News
October 26, 2025
Want rid of the royals? Then get ready to welcome President Farage
Prince Andrew has given up his Duke of York title following the release of Virginia Giuffre's memoir, in which she claimed that the disgraced royal saw sex with her, when she was 17, as his birth right. Here Kevin McKenna argues that getting rid of the Royal Family could land Britain with even more problems
**Want rid of the royals? Then get ready to welcome President Farage**
The recent stripping of Prince Andrew's Duke of York title, in the wake of Virginia Giuffre's memoir detailing allegations of sexual abuse, has reignited the age-old debate about the future of the British monarchy. Giuffre's claims, alleging that the Prince viewed having sex with her, when she was 17, as his birthright, have understandably fueled calls for the Royal Family's abolition. But is getting rid of the royals truly the best path forward for Britain?
According to Kevin McKenna, the answer might be more complicated than many realize. In a thought-provoking analysis, McKenna argues that dismantling the monarchy could inadvertently pave the way for a far more undesirable outcome: a populist presidency potentially embodied by figures like Nigel Farage.
McKenna highlights the fact that the monarchy, despite its perceived anachronisms and occasional scandals, serves as a crucial check on political power. The Queen, and now King Charles, embody a sense of continuity and national unity that transcends the political fray. Their role, though largely symbolic, provides a stabilizing force in a constantly shifting political landscape.
Without the monarchy, McKenna suggests, the office of Head of State would become a highly politicized prize. Imagine a scenario where a figure like Nigel Farage, known for his populist rhetoric and strong opinions, could potentially ascend to the presidency. The implications for British society could be profound.
The monarchy, for all its flaws, is accountable to a tradition of service and a sense of duty to the nation. A directly elected president, on the other hand, would be primarily accountable to their electorate, potentially prioritizing partisan interests over the common good.
McKenna's argument serves as a cautionary tale. While the scandals and perceived privileges surrounding the Royal Family are undoubtedly frustrating, the potential consequences of abolishing the monarchy warrant careful consideration. Before dismantling a system that has shaped British identity for centuries, it's crucial to weigh the potential alternatives and ask ourselves: could the cure be worse than the disease?
The recent stripping of Prince Andrew's Duke of York title, in the wake of Virginia Giuffre's memoir detailing allegations of sexual abuse, has reignited the age-old debate about the future of the British monarchy. Giuffre's claims, alleging that the Prince viewed having sex with her, when she was 17, as his birthright, have understandably fueled calls for the Royal Family's abolition. But is getting rid of the royals truly the best path forward for Britain?
According to Kevin McKenna, the answer might be more complicated than many realize. In a thought-provoking analysis, McKenna argues that dismantling the monarchy could inadvertently pave the way for a far more undesirable outcome: a populist presidency potentially embodied by figures like Nigel Farage.
McKenna highlights the fact that the monarchy, despite its perceived anachronisms and occasional scandals, serves as a crucial check on political power. The Queen, and now King Charles, embody a sense of continuity and national unity that transcends the political fray. Their role, though largely symbolic, provides a stabilizing force in a constantly shifting political landscape.
Without the monarchy, McKenna suggests, the office of Head of State would become a highly politicized prize. Imagine a scenario where a figure like Nigel Farage, known for his populist rhetoric and strong opinions, could potentially ascend to the presidency. The implications for British society could be profound.
The monarchy, for all its flaws, is accountable to a tradition of service and a sense of duty to the nation. A directly elected president, on the other hand, would be primarily accountable to their electorate, potentially prioritizing partisan interests over the common good.
McKenna's argument serves as a cautionary tale. While the scandals and perceived privileges surrounding the Royal Family are undoubtedly frustrating, the potential consequences of abolishing the monarchy warrant careful consideration. Before dismantling a system that has shaped British identity for centuries, it's crucial to weigh the potential alternatives and ask ourselves: could the cure be worse than the disease?
Category:
Politics