The celebrated 'magic' and 'reverence' surrounding the British monarchy risks becoming an affront to democratic principles when it is used to shield royal conduct from proper scrutiny, a leading historian has warned.
An Archaic Reliance on Royal Discretion
In a pointed intervention, Paul McGilchrist from Cromer, Norfolk, has argued that the institution's persistent lack of openness is a matter requiring constitutional remedy, not merely a question of personal choice for the sovereign. His comments follow an analysis by historian Anna Whitelock, published on 30 December, which questioned the extent to which royals avoid taxation, public scrutiny, and full accountability.
McGilchrist contends that relying on royal magnanimity or a reaction to adverse public opinion to allow in 'daylight' is both inadequate and archaic. He asserts that it should not be left to the sovereign's discretion to decide whether to embrace openness. For too long, the monarchy has depended on opaque arrangements, with the government underwriting the 'little known' facts of its undemocratic functions.
Crises Exposing a Troubling Relationship
Recent scandals have thrown the troubling inadequacies of the monarchy's relationship with the state into stark relief. McGilchrist highlights the Andrew-Epstein scandal as a prime example underlining the urgent case for reform. This case, he argues, strengthens the call for the royal family to be made more directly answerable to Parliament.
Furthermore, he proposes that moral and ethical principles for royals should be formally codified into law, creating a clear framework for accountability. The current system, where shameful conduct can be hidden behind protocol and tradition, is presented as fundamentally undemocratic.
From Quaint Fantasy to Democratic Affront
The central thrust of the argument is that the very mystique which has long protected the monarchy—its 'reverence' and 'magic'—becomes problematic in a modern democracy when it serves as a veil. When this protection prevents necessary scrutiny, it transitions from a quaint fantasy into a direct challenge to democratic norms.
McGilchrist's letter is a direct challenge to the status quo, suggesting that the incremental, voluntary moves towards modernity by the royal family are insufficient. As the reign of King Charles III progresses, the public demand in 2026 and beyond will be for systemic, legally enforced transparency, not gestures. The call is for a structural change that aligns the ancient institution with contemporary expectations of equality and public accountability.
