In recognition of the Queen’s birthday this weekend, I’d like to offer hearty congratulations to whoever is running PR for the Mountbatten-Windsors (or more accurately, the house of Herzogtum Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha); in the past few months they’ve had the fairytale fluff of The King’s Speech sweep the Oscars (in front of many more deserving and artistically important entries), and the wedding of Will and Kate went off without any embarrassing ‘hitches’ or soundbites, which meant among other things The Crown Prince Charles and The Royal Male Concubine Consort Philip kept their mouths shut!

There’s no end of controversy surrounding this family. 

On the one hand are progressives who see the monarchy as a throwback to less enlightened, barbaric times where might was right and heredity and masculinity – not merit – would determine one’s station in life.  They are not mollified by the argument that even if the Royal Family could exercise undemocratic, unrepresentative power, in practice they do not:  since there is no written Constitution that guarantees they have no power, and even in far-flung imperial possessions where Constitutions exist (such as Australia), the Queen’s viceroy has been known to overthrow legitimately elected governments.  And in those distant provinces, the monarchy is often seen as living proof that those countries have not yet matured into a full-fledged democracies with an independent sense of nationhood.  Still others might less worry about the symbolism of monarchy, but are mortified about and ashamed of the public carryings on of this motley crew. None of these citizens want to waste a pence or cent of their own or taxpayer’s money on such a frivolous, unrepresentative anachronism.

On the other hand are conservatives who love the monarchy for their link to history, regardless of how monarchs rose to and retained power.  Others actually value their foibles and quirks as helping to define a distinct ‘Britishness’.  Others love the pomp, circumstance, spectacle and scandal and are the cash cows over whom the marketeers of Rupert Murdoch’s The Sun, Daily Mail, Hello and OK salivate.  Still others see the monarchy as tourism magnets.  If these citizens had their way, long may live Queen Elizabeth, and after her Queen Camilla!

So, being a problem-solving kind of guy, I’ve channeled the wisdom of (King) Solomon on a solution that will please (or displease) everyone equally, and this dear friends will be my gift to the Queen and her subjugated minions on this, her birthday.  In a nutshell, I’m not proposing “off with their heads” in some kind of French Revolutionary fervor, but instead a principle that conservatives everywhere should know and love – user pays!  In short, let’s firstly make sure that the Royal Family has no constitutional power to which they are not entitled in a modern representative democracy.  Then, let’s get them off the government’s books, and make those who derive satisfaction and enjoyment from them to pay for them.  And the government might even rake in some dough in the bargain – so everyone wins!  Here’s how it would work:

1. Set up Royal Brand Management Company (RBMC) which has franchise rights to the word “Royal” in the UK, and pays a “royalty” to the government for those rights.  The government also has a right to pull the license if it finds RBMC has mismanaged the Royal brand.
2. The members of Royal Family each become employees of RBMC, at each individual’s choice (e.g. some might just want to stay private citizens, out of the limelight). RBMC effectively becomes their ‘agent’.  RBMC also hires as CEO an impresario who knows their stuff – how to make celebrities (and a lot of money) out of ordinary talent – someone like Simon Cowell would fit the bill quite nicely.
3. Because RBMC has franchise rights, it can raise revenues via any number of legal avenues.  For instance, just like a celebrity’s agent, it could negotiate deals with tabloids and magazines to extract fees for stories and photos of the Royal Family – for too long have they feasted at the expense of the British and Commonwealth taxpayer.  Or it could create better paid tourism experiences at Royal properties – maybe even a theme park! – we all know that it won’t take much to outdo the competition in the UK, such as Chessington’s World of Adventures and Legoland Windsor.  Maybe even spice it up by mixing in popular licenses such as Harry Potter (I’ve heard that JK Rowling is very patriotic, having insisted upon at least some British actors for the Hollywood adaptations, so I’m sure she’ll consider it – for a fee.)  Or it could create premium paid iPad apps, websites behind paywalls, or subscription cable TV channels.  Maybe even set up reality TV shows where ordinary citizens have an opportunity to become Royal Family members – I can already imagine ‘Imperial Idol’, ‘The Real Royal Wives of Windsor’ or ‘The Bacholerette of Buckingham’ – the first season of which could be devoted to the romantic misadventures of the hapless Pippa Middleton.  The possibilities are endless!
4. In this way, the Royal Family is finally accountable to the public – they can either decide to act with nobility and grace and gain the love (and credit card details) of the common people.  Or they could decide that they are better off being brats and pandering to the segment of the population that pays to be entertained in that way (or for whom advertisers are willing to pay above the odds).  Either way, it’s up to RBMC to decide its strategy, and the Royal Family only have themselves to blame if they fail to keep the Royal brand alive.
5. RBMC will of course need to own some key assets in addition to the intangible brand – such as Windsor Castle, the Tower of London, or the Crown Jewels.  For these, RBMC could raise a loan from patriotic City investment banks and buy them from the UK government.  To ensure that the taxpayer is fairly remunerated for these valuable assets, they would have to be purchased in open auctions;  they would have to bid higher than for example a Russian oil baron looking to extend his Mayfair bachelor pad by tacking on Buckingham Palace.  A nice little windfall for a Conservative Cameron government to help balance the budget and reduce the need for politically damaging fiscal belt-tightening.
6. Of course, any assets which are held to be ‘stolen’ by international law needs to be returned to their rightful country of origin, e.g. most of the Egyptian collection at the British Museum including the contents of Tutankhamun’s tomb (which was appropriated from Napoleon, who in turn filched it in situ from Egypt), and of course the Koh-i-Noor, the 105.6-carat diamond pinnacle of the Crown Jewels which was seized by the East India Company in the name of Empress Victoria in 1877.
7. Write a British Constitution explicitly denying any special rights and privileges to the Royal Family (other than their rights as ordinary, private citizens of the UK) and only giving constitutional power to democratically elected institutions.  While they’re at it, consider throwing in a Bill of Rights or at least a nod to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other codified foundations of modern civilization.

There we have it – what do you think?  Does this solution straddle the fine line and make everyone equally happy (or unhappy)?  Is the utter irrelevance of the Royal Family inevitable as future generations will progressively grow less patient with the institution and its representatives?  And if so, would you advise them to proactively pursue this kind of option as a way to prolong their livelihoods?