Former Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker has laid out a sweeping critique of the British monarchy in an exclusive interview with GB News ahead of the publication of his book, Royal Mint, National Debt: The shocking truth about the royals’ finances, on October 22.
Mr Baker warned that the institution remains an unreformed imperial relic shielded by public deference and strict legal defences. However, prominent constitutional legal scholar Robert Hazell, Emeritus Professor of Government and the Constitution at University College London (UCL), presented a starkly different evaluation, contending that the British Crown functions in a manner closely aligned with its European counterparts.
Mr Baker argued that the core flaw of the British Crown lies in its failure to modernise alongside continental Royal Families: “Our Royal Family is imperial, and that’s the key word because the other European monarchies have, through the 20th century, transformed themselves into elements of the democratic society.
“So when a King takes up his throne in these other countries, they typically take an oath of allegiance to the constitution in Parliament, without a Coronation, by the way. Nobody else has a Coronation apart from Britain, which is another massive bill for the taxpayer. So they’ve become part of the democratic system.”
Mr Baker claimed that the fundamental relationship between the British sovereign and the public remains undemocratic in its framing: “It’s only in this country that the King takes an oath to the constitution. Democracy doesn’t feature, by the way, at all. We, as citizens, are still subjects. We have to take an oath to the king, his heirs and successors.
“So every time a member of Parliament is elected, even if that person’s elected on a republican ticket, they have to take an oath of allegiance to the King, his heirs and successors before they can take their seat in Parliament. The police take an oath to the King. So do the armed forces. So do the scouts; this runs right the way through society. So that has not changed. The imperial nature of our monarchy is unchanged over centuries.”
Contextually, while British citizens were historically classified as “subjects,” the legal status of British residents changed under the British Nationality Act 1981, which established the formal term “British citizen.”
However, oaths of allegiance taken by parliamentarians, police officers, and armed services personnel in the UK remain legally directed to the reigning monarch and their heirs and successors, as enacted by the Promissory Oaths Act 1868.
From a constitutional perspective, Professor Hazell disputed the assertion that the British system is radically isolated from European norms, telling the People’s Channel: “The similarities with the other European monarchies are far greater than the differences. These are all constitutional monarchies, which have survived only because they have strong support from Government and the people. And they are all subject to regulation by their respective Parliaments.”
When asked whether describing the UK monarchy as “imperial” holds constitutional validity, Professor Hazell clarified the specific global footprint that distinguishes the British sovereign from continental counterparts: “The main difference with the British monarchy is that King Charles is King of 14 other countries around the world, the Commonwealth realms. This is ‘imperial’ in that it is a hangover from empire, and it adds significantly to the workload of the monarchy, keeping in close touch with all those countries and making royal visits.”
The mechanics of institutional allegiance and the succession line represent another major point of contention for Mr Baker, who highlighted the personal nature of parliamentary and institutional oaths: “Taking an oath to the heirs and successors means that you take an oath to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, as he is still eighth in line to the throne, and to Prince Harry. So this whole thing is absolute nonsense.
“That’s one element of it: the sclerotic nature of the Royal Family, which hasn’t been challenged by the upheavals in Europe. Every bit of Europe has seen invasions or wars. Because we’re an island, we haven’t seen that, and therefore our monarchy has not been exposed to the same changes in society which other European monarchies have been exposed to.”
LATEST ROYAL DEVELOPMENTS
William joins cricketing legends on the Mall as Earthshot Prize countdown beginsEugenie declares husband Jack Brooksbank is the ‘best Dada’Meghan and Harry to revisit royal past with Nottingham engagement
Addressing the legal structure of these pledges, Professor Hazell noted that the constitutional reality of the oath transcends the individual holding the Crown: “The oath to the King is in effect an oath of loyalty to the state. It could be replaced by an oath to uphold the constitution and all the laws passed by Parliament.”
Mr Baker further argued that relying on birthright inheritance introduces an inherent vulnerability into national governance: “One of the arguments said to me sometimes is, ‘Well, we don’t want a president, do you? We don’t want President Blair.’ Well, I don’t want President Blair under the circumstances, but he’d have to be voted in, and were he voted in, heaven forbid, we can get rid of him in four years’ time. Nobody can get rid of an unwelcome and inappropriate monarch, and this is the key point I wanted to make.
“If Charles had died before William was born, we would now have Andrew on the throne as a King because he was number two at that particular time in the line of succession. You can end up with a monarch whom people respect, like Queen Elizabeth, or one who was very diligent, like George V, or you could end up with a monarch like Edward VIII, who was effectively a Nazi, or Andrew, had Charles died before William was born. It’s a lottery. Elected people are a lottery. At least you can get rid of them.”
To emphasise the practical risks of personal oaths to a head of state, Mr Baker pointed to the abdication crisis of 1936: “If you take allegiance to the King, it’s pretty harmless because nothing ever happens as a consequence of that. But look back to the 1930s, when Edward VIII was on the throne for a brief period of time, and Edward VIII, as accepted by historians, was very sympathetic to the Nazis.
“German was his main language, and historians have proven that he was leaking sensitive material to the Germans in the late 1930s. Mrs Simpson was a convenient reason for suggesting he couldn’t be on the throne because she’s a divorcee, but actually, if you look back at what Stanley Baldwin, the Prime Minister, was doing, they were actually bugging with MI5. They were bugging the King. They didn’t trust him, and Mrs Simpson was a convenient reason to get rid of him. That’s a real reason that Edward VIII went.
“But the point is about the oath: whether members of the Royal Family took an oath personally to the King or the Queen, and whoever’s on the throne at a particular time. Most times it doesn’t matter very much. But let’s look back to the 1930s. If Edward VIII had still been king when the war broke out, and he had said to the armed forces, ‘You must lay down your weapons’, they may have all have done so, because they took an oath to him personally. That’s the danger of it.”
Historically, archived state papers confirm that Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin and the Cabinet monitored Edward VIII’s communications during the 1936 abdication crisis due to security concerns regarding his relationship with Mrs Simpson and reported sympathies toward Nazi Germany.
However, under constitutional law, the British Armed Forces serve the Sovereign in Parliament, meaning military command remains governed by parliamentary legislation and Government minister decisions rather than unilateral monarchical directives.
Beyond constitutional mechanics, Mr Baker criticised what he views as a broader societal deferential protection machine that insulates the royal institution from routine public and parliamentary oversight: “Secondly, you’ve got the fact that the royals operate a very good spin machine and rely on deference from the public at large. So people don’t want to criticise the Royal Family, particularly, I might say, when Queen Elizabeth was alive, because people thought she was doing a good job, and that’s gone away a bit.
“But nevertheless, it’s still there, and in Parliament, it’s very difficult to criticise the Royal Family without being ruled out of order by the Speaker. So even MPs who are elected can’t do this very easily. I was the only MP in 18 years in my time in Parliament to introduce a debate on royal matters, and the only way I was able to do that was by leaking it back to an obscure Treasury paper from years earlier. That’s how difficult it was to introduce any sort of debate.”
In Parliamentary practice, House of Commons rules prohibit MPs from reflecting upon the conduct of the Sovereign or members of the Royal Family except on a substantive motion specifically framed for that purpose, a convention managed by the Speaker of the House.
On the subject of parliamentary oversight relative to other nations, Professor Hazell suggests the primary responsibility for any lack of accountability lies with elected representatives rather than the Crown itself: “I am not sufficiently expert in the degree of parliamentary scrutiny elsewhere; but I doubt if it is significantly different. If there is less scrutiny in the UK, that is a failing of Parliament, not of the monarchy.”
Mr Baker remains sceptical of internal modernisation promises from senior royals, advocating instead for a strict core funding structure similar to European models: “William has given out the message that he wants to modernise matters, but then Charles did that as well. So I take that with a pinch of salt whether that will actually occur as a consequence of that. But there needs to be some change.
“If we’re going to have a Royal Family in this country, we need to do what Europeans have, and have the King and the Queen, the next in line, which in this case is William and Catherine, and then their children, and everybody else should go and get a job, and not be subject to public money being showered upon.”
Buckingham Palace was contacted for comment but did not respond.
Our Standards:
The GB News Editorial Charter
