David Dimbleby’s Missing Episode - What Is A Republic For?
BBC’s What Is the Monarchy For? was a short, three-part documentary series examining the role, value, and future of the British monarchy in modern Britain. A fourth episode framed as “What Is a Republic For?” could have supplied exactly the missing context needed: not advocacy, but comparative constitutional literacy. It would have helped viewers understand what the monarchy is relative to realistic alternatives, rather than in isolation.
12/19/20252 min read
How are we to know if the grass is greener on the other side if we don’t stop to look at it?
Here’s what such a fourth episode about republics could have included, in a way consistent with the BBC’s public-service remit.
1. Clarifying the Spectrum of Republics
One major absence in UK debate is the assumption that “republic” means a powerful, US-style president. A fourth episode could have started by mapping the types of republics:
Ceremonial / parliamentary republics like in Ireland, Finland and Iceland.
Semi-presidential systems like in France and Portugal.
This would immediately correct a common misconception: abolishing the monarchy does not imply importing an American presidency.
2. Case Studies: Ceremonial Republics Comparable to the UK
This could mean Ireland’s Ceremonial President as head of state, constitutional guardian and symbolic representative. A president with limited powers, but with clear democratic legitimacy.
It could also mean Germany’s Federal President as a moral authority and stabilising figure who has a check on constitutional breaches. A president chosen indirectly to avoid populism who enjoys high public trust despite low visibility.
3. The Question of Legitimacy
A serious republican comparison would ask:
Is legitimacy better derived from tradition and inheritance, election or parliamentary appointment?
How do different systems prevent partisanship, celebrity politics and executive overreach?
This is where monarchists often argue the monarchy “works because it isn’t chosen.”
A fourth episode could have tested that claim empirically rather than rhetorically.
4. Cost, Transparency, and Accountability
Without polemic, the episode could have compared public funding models, transparency requirements, removal mechanisms (impeachment vs abdication) and institutional resilience
A key insight for viewers:
Republics expect their heads of state to fail occasionally — and have robust mechanisms to deal with it. We just turn a blind eye and expect the removal of a few meaningless titles to count as justice.
5. National Identity Without a Crown
“Monarchy represents who we are.”
The episode could have explored how republics mark continuity, create shared rituals, preserve history without hereditary power and handle moments of mourning and celebration.
Ireland would have been especially instructive here: post-colonial, culturally distinctive, and emotionally invested in symbolism—without monarchy.
6. Not a Sales Pitch
A genuinely public-service conclusion wouldn’t say “we should be a republic”, but be honest about what a republic does better e.g democratic legitimacy, clarity of power, accountability and value for money.
Why This Episode Mattered
Without this comparison, What Is the Monarchy For? implicitly framed the monarchy as the default, rather than as one constitutional choice among several functioning alternatives.
A fourth episode wouldn’t have undermined the monarchy.
It would have respected the audience enough to show them the counterfactual.
Feeling inspired?
Write to the BBC demanding a fourth episode for balance!