MY criticism of the institution of monarchy has always been founded on one principle: we’re all equal. Monarchy provides an infinitesimally small number of humans extreme advantage simply by accident of birth. Monarchy asks that the rest of us step aside to give these individuals privilege and power – that we defer to them, pay for their lifestyles, and accord them a special, exclusive place in democracy.

If ever there was a hangover from the age before the Enlightenment, then monarchy is it. It’s an absurdity, an affront. On those grounds alone, monarchy in the UK should be abolished. In essence, the institution of the monarchy asks that we pay for the benefit of being allowed to bow and scrape before individuals who in every single respect are our equals.

Most anti-monarchists, until now at least, have preferred to leave personalities out of the debate – myself included. We don’t need to pick up on the fecklessness, stupidity, amorality, cruelty, or alleged criminality of various scions of the Windsor family, and its many branches, down the years to make the case against the monarchy. The institution alone is enough to convict; circumstantial evidence isn’t needed.

READ MORE NEIL MACKAY: A royal love affair

I’ve written before that I consider it an unwise tactic to single out the Queen for personal, direct criticism – if only because that might backfire on the anti-monarchist case. There’s a mythology around the Queen which provides her with an imperviousness, in the eyes of many, to criticism. She’s cloaked in fables of duty, reserve, decency and honour.

What makes the Queen myth especially galling is that it’s us – the public, in the shape of our parliaments, traditions, media, and laws – who have essentially invented these stories and lies. We’ve allowed our society to spin the fables which underpin this gold-plated, anti-democratic, self-aggrandising fantasy – without the vast majority of us ever really questioning whether any of these myths are true or not. It’s a case study in mass delusion.

The Queen Myth – like all myths – is a lie, however. Until this week, I’ve bit my tongue when it comes to levelling direct criticism at Elizabeth Windsor, but details which have emerged over the last few days mean a Rubicon has been crossed. The Queen isn’t a creature of duty, reserve, decency and honour – the Queen is in it for herself.

The Herald:

Since Monday, a series of investigative reports has uncovered how the Queen and her son Charles gamed British democracy for their own selfish ends.

We’ve learned that the Queen used her powers to change laws which she saw as against her own self-interest. In one of the most dangerous examples, she had a draft law altered in order to conceal the extent of her private wealth from the public. Government memos show pressure was put on ministers to alter proposed legislation which would have disclosed her shareholdings. Let’s remember here that every single penny the royals own comes from our pockets. Their wealth is our wealth.

The monarchy was exploiting an arcane parliamentary procedure called ‘Queen’s Consent’. This isn’t to be confused with Royal Assent – where the monarch is an effective rubber stamp on state legislation. Queen’s Consent – which few people had even heard of until this week – requires government ministers to alert the Queen over any proposed legislation which might affect the Crown. In effect, this gives the Queen the ability to lobby government and demand that laws be tweaked in her favour.

To date, the best guess is that some 1000 laws were vetted by the Queen or Prince Charles. So far, there’s no clear picture on how many laws the Crown managed to change in its own interests.

We know, for sure, though, that in 1973, the Queen feared that a proposed bill which planned to bring transparency to company shareholdings could allow the public to scrutinise royal wealth. As a result, her lawyers put pressure on the government. The eventual law was tweaked in accordance with royal wishes.

There have been other instances of the secretive vetting of laws by Royals which we also have now learned of, including Prince Charles being granted exemption from legislation which would have given residents on his estates the right to buy their own homes. Exemption ensures rents keep rolling into the royal coffers. The Queen also lobbied to ensure road traffic regulations didn’t apply on her estates.

The Queen’s Consent rule is in essence a royal gun at the head of parliament. Without ‘Queen’s Consent’, legislation cannot be presented for final approval – in any parliament in the UK, including the Scottish parliament.

I’ve gone on record before, when debating the abolition of the monarchy, with words to this effect: “The monarchy is often defended on the grounds that ‘the Queen is a good woman’. I know nothing of the Queen’s soul. I can neither judge her good or bad, but I accept many see her as a person of moral standing. However, the character of Elizabeth Windsor is meaningless in any debate about monarchy.”

READ MORE NEIL MACKAY: Talking about abolishing the monarchy

I now see that position as no longer tenable. I now need to question whether the Queen is “a good woman”. I’ve now been given an insight into the soul of the Queen that I didn’t previously have and it’s worrying. If asked to judge her as ‘good or bad’ – I struggle to remain ambivalent. It’s now difficult to see how anyone views the Queen as someone of ‘moral standing’. The character of Elizabeth Windsor – and her son Charles – does now have a place in the debate about the monarchy.

The monarchy doesn’t need to use this archaic ‘Queen’s Consent’ power. The Queen could – if she wished – respect democracy and keep her nose out of parliamentary affairs. But she hasn’t done so. She has intruded into democracy in order to promote herself and feather her already very luxurious family nest.

The monarchy isn’t going anywhere for as long as the Queen is alive. But now that we’ve finally seen the true greedy, conniving, selfish – and, crucially, anti-democratic – face of royalty, once her reign is over, we must rid ourselves of this corrupt medieval nonsense.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald