The Crown’s Emotional Economy

Initially our God-given rulers, now crowned the Head of State. Is the monarchy on the path of no return? This long-debated question has come to light once more following the recent arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Careful consideration into the benefits of the British monarchy is vital, and reveals that their economic and political uses are endlessly complex, but ultimately not a bad thing.

Deciding if the monarchy is economically worthwhile has always been difficult, as many of their benefits are intangible. Whilst the exact number ranges considerably, pre-pandemic it was estimated that the Royals raked in $2.7 billion annually to the British economy. This far outweighs the direct cost to the public, which was recently estimated at US $0.36 for each UK citizen. However, their real value lies in their diplomatic uses.  Regardless of whether this is viewed as a practical truth or simply symbolical, the perceived stability they bring enjoys a symbiotic relationship with investment and economic success.  

This stability is closely linked to the longevity of the monarch, such as and perhaps most famously, Queen Elizabeth II, who reigned for 70 years. By contrast, a glaring flaw of the democracy in the UK and abroad is that it is short-sighted; the everchanging political and economic scene makes serious long-term planning tricky, and even unattractive. As such, the monarch’s apolitical nature provides a unique shelter for stable, long-term methods of communication across nations, and their historic links to the military further a sense of security. In a time when the global order is at risk, this advantage should not be overlooked.  

Their ability to raise awareness for humanitarian and social issues is similarly important. Charities gain visibility, officials pay attention and international audiences listen. Because the monarchy stands above party politics, its advocacy can cut through the partisan static that often blunts elected voices.

Economics alone, however, cannot settle the argument. Even if the monarchy is financially viable, the sharper question is how justifiable it remains. The current scandal surrounding Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has revived the republican critique that the institution is undemocratic and insufficiently accountable.

What matters now is institutional response. Public confidence depends less on royal infallibility than on visible constraint. Britain’s legal system must show clearly that no royal is untouchable, and so far the King has managed to make it clear that this will be the case. In an era when executive power elsewhere can appear stubbornly insulated, with Donald Trump stating that Andrew’s arrest is simply ‘a shame’, the monarchy’s credibility may rest on clearly demonstrating the opposite.

The Crown’s economic and diplomatic utility remains real. Its apolitical continuity still fills a niche that electoral politics struggles to occupy. But usefulness is not legitimacy. That rests on public support, which is emotional, volatile, and (at present), fragile.

If tested and seen to withstand scrutiny, the monarchy may yet emerge stronger, as it has before. If not, talk of a point of no return will begin to sound less speculative. For now, Britain’s monarchy endures: resilient, useful and unmistakably on probation.