FREE THINKING:
EXPLORE THE REALMS OF KNOWLEDGE

Crowned and Conflicted: Why Monarchy Still Haunts Modern Britain

The monarchy is one of the most enduring institutions in human history—an emblem of continuity, tradition, and authority. 
Yet in the democratic age, its presence feels increasingly paradoxical. How did a system born of tribal survival and divine sanction come to coexist with parliamentary sovereignty and universal suffrage? And more pressingly, should it?

Long before the rise of modern states, early communities organised themselves around strength. Vulnerable to raids and internal strife, tribes often turned to dominant figures—warlords, chieftains, protectors—who demanded loyalty in exchange for safety. 

These arrangements, transactional and often brutal, laid the groundwork for hereditary rule. Over time, these leaders became kings, and their authority was sanctified by myth, religion, and ritual.

One of the earliest critiques of monarchy appears in the Hebrew Bible. In 1 Samuel 8, the prophet Samuel warns the Israelites against appointing a king, fearing tyranny and exploitation. 
Yet the people insist, longing to be “like other nations.” Yahweh relents, and the monarchy begins, ushering in a lineage of rulers who would unify, but also oppress. 

This ancient narrative reveals a tension that persists today: the allure of centralised leadership versus the risks of concentrated power.
In medieval Europe, the monarchy became synonymous with divine right. Kings ruled not by consent, but by celestial endorsement. The coronation was a sacred act, and dissent was heresy. 

Yet cracks began to form. The Magna Carta of 1215, forced upon King John, asserted that even monarchs were subject to law. 

The English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution further dismantled absolutism, paving the way for a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy.

By the 18th century, thinkers like John Locke and Montesquieu had reshaped political philosophy. Government, they argued, must derive from the people, not from bloodlines or divine favour. 
These ideas reverberated across Europe and the Americas, fuelling revolutions and republics.

Today, the British monarchy is largely ceremonial. It offers continuity, symbolism, and a figurehead above politics. Scholars like Vernon Bogdanor defend its stabilising role. 

But critics such as Tom Nairn and David Cannadine see it as a gilded relic—an institution that perpetuates inequality and resists modern values.

Public opinion is shifting. A 2024 YouGov poll showed that only 30% of young Britons support the monarchy’s continuation. 

The death of Queen Elizabeth II and the rise of King Charles III have reignited debates about relevance, legacy, and reform.

Globally, monarchies have been dismantled or reimagined. Italy, Egypt, and Greece abolished theirs in the 20th century. 

Scandinavian monarchies have adapted, embracing egalitarianism and transparency. These examples suggest that monarchy can evolve—but only if it sheds its feudal skin.

In Britain, the question is no longer whether the monarchy can survive, but whether it should. Is it a benign symbol of unity, or a contradiction at the heart of democracy?

 As the nation grapples with identity, inequality, and generational change, the crown may find itself not just adorned but contested.