On Monday, 9 June 2025, King Charles visited Lancaster for the Ceremony of the Keys dating from 1851, in which the keys of Lancaster Castle are handed over to the reigning monarch, who also traditionally holds the title of the Duke of Lancaster. The king then attended a reception where he met with local businesses and community organisations.
Much of the press surrounding his arrival was positive. Mrs Amanda Parker JP, the Lord Lieutenant of Lancashire, said:
I am delighted that His Majesty is coming to Lancashire and look forward to introducing him to many Lancastrian businesses and community organisations. This is a very special occasion for our county.
Given that she is his representative for Lancashire, this perspective is hardly surprising.
But one of the university’s student media publications had asked students beforehand how they felt about the king’s arrival, and many seemed to feel negatively about it, while others were ambivalent. It’s fair to say reactions among the student population were mixed.
So, why all the fuss and fanfare?
What I did find surprising were the photos of people crowding around Castle Hill to meet the king.
I can understand people who run businesses and local community organisations looking forward to having their voices heard by the king, but crowds of people were lined up with the sole purpose of meeting him. Which, to me, begs the question: why?
An outdated institution and popularity dips
After all, the English monarchy is arguably an ancient and outdated institution, having existed for about a thousand years at this point. Is it really necessary, in a society that is supposed to champion democracy, to have a leader who was not democratically elected? One that was supposedly chosen by a God that not everybody in this country believes in?
Really?
Then, there’s the popularity of not only the Christian God to consider, but also the King himself. It’s not as though he is a popular monarch these days. Indeed, considering how King Charles allegedly treated Diana, there are some who might have preferred him to abdicate, instead.
His mother, Queen Elizabeth II, was – and still is – far more popular, three years after her death. Times were very different when Princess Elizabeth was crowned queen back in 1953, and some anti-monarchists may argue that the British monarchy should have died with her.
However, I would argue that the institution itself is the problem, and not just because of a supposed God-given right to rule, ridiculous as that may seem to some of us.
Class divide and media attention
The British royal family clearly highlights the UK class divide through deferential titles such as ‘your royal highness’ and ‘your royal majesty’, suggesting that they are somehow superior to the rest of us.
They hold considerable state wealth. Yet, under King Charles III’s reign, much of the UK Public live in poverty: a staggering 21% of all UK citizens to be exact. Not only that, but the royal family actively costs the UK a lot of money. While they live in comfort and luxury, ordinary people have to work hard and struggle. They even have contracts with charities. Surely, other people need that charity more?
The British media also seem to suggest that they are worth more than the rest of us, with significant amounts of press surrounding the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the coronation of King Charles III. As historical as these moments were, were they really worth all that media focus?
The cult of celebrity
In today’s modern world, it feels almost as though the royals are treated like celebrities. You can hardly go a day, it feels, without seeing their faces splashed across a newspaper or celebrity magazine. Many stories about them look like PR: attempting to show them as ‘normal’ people, supporting charities and doing good works. Yet there are just as many stories that portray them as classist, racist, allegedly unkind to those marrying-in (like Meghan Markle and Diana Spencer), behaving scandalously like Prince Andrew, and so much more besides.
We need to stop giving them so much undeserved attention. It is not on the merits of their personalities, or their talents, but because they are rich and incredibly powerful.
The doubtful benefits to tourism
Realistically, we give so much to them, and they give us so little. People often make the argument about them boosting tourism. Yet, it can be seen that the British royal family are not as good for tourism as some people may think. This is a point that was reinforced by the anti-monarchist movement, Republic.
The history of colonialism, imperialism and racism
The colonialist and racist history surrounding the British royal family and the British government cannot be understated, either.
Under Queen Elizabeth II’s reign, colonialism and imperialism were still very prevalent, including at the hands of the royal family themselves and the British government and more: They have inherited a number of stolen jewels, too, largely taken from India.
Recently, King Charles was alleged to have been one of the royals to question how dark Prince Harry’s son Archie’s skin would be at birth. This speaks volumes about racism in the royal family, without saying anything of their reported treatment – repeated in the media – of Meghan Markle, a mixed-race woman.
Time for a republic?
Anti-monarchy organisations such as Republic are intending to work towards a society where the royal family is no longer needed or seen as important as it used to be.
With us having a Prime Minister and a (theoretically) functioning government, what need do we have for them any longer? If the royal family is granted precious public money – that arguably could be better spent on education, the NHS, disability, childcare and so on, to benefit the welfare of the average UK citizen – and give us very little in return, then why should we keep them in power? Republic makes a good case – we need to become a republic, instead of relying on the antiquated idea of a royal family.
Not in my county
Some people in Lancaster evidently thought the same, as there was a small protest at Castle Hill, with signs saying things such as ‘Not My King’. Although it was only a small protest, at least it showed that not every person in Lancashire has a favourable opinion of King Charles, or the British monarchy as a whole.
As a generally proud Lancaster native, I feel ashamed that he was given such a warm welcome. As a Lancaster University student, and Lancashire lass born and raised, I hope never to see King Charles in Lancashire again.
A girl can dream…
