# The Royal College of Psychiatrists should become British, not Royal

## TL;DR

The paper argues that the Royal College of Psychiatrists should drop its royal title due to its association with a hereditary monarchy that supports social inequalities.

## Contribution

The paper introduces a critical perspective on the ethical implications of the Royal College of Psychiatrists' royal affiliation.

## Key findings

- The royal charter is seen as enhancing the College's status but is ethically problematic.
- The British monarchy's role in exacerbating inequalities is a concern for psychiatrists.
- The Royal affiliation highlights power imbalances in compulsory psychiatric practices.

## Abstract

The royal charter of the Royal College of Psychiatrists is generally taken to enhance its status. However, the concept of a hereditary monarchy is intellectually indefensible and the realities of the British monarchy exacerbate inequalities in the UK. The connection is particularly problematic for psychiatrists because of their role in the compulsory detention and treatment of patients. The Royal affiliation can only serve to emphasise the power inequalities in society associated with these activities. College members should feel free to discuss whether this situation should continue or whether we should be British rather than Royal.