends. As history often repeats itself, I am not optimistic that he will bring any changes to the royal family’s role in world affairs, which is why I encourage you to pay less attention to his life in the news.