There are two motions, both suggesting members vote no confidence in the board. The board does not believe these are serious or credible motions and are based on misunderstandings by a couple of members.
You can read the details of the motions below and vote here.
Motion of no confidence from Adrian May.
The board is asking members to vote NO to this motion.
You can read Adrian May’s original document here [pdf] and see below for his statement with responses from the board.
The board hopes you will understand when you read the motion that directors do not believe this is credible. However we cannot simply refuse to put the item on the agenda.
You can read the original motion wording, but to paraphrase, the motion appears to be based on a number of misunderstandings and proposes:
- the winding up of Republic
- the removal of the board and
- the transfer of funds to an unincorporated association with an as yet undefined committee or constitution.
We are keen to see this voted down so we can move on and focus on the real challenges that lie ahead. 2026 has been a year of scandal for the royals, and renewed campaigning for Republic. There are always significant challenges to this kind of campaign, and it’s crucial we pull together and work on what matters, challenging the monarchy and continuing to have a significant impact on debates about its future.
In August Republic held a meeting, designated an EGM and incorporating the start of the AGM, to allow us to ballot members to make some changes to our own constitution. More than 250 people voted on those changes with 90% voting in favour. That’s a significant number given attendance at AGMs is typically around 80-90.
Those changes introduced some safeguards for Republic but the fundamentals of Republic’s governance remain unchanged. All the changes were explained and details were available for a number of weeks prior to the August meeting.
Here’s what Adrian has written, with a response from directors.
From Adrian
"This motion reflects the view of the members that the board has:
1. Awarded themselves an undemocratic grip on power by:
a. manipulating the constitution and articles to:
i) empower any cooperating majority of board members to remove and appoint other members with impunity,
ii) reduce board headcount to concentrate said power, and
iii) resist and reverse reasonable rules about timing of AGM announcements, motion deadlines, agenda finalisation, and notification of agenda items; and
There is simply no truth in this. The board presented amendments to Republic’s constitution to the membership. Votes were cast and 90% approved of those changes.
The amendments have made no changes to the ability of the board to co-opt or remove directors. It has always been the case, and remains so, that a simple majority can appoint or co-opt a new director and that a vote of 75% or more of directors can remove a director.
The maximum number of directors was previously 18, but for much of the past 20 years the actual number of directors has been around 10-12. The non-profit and charity sector recommends 12 as an absolute maximum for the size of a board. This makes the board more manageable and allows more productive meetings.
There have been no changes to the rules regarding the timings of AGM announcements, motion deadlines or anything else regarding general meetings.
From Adrian
b. preventing the membership as a whole from discussing such issues by keeping them splintered into local groups.
This doesn’t seem to have much meaning within the context of Republic or organisations of this type. We have one membership and all members are permitted to attend and participate in our AGM and other events. We do not have a local group structure akin to branches and have never planned to have one. Local groups which exist online are solely for the purposes of organising activism.
From Adrian
2. Recently abused this power to remove board members with dissenting views and co-opt replacements of the board’s choice despite elections being imminent.
This is incorrect. Unfortunately after the 2025 AGM some new directors continuously insisted that the election was not run correctly. This wasn’t the case as it was run in the same way it had been for 20 years. As it was an uncontested election no one won or lost a place on the board due to the manner in which the election was conducted. Sadly some new directors continued to argue on this point and put the board in a position where a decision had to be made, whether to accept the election was valid or nullify it. Reluctantly the board was left with little choice but to nullify the election. This was done in response to a motion put by someone elected in 2025. The result was that those elected last year were no longer directors, but all of them were free to either apply for co-option or stand for election in the future. This was not a decision taken lightly and it was in part why we introduced changes to the constitution.
Aside from disagreement regarding the election process, there were no discernible ‘dissenting views’ regarding strategy, tactics or policy. No directors were singled out for removal.
From Adrian
3. Shown contempt even for the rules thus engineered by:
a. passing changes to said rules at a recent EGM in contravention of said rules, and
b. attempting to justify the above by:
i) bizarrely declaring the EGM to be the convenement of the 2026 AGM at one week's notice and with no call for motions, and
ii) accepting votes in an online system nobody can verify, declaring it equivalent to postal voting, which it patently isn't.
The AGM was partly incorporated into the EGM to ensure relevant motions could be debated and voted on. It was done a few weeks prior to the meeting, not at one weeks’ notice. The call for motions has been made (hence this motion from Adrian) and the deadline for advising members of business to be transacted at the EGM was met.
As noted above, we had far more people voting on these amendments than usually attend the AGM. So it’s hard to argue that this was anything other than democratic. The voting system was one built into Republic’s main database and it absolutely can be verified.
The in-person AGM attendance does tend to be more Londoncentric, and by doing this online and balloting members we can ensure important issues are put to more members.
It is wholly reasonable in 2026 to interpret the use of post (or mail) as including electronic mail. And whichever way we send ballots to members isn’t going to make any difference to a 90% vote in favour.
From Adrian
4. Underperformed as regards membership growth and profile, use of funds, public image and failure to curtail the monarchy in any concrete way.
The board rejects this wholly subjective comment. Republic’s funds increased in 2025 and remain high compared to pre-coronation years (income was around £400,000 in 2025, it was around £170,000 in 2021). Republic’s profile has increased immeasurably and there is plenty of evidence that the campaign is having a direct impact on the debate about the monarchy’s future and on the monarchy itself.
From Adrian
The meeting therefore calls upon the board to:
1. add all members of the Association to a single discussion group whose purpose will be to elect a new Committee and rebuild its constitution from scratch,
2. liquidate the Company, whose purpose is unclear, transferring its funds to the Association, and
3. resign en masse from the Committee."
This is where the proposal becomes somewhat farcical and impossible to support. The upshot of these three points is the winding up of Republic and handing over Republic’s funds to an ill-defined unincorporated association, without the legal protections of legal liability. Such actions would destroy Republic and bring the campaign to a shuddering halt.
A single instance of difficulties within the board and some minor errors in notifying of a meeting aren’t particularly strong reasons to lose confidence in the board or to cause the disruption to the campaign that such a vote would cause.
The board does not believe this motion is serious or credible. Unfortunately we cannot simply refuse to put it to the vote, so directors are asking you to vote, and to vote NO to this motion.
Motion of no confidence from Paul Herwin.
The board is asking members to vote NO to this motion.
From Paul
"In the light of the multiple exclusions from the Board and the procedural defects at the recent EGM, regarding notice periods and voting processes, members have no confidence in the Executive Committee of Republic."
Even if there were legitimate concerns raised here, these are matters that can be raised as questions or concerns during the AGM. Some administrative issues with the EGM and a single instance of a problem on the board are not grounds for causing serious disruption to the organisation by seeking to remove the board.
The 'procedural defects' with the EGM have been explained above. The only issue of substance is that there was a slight delay in getting the initial notice out. The board announced the EGM/AGM in good time and the business/agenda to be dealt with was sent out on time. The voting was secure and can be verified so that only members can vote and can only vote once. The departure of some directors is also explained above.
This is a good time for Republic, with the campaign making a significant impact on the Andrew issue. It is vital that the campaign continues to work in good faith and with a focus on what matters, challenging the monarchy.
The board does not believe this motion has any merit. Unfortunately we cannot simply refuse to put it to the vote, so directors are asking you to vote, and to vote NO to this motion.
Republic's members and supporters
We know from our interactions with members and supporters at events, protests and by email, and the 90% vote in favour of changes to our constitution, that the broader membership has confidence in Republic. People are excited about what we do and want to support the campaign. We can of course do better and do more, and there will always be peaks and troughs in output and performance.
The trend is, however, looking promising. Support for the royals is at an all time low, the forecasts suggest continuing decline. Republic is stronger now that it's ever been and we have ambitions to grow stronger.
In the world of campaigning we have to fight for every pound raised and every minute on air. That's our focus and we know it's the priority the vast bulk of our members want us to focus on.
Do you like this page?