Queen Elizabeth's platinum jubilee: As monarchists celebrate, why have republicans gone quiet? – Tommy Sheppard MSP

This year is the Queen’s platinum jubilee. Seventy years since her accession to the throne.

I remember the silver one. The Sex Pistols’ God Save the Queen made it to number one despite being banned by the BBC. Students organised “stuff the jubilee” marches. There was a whiff of rebellion and sedition in the air.

Strangely, republicans seem less vocal now. Maybe, in part, as a result of how the Queen has managed her house in the turbulent decades since. She has tried to modernise the royal family, accentuated the civic role, and kept some distance from political leadership.

Undoubtedly a job well done. But as talk of succession intensifies, is it wrong to ask how many more monarchs and jubilees, a country should have if it seeks the moniker of modern and democratic?

In most of the world, people are accustomed to electing their heads of state, and yet, in the UK many not only support the monarchy, but regard it as outrageous that anyone should suggest it’s time to move on.

Its reputation is damaged by its errant members, whether Andrew’s friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, or Harry and Meghan pretending to be everyman whilst courting the world of celebrity entitlement.

Spending £200 million on a new royal yacht can’t help either. But strangely, there’s no concerted effort to reform or replace the institution.

Is it right that we already know who will reign over the people of the UK decades into the future? (Picture: John Sibley/pool/AFP via Getty Images)

It doesn’t help that matters surrounding the role, organisation and financing of the monarchy are incredibly opaque.

The royal finances, broadly speaking, come from three sources: private assets; the sovereign grant, linked to the profits of the Crown Estate; and the Privy Purse – the profits from an estate called the Duchy of Lancaster.

Save for an argument about a wealth tax, there is nothing much to say about the Queen’s considerable private funds. But the other two are entirely comprised from money accumulated from the rest of us.

Last year, the Sovereign Grant amounted to almost £86m. This funds the civic role of the monarchy and is reasonably public and well audited. But even as kings and queens go, it’s pretty expensive. Ten times more than Spain, 12 more than Sweden.

The Duchy of Lancaster fills the Privy Purse through ownership of farms, land and property and several industrial offshoots. The Duchy was established in 1399, but its ownership passes to each new monarch – it comes with the job.

The revenue is considered sufficiently public rather than private to be exempt from tax. Prime Ministers even appoint one of their ministers to chair its governing body. Yet it cannot be scrutinised by parliament and is exempt from Freedom of Information law.

To find out whether – as is widely speculated – this money has been helping fund Prince Andrew’s legal battles and his settlement in a recent sex case, I’ve tried to ask questions of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a Cabinet minister. To no avail. I’m now raising the case directly with the royal household.

As things stand, Prince George will likely become king in 40 to 50 years’ time. Can it be right that we know now who will rule people yet to be born? Just one of many arguments for a fundamental change to how we are governed.

Tommy Sheppard is SNP MP for Edinburgh East

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

If you haven't already, please consider supporting our trusted, fact-checked journalism by taking out a digital subscription.