"Freedom" within the maze

Margaret Atwood, author of The Handmaid’s Tale, wrote “We were free within the maze. As long as we stayed inside the maze.”

That metaphor is powerful when applied to Britain’s constitutional monarchy. Here’s how it connects

1. Freedom within limits

-In Atwood’s image, people can move around and make choices, but only within the boundaries of the maze.

-In Britain, citizens enjoy certain yet limited freedoms — voting, speech, assembly, religion — but always within the framework of the constitutional monarchy. The monarchy itself doesn’t directly rule but represents the “walls” of the system.

2. The monarchy as the maze’s walls

-The British constitutional monarchy provides the structure of government: a symbolic head of state (the monarch) and a sovereign Parliament that holds real political power.

-Citizens are “free” to elect MPs, debate, protest, etc., but the monarchy represents enduring boundaries — tradition, unwritten constitutional principles, and the Crown-in-Parliament. You can move within those walls but not dismantle them without major constitutional upheaval.

3. Illusion of absolute freedom

-Atwood’s quote highlights how freedom can be conditional — you feel free, but only if you don’t question or challenge the maze itself.

-Similarly, Britain’s system allows freedom as long as people accept the monarchy’s symbolic authority. For example, Parliament governs in the monarch’s name (“His Majesty’s Government”), and laws are given Royal Assent.

4. Constraints

-The maze is sold to us as being protective yet in reality, it is extremely limiting. It gives order but restricts total freedom.

-It constrains alternatives (e.g., abolishing the monarchy).

Breaking the walls of the maze

Atwood suggests freedom is real but conditional: you are free as long as you remain inside the maze. Translated to Britain’s constitutional monarchy, this means citizens are free within the framework of a hereditary head of state. To “break the walls” would mean stepping outside those inherited boundaries — in other words, replacing monarchy with a republic.

When Britain finally chooses to do so, the walls of the maze could be dismantled through constitutional reform. Parliament, representing the people’s sovereignty, could easily legislate to abolish the monarchy and establish a republic. In that system, the symbolic role of the monarch — head of state, opening Parliament, giving assent to laws, representing the nation ceremonially — could be transferred to an elected but non-executive president. This preserves the ceremonial, unifying functions but removes the unfair hereditary element.