Just In: There’s every chance William will be king, but George might have to be a London cabbie… See More

Graham Smith, with whom I worked a little while chair of the Australian Republic Movement for seven years, has been the CEO of the British campaign group Republic for two decades. He is visiting Australia to organise protests against the visit of King Charles and Queen Camilla.

Fitz: Welcome, Graham. How has the republic movement in Britain changed since you took over?

GS: We are more popular now than we have been in the history of democratic Britain. When I took over, there was 75 per cent support for the monarchy, and it has now fallen to about 55 per cent, but in some polls it has dipped below 50 per cent. Support for abolition of the monarchy has gone from around a fifth to a third. There has been a steady shift in people’s attitudes in the UK and most promisingly the support [for the monarchy] from people under the age of 50 has dropped markedly.

Fitz: Is a lot of this simply because the Queen died?

GS: Certainly our income, our profile and our membership have surged over the last two years, particularly in the run-up to the coronation. We started to protest wherever Charles went, and our yellow flags and placards became almost synonymous with his appearances. Those protests have gained us a lot of interest and attention – particularly when six of our protesters were arrested on the morning of the coronation before we had a chance to even get started, and that was headline news right across the world.

Fitz: So, when Charles turns up, say, to Westminster Abbey or to open parliament how many people do you get protesting, saying, “Down with the Crown!” or “We fart in Charles’ general direction”?

GS: It varies, depending on what time of the week it is and what the occasion is, but it can be anything from 50 to 500

Fitz: I am interested in such in-your-face tactics. When I was chair of the Australian Republic Movement, we only had royals here very rarely to protest against, but, even then, we viewed such in-your-face-ness protests as unlikely to woo the people we needed. But your tack is to be provocative?

GS: Yep. We do a whole load of stuff, but the protest is an important element – to not just make noise and get attention but to have a serious message to talk to people about. And our first message when the King turns up to anything is: this is plain wrong, it’s bad for Britain and he’s not our king. The protest isn’t just about jumping up and down, it’s about challenging an institution that needs to be challenged for its undemocratic nature and the fact that it is corrupt – not criminally, but morally – in terms of receiving such huge amounts of money for doing nothing, while so many people are struggling.

Fitz: Are you intending to make noise while Charles is in Australia?

GS: Yes. I have made some contacts with Australians and Brits over here. It is a symbolic gesture, really, that just as we protest against him when he is in Britain, so too here. We object to the monarchy representing the UK wherever that might be.

Fitz: You make it sound like, since the rise of Charles, the monarchy has started to inevitably fall.

GS: Yes. There has been a massive surge of support [for us], and not just in poll numbers. In 2020, we were living on £100,000 ($195,000) a year. In 2022, that had gone up to £250,000, and last year we’re at £600,000. That gives us clout, resources and staff – we now have six full-time professionals. And it just gives us that capacity to go around the country protesting, to come over here to protest, to organise more events, to hopefully create a virtuous circle where we keep growing on the back of the noise we make

Fitz: What sort of job do you think Charles is doing as King?

GS: Not much, even though he has been unwell. But it isn’t much of a job in the first place, and there isn’t much for him to do. When they say “they work”, they mean they turn up at something, shake hands, say a few words. The notion that they’re busy is complete nonsense. As we keep pointing out, his list of engagements actually adds up to very little.

Fitz: Charles must be a different kind of adversary.

GS: Yes, the Queen had been there so long, was such an institution, that people were very reluctant to criticise her. The Queen was the monarchy and the monarchy was the Queen. That’s the person they liked, and that’s the institution they supported. But Charles just doesn’t resonate and doesn’t have that same connection with people. They simply don’t care if you criticise Charles, so it has been naturally building. And they don’t care that much if you protest. On the whole, more and more people in Britain are saying, to us, “Well, we don’t disagree with you.” All the royals are fair game now.

Fitz: A lot of your thrust, I note, is the sheer expense of the royals.

GS: That’s part of it, but if it were free, our argument wouldn’t change. The cost is a symptom of the corruption, but the scale of it angers people. You could see we are getting traction by that editorial in the Times just last week, saying that the expense can’t be justified, and we need transparency as to where the money goes, so the people can judge whether it’s good value for money or not. The Irish president, by contrast, costs about £4 million.

Fitz: But one of the arguments by defenders of the throne is that it brings in more money than it costs, through tourism and all that.

GS: That is disingenuous nonsense, no matter how much they promote the idea that the royals bring in money through tourism, trade, “brand Britain” and all the rest. There’s no evidence for any of that.

Fitz: But surely, people do indeed go to see Buckingham Palace, and they do like the pomp and ceremony and all the carry-on?

GS: Yes, but mostly they go to see the buildings, and they will still be there anyway. And the most popular place to visit by far – much more than Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle – is the Royal Palace and Fortress of the Tower of London, where they haven’t lived for centuries. Beyond that, there is no evidence that tourism suddenly goes up or down or moves at all really for big royal events. Our history is a big draw for tourists coming to the UK, and that history will still be with us in a republic.

Fitz: In terms of advancing your cause, have Harry’s many revelations helped in terms of ripping away the whole mystic facade and demonstrating what a completely dysfunctional family they are – not better than everyone because of their blue blood – and what a disengaged, absolutely shocking father Charles was and is

GS: Yes. But none of it was surprising. I had a book out myself last year called Abolish the Monarchy, where I detailed their lack of character as people, how they’re quick to lose their temper, thin-skinned, intolerant of dissent and all the rest. I think these things matter because we judge politicians by their character, we judge other public figures by their character, so it is perfectly reasonable to judge these people on their character too. I think that one of the things that should sink the monarchy is that we would never elect these people in a million years if it was a free and fair election – because they just wouldn’t stand up to the test ofpeople looking at what sort of person they are. That was certainly reflected in the way that Harry talked about them personally. Our cause has also been aided by the TV series The Crown, reminding everyone of all their scandals over the years. And, of course, the whole Prince Andrew/Epstein scandal. The fact that the Queen and Charles helped pay off that £12 million to help him escape potentially being held accountable for very serious allegations of criminal offences, reflected badly on the whole family, and the whole institution.

Fitz: If Charles’ ill health meant he had to give way to William, would that help or hinder your cause?

GS: Well, it would help in the sense of another coronation, as another succession creates the whole debate once more. [There would be] renewed focus on the whole institution and that is great for us because you don’t have to look for long before realising how ludicrous it is, how we’d be better off without it. And I don’t think William himself is going to change anyone’s mind. He’s also prickly, defensive and doesn’t do much. And as a younger, fitter man he’d be easier to target in terms of some of the more robust criticisms we’d send his way

Fitz: If you were an absolute betting man, and had to put the English version of a sheep station on it – let’s say a largish garden in Notting Hill – when do you think the UK might become a republic? And how would that republic work, what system would you embrace?

GS: I’d say there’s every chance William will become king, but a rapidly receding chance that George will. These things often happen slowly and then all of a sudden. In terms of how it will come about, there will have to be a referendum and our strategy is to focus on driving up public support because politicians aren’t going to push this unless they are boxed into a corner where they feel they have to give us a referendum. Right now, it is still a movement that is a lot undercover, but within about five or six years, the way we’re going, it will be huge.

Fitz: In Australia, we have struggled with agreeing on a model to replace it. What model do you propose?

GS: We keep it really simple. We just say: look to Ireland, Iceland, Finland, Germany, any of the many other successful republics. It’s simply about taking what we have and making it more democratic. We continue to have a prime minister in parliament, two houses of parliament, but both elected. We would get rid of the House of Lords with hereditary peers and keep it simple, really.

Fitz: Yes, but who gets to nominate? And do you have a direct election for the president

GS: We haven’t gotten into that kind of detail. But it’s not rocket science to come up with something. The idea that this is beyond the ability of the Australian or British people to come up with a workable system is daft. If all these other countries can do it, Australia and Britain can do it. It’s that simple. Barbados did it three years ago, and picked a system, so why can’t we? Right now, we can’t let ourselves be distracted by the minutiae.

Fitz: Would your president live in Buckingham Palace?

GS: We haven’t really sort of got down to that detail, either, but there’ll be plenty of places to choose from. I think maybe Clarence House would be right for the president. Ideally, Buckingham Palace would be a museum and gallery.

Fitz: Is it possible that in 20 years we could land at Heathrow, and tell the driver to take us to Buckingham Palace only to find the taxi driver is a fellow by the name of George Windsor? I mean, quite seriously, will all the wealth that the royal family has accrued have to be handed back to the people, while they start from scratch?

GS: I wouldn’t want to make it that personal about George, and I’m sure they’ll still be rich in a republic. But symbolically, why not? Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with driving a cab for a living, and if that’s what they need to do, then that’s what they should do. And that would be a good sign if that’s where they’re at. I think they will still be personally rich, at least in the short term, but they would have to pay taxes and would lose their privileges, so anything is possible, and a republic is more possible than ever. These are exciting times.