SGUK Ep: 162.
Final podcast in this 4 part series.
The Cost of the Crown
The Hidden Toll: Accountability at the Top
Introduction
This final podcast in this series, will act as a mirror for the previous 3 episodes, and the conclusions reached in this Part 4 of the series. We will all look back together at what has come to light, or at the very least, has appeared for the first time for some, and the thoughts you now have – ongoing thoughts. What has come to light, or grabbed your attention? Does your list include the systems, the players and the tactics being employed? Can you begin to see patterns emerging, like golden threads, we have seen time and time again over the years?
Now look forward. What kind of world would we want to leave behind? Who deserves our support, and who has simply inherited power, without accountability? You have all seen in this series how power structures have preserved themselves by enlisting silence, complicity, media deflection and generational gaslighting.
“History doesn’t just repeat – it recruits”
The Soundproof Room
Let’s think and talk about the invisible barriers. How systemic power isolates itself from accountability. I mentioned earlier in this series that the Monarch is exempt from over 160 pieces of legislation.
Under the legal doctrine of “sovereign immunity,” Charles is exempt from criminal and civil proceedings as the head of state. But the King’s immunity extends beyond his public duties to his conduct on privately-owned assets, estates, and businesses. Currently, more than 30 different laws bar the police from entering private royal estates without the sovereign’s permission to investigate suspected crimes. Charles is also exempt from punishment over wildlife offenses, environmental pollution, and other green crimes—a kind of legal immunity given to no other private landowner in the U.K.
Traveling with a passport
As the British monarch, King Charles will not require a British passport to travel internationally. Under U.K. law, no other British citizens can travel internationally without a passport. Every passport issued by the U.K. under King Charles will have a preamble that reads: “His Britannic Majesty’s Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of His Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.”
Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act, the King and other members of the royal family can drive as fast or as slow as they please when they are escorted by police officers on official royal business. (The Prime Minister is also afforded the same right.)
The late Queen Elizabeth II reportedly never took an actual driving test and was able to drive without a license plate, since all driver’s licenses in the U.K. are issued in the monarch’s name. In 2019, it was reported that the Queen had decided to no longer drive on public roads “on the advice of her security team” after the late Duke of Edinburgh had been involved in a car crash earlier in the year in Sandringham.
King Charles is also no longer required to use a driver’s license while driving.
Under the Sovereign Grant Act of 2011, the King is not “legally liable to pay income tax, capital gains tax, or inheritance tax because the relevant enactments do not apply to the Crown.” The same rule applies to the income from the Duchy of Cornwall, which Prince William owns.
Racial, ethnic, and sexual equality laws
In the 1970s, the British government introduced laws against racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace, which were later folded into the 2010 Equality Act. The Monarch is exempt from these laws.
This means that any individuals working for the Royal Family cannot file a complaint to the court if they faced any discrimination under the categories of race, sex, and equal pay. A spokesperson from Buckingham Palace previously told reporters that the royal household and the sovereign complied with the provisions of the Equality Act, “in principle and in practice.”
In 1968, the Queen’s chief financial manager informed civil servants that “it was not, in fact, the practice to appoint colored immigrants or foreigners to clerical roles in the royal household.” It’s unknown when this practice ended, but in 1997, the Palace told the Independent that it did not officially monitor staff numbers to ensure equal opportunities.
Like I stated earlier, there are over 160 Laws of the UK that the Monarch does not have to adhere to, and with regards to the other members of the family, the Police are not allowed to question any member of the Royal Family, if that individual is in the same room as the King. Over the years, there has been a pattern of who follows the Monarch to various Royal properties around the UK. One can only assume that the heat at those times was particularly hot – for whatever reason.
A very apt analogy for all this effort by family members to be protected from questioning by the Police,( and I doubt the police were too concerned about not being able to gain access) would be a metaphor such as “The Soundproof Room” where cries of injustice are muffled by tradition and ceremony.
“When those in power are immune from consequence,
they are not Leaders – they are occupants of impunity”
Leverage Lost and Loyalty Bought
It has been obvious for most Non Royalists that for centuries now, and certainly in my lifetime, it is crystal clear that the UK media has been bought. The Silent Contract is no longer silent, and the evidence grows each day, to continuously strengthen the days when action will eventually be taken. We the people of the UK have seen so many things with our own eyes, no amount of gaslighting is going to change the evidence. The media is there to promote the UK Royal Family and the ‘village’ that surrounds them, to ensure that the ‘quid pro quo’ is still running and everyone who is in the fold, continues to be taken care of, as long as they each do their part. The media is no different. They wish to have access to the Royals, and for that they are able to keep their jobs, whilst other practising journalists are losing jobs on a regular basis, because the news industry, printed and online, is no match for the skilled news media worldwide who operate online. That being said, both printed and online tabloid style news reporting, is so far from reality, none of them should call themselves journalists. They left that name tag behind a long time ago, if they were ever inclined to operate in any way that was of useful impact to the population as a whole.
The gaslighting is off the scale, but thankfully more and more people recognise the game now, and are prepared to question and voice their opinions (based on facts) out loud for all to hear. The protection of certain people is evident. No matter the photos of holdalls, and shopping bags carrying anything but the weekly shopping haul, and despite names once printed of those involved in that particular chain of activity, soon is removed from views and various forms of fiction appear, masquerading as breaking news, to create distraction and deflection from the truth. When one looks at the range of organisations and professional bodies that come within the remit of the Monarch, the whole environment is worse than a bad joke. None of those organisations or public bodies, or enforcement agencies are ever genuinely going to question/interrogate anyone in that group of people and organisations. The rest of us minions can be questioned and far worse, merely for expressing an opinion on some topics, never mind really concerning actions taken towards another person or people who live on another continent. Accountability for those responsible will also catch up with them one day
“Loyalty is not owed to power – it is earned by truth”
The Reckoning
Direct Quotes from the New Statesman:-
In 22 April, six speakers – Tanya Gold, Robert Hardman, Andrew Marr, Tanjil Rashid, Anna Whitelock and Gary Younge – assembled at the Cambridge Union Debating Chamber for the New Statesman Debate at Cambridge Literary Festival, chaired by the NS Britain editor Anoosh Chakelian. Two weeks before the coronation of King Charles, they were there to debate the motion: “This house believes it is time for Britain to abolish its monarchy.” Drawing on arguments about class, accountability, soft power and stability, their opening remarks throw light on an issue that goes to the heart of what it means to be British.
Anna Whitelock: “We can’t be the nation we want to be while ruled by an unaccountable relic”
Photo by Martin Bond
Tradition, splendour, pomp, pageantry, national unity, soft diplomacy, tourism, even professors of the history of modern monarchy: these are all oft-cited reasons (perhaps not the latter) for the merits, indeed, necessity of retaining and celebrating the British monarchy. They are all reasons that to some extent I do, or did, have some sympathy with.
My research of more than 20 years has focused on the monarchy, its rituals, rights and roles; its kings and, in particular, its queens. It is, as some would have it, a golden thread through British history. But all of that is in the past. The question here is about the future.
Having been for a long time rather on the fence, over the last few years I’ve become increasingly convinced, with some regret, that the monarchy should no longer head modern Britain. I’m going to reserve my remarks to Britain, as that’s the focus of the debate, but of course the British Crown is also head of state in 14 other realms, not least nine in the Caribbean, and they are making their position increasingly and rightfully clear.
Once perhaps it might have been said that the monarchy represented the best of Britain – I think that’s debatable – but now, surely, that is no longer true. It doesn’t – indeed, it can’t – represent modern Britain, modern British values and beliefs, not least in equality, diversity and inclusivity.
Now, some of you, perhaps, might be Guardian readers. If so, you would have seen the fantastic “cost of the crown” series, in which the Guardian has sought to ask reasonable, necessary and long overdue questions. In fact, such scrutiny has long eluded the media, who have been stuck in something of a deferential 1950s time warp when it comes to their reporting of the monarchy. The Guardian has asked questions about how much is paid for working royals; for royal engagement; how much is the King worth; the cost of the coronation to the British public and so on – and they’ve done previous work and inquiries into the legal position and constitutional influence of the monarchy as well. Now, to all of those questions – and I’ve spoken to the reporters involved – Buckingham Palace responds: “Ask someone else”, “Work it out yourself”, or “You have no right to know.”
Similarly, if you go to the National Archives and call up documents there, seemingly innocuous ones, many return a computer message that says simply “the file’s closed” and invites you to make a freedom of information request. The royal family is exempt from that. So, when you put a request in the response comes back “no”, and I’ve put in some very recent freedom of information requests and that has been the response. So, we have entrenched secrecy, we are kept in the dark. Yes, we citizens in a celebrated democracy are unable to give our informed consent because we don’t know. Criticism or debate of the royal family is prohibited in parliament. The royal archives are effectively closed. There is no financial disclosure and, when there has been investigation, the findings are pretty disturbing. We know about crown consent, sovereign immunity. So, scratch the surface, and it is just the surface, and it doesn’t look good”.
Crown consent is when parliament asks for consent when bills affect the crown’s interest. The Guardian revealed that more than 1,000 laws were vetted by the Queen and Prince Charles during her reign, relating to matters such as justice, social security, race relations, and so on.
In 2006 the Queen was given an exemption for an act which prevented mistreatment of animals. The exemption meant that inspectors couldn’t enter her private estates. Perhaps most concerning and surprising, the royal household is exempt from the Equality Act of 2010, which protects people in the workplace from discrimination. Buckingham Palace, when asked about that, didn’t deny the exemption; they just said they’ve got their own process.
And then there’s sovereign immunity. This holds that the monarch can’t be prosecuted or subject to civil legal action under the law. Effectively, we have a monarch unable to be tried for criminal behaviour. On a number of cases, the Crown is being granted legal immunity in respect of its private estate, such as Sandringham and Balmoral. Are we all OK with that?
Then there’s finance. The King has been estimated to be worth £1.8bn. He pays some income tax voluntarily, no inheritance tax, no corporation tax. So, what do we have here? We have an institution which resists scrutiny, at the apex of society, which, by its very survival, reinforces hierarchy. A sense that some people by birth, not merit, are better than others. And let’s be clear: this is about white inherited privilege and an institution that has profited much from colonial injustices.
The monarchy has had its time. It has run out of road. We need to begin a gradual, respectful transition to abolish it. We can’t be the British we think we are, and the Britain we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren, while we have this powerful, unaccountable relic defining us.
Anna Whitelock is a historian, author and professor of the history of monarchy at City, University of London
“Legacy will not protect you from the truth – it only delays its arrival”
What does justice look like in real terms?
Accountability needs a co-ordinated stepped approach in order to change the current system where a Monarchy family is answerable to no one. This is not the time to stay quiet. It is time to begin a recognisable process. If some people are considered above the law, then there is no such thing as equality under the law. No one is covered by the law in entirety, when there is one group of people who are above the law, and they decide on which new pieces of legislation will interfere with the way they do things, and they are allowed to opt out. Time is well overdue for a change in that arrangement.
A Way Forward to Achieve Accountability in Due Course
Addressing the accountability of the British Royal Family (BRF) and ensuring they adhere to the same legal and ethical standards as other citizens involves several complex aspects, as they enjoy certain legal immunities and historical privileges. Here are some general suggestions and considerations for promoting accountability:
- Legislative Change: Advocacy for legal reforms to remove or limit the exemptions and privileges afforded to the monarchy could be pursued. This requires significant political will and public support to influence Parliament.
- Public Pressure and Advocacy: Public opinion plays a crucial role in holding any institution accountable. Campaigns, public debates, and media discussions can increase awareness and put pressure on the monarchy to adhere to modern standards of accountability and transparency.
- Judicial Interpretation: Encouraging courts to interpret existing laws in ways that balance the privileges of the monarchy with the rights and protections afforded by modern democratic principles could also help. However, this is complex due to the robust legal immunities currently in place.
- Use of International Standards: Encouraging compliance with international human rights norms and standards by leveraging bodies such as the United Nations or the European Union (where relevant) could provide a framework for accountability.
- Supporting Whistleblowers: Creating strong protections for whistleblowers from within the Royal Household could encourage transparency and accountability by allowing insiders to report unethical or illegal activities without fear of reprisal. NB The case that we the public know of involves the children of the Heir to the Throne, and the Nanny who had been looking after the children since Prince George was born. It has been alleged that the Nanny was supplying information to a Spanish newspaper, and she was dismissed on the spot and made to leave that day. The Spanish newspaper which was reporting for months on a particular issue, and the Palace concerned continuously denied such information was accurate. It ultimately posted an article in UK media that they would take legal action if the allegation was not withdrawn. To this day, the Spanish newspaper and the reporter stand by their story, and no court case has taken place as far as I am aware. The Nanny has been spotted a few times in Spain. It is assumed that is where she now lives.
- Public Engagement: Active public engagement in civic processes and discussions about the role of the monarchy in modern society might influence change. Encouraging debates about the constitutional role of the monarchy may stimulate significant legislative or societal changes.
- Dialogue and Collaboration: Engaging with members of the Royal Family who are open to reform and modernization can help build internal support for change. Some members may be advocates for transparency and modernization.
It’s important to recognize that achieving accountability for the Royal Family involves long-term efforts and multi-faceted strategies, combining legal, political, and public engagement initiatives.
Conclusion – It is Time
This is a direct quote from Sage Journals relating to the much needed scrutiny of the Royal Family and refers to the relationship with the media. There is a useful article on this listed in the reference sources. Here is the abstract and summary of the article.
“This article outlines the structures, systems, rules and experiences of reporting on the British monarchy in the UK news today. The functions underpinning royal news are usually abstracted in the public imaginary. Using in-depth interviews with Royal Correspondents, and a broader understanding of royal news production, it explores the formal and informal agreements which shape reporting on royalty. The article addresses how the systems of royal news production significantly obstruct the ability to scrutinze the monarchy. The data illustrates the various frustrations of Royal Correspondents in terms of access, getting responses from the monarchy’s Communications teams, and the potential professional risk of ‘getting it wrong’. This has significant implications for questions of media, culture and ideology in the UK media, and the power afforded to the British monarchy in regulating its own media coverage.”
Ivy Barrow
06 June 2025
Reference Sources
https://time.com/6275480/king-charles-iii-privileges-laws-exempt/
https://lawshun.com/article/can-the-king-pass-laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Giuffre
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yle7pxlyno
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/virginia-giuffre-father-death-cause-b2743303.html
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/public-bodies-scrutiny-accountability
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14648849231180967