A basic tenet of democratic governance is that citizens elect their representatives in free and fair elections. Elections are thus the main channel for citizens to express their demands and hold politicians accountable. However, many democratic systems preserve a non-elected, unaccountable institution who plays an important role in political systems: the monarchy. As of 2026, there exist ten constitutional monarchies in Western Europe. As an institution, monarchies receive a relevant proportion of public funding and play core ceremonial and representative functions. In recent years, many European royal families have faced scandals ranging from financial corruption (Spain's former King Juan Carlos I), inappropriate behavior (UK's Prince Andrew, Belgium's Prince Laurent), to issues of public perception (Netherlands' yacht controversy) and personal conduct. Though public opinion data on support for the monarchy is largely scarce or even absent in most countries, the few studies available seem to indicate that most Europeans are still supportive of maintaining their monarchies – though with major differences across countries. In an era of disaffection from traditional political institutions and the rise of political forces who seek to combat the “corrupt” elites, it is however puzzling why citizens support an institution they cannot hold accountable and/or make responsive to citizens' wishes and demands. While academic studies tend to focus on analysing the sociodemographic characteristics of individuals who support the monarchy, it remains an open question to understand whether and how citizens use rational criteria to evaluate the (mis-)conduct and actions of political actors who are unaccountable, like monarchs, or rather they evaluate monarchs as a charismatic, traditional institution free from political responsibility, as conventionally assumed. In other words, to what extent do citizens rely on the same psychological mechanisms when judging actions from elected vs non-elected political actors?

This article addresses that question through a conjoint experiment conducted in three European countries with a constitutional monarchy, namely Britain (N = 750), Spain (N=750) and Norway (N=750). Participants were randomly exposed to distinct information conditions about hypothetical critical situations faced by a monarch vs a prime minister where statements about their reactions ranged from passiveness to a more proactive response. The findings reveal meaningful differences in how political responsibility is perceived between monarchs and prime ministers.