Abstract
The Principality of Monaco presents an interesting case given its policies as a tax haven and limited access to citizenship. Discursive psychologists have found that citizenship discourse involves talk about effortfulness and good behaviour. Exploring the positioning of Monegasque people provides an opportunity to examine how citizenship is negotiated in an environment with high levels of wealth inequality. The data was comprised of a documentary series, Inside Monaco: Playground of the rich, broadcast in the UK. Discursive Psychology, a social constructionist approach, explored how psychological concepts such as identity were constructed. The analysis found a dilemmatic positioning of Monegasque people as both productive citizens and subjugated within an elitist hierarchy. Citizenship is warranted as a birth right that entitles people to state support to protect them from extreme inequality. The positioning of Monegasque people as ordinary in an extraordinary environment minimises the impact of super-rich migration and wealth inequality.
Keywords
Introduction
The Principality of Monaco presents an interesting case to researchers interested in migration and citizenship as only 23.9% of residents are citizens (Monaco Statistics, 2023). The low level of citizens living in Monaco is perceived to result in a fear of a decreased sense of national identity (Marxer et al., 2017). Citizenship is limited to being born to Monegasque parents, married to a Monegasque citizen for 20 years or applying to Prince Albert for naturalisation after residing in Monaco for 10 years (On Nationality, 1992). Microstates such as Monaco are required to maintain their independence from adjacent nations (Guillot, 2022). Upholding independence motivates the need for a strong sense of national unity, so Monegasque politics lacks ideological division and support for the monarchy is strong (Grinda, 2007). Citizens play a key role in legitimising the territory’s independence from France such as through a distinct national and cultural identity (Grinda, 2007). Due to the inequality present in Monaco from attracting the super-rich as residents, citizens are prioritised for employment and can access subsidised housing to support them to remain in the principality (Guillot, 2022). Property prices have significantly increased since 1950s and many citizens reside in houses built before 1945 that have cheaper rents (D’Hauteserre, 2005). The requirement for proof of accommodation to obtain residency in addition to sufficient funds (Principality of Monaco, 2012) places pressure on the principality’s housing market. Approximately 30,000–45,000 workers cross the border of Monaco daily to work in low paid employment that would not support them to reside in the principality given the high cost of living and dominance of luxury housing for super-rich residents (Timothy, 2017). The benefits provided to citizens and need for strong national unity has led to perceptions of Monaco as being unwelcome to foreign nationals (Veenendaal, 2020). Exploring the construction of citizenship in Monaco provides an opportunity to examine how citizenship is constructed in an environment with high levels of wealth inequality and where citizenship levels are low.
Monaco as a tax haven and destination for the super-rich
Monaco’s tax policy is key to the unusual level of foreign nationals residing in Monaco in comparison to citizens compared to other nations. The principality is generally considered as having the features of a tax haven by researchers such as a low tax regime and attracting foreign capital (for example, Gravelle, 2015). Researching tax havens can be complex due to the lack of an agreed definition for the concept (Dharmapala and Hines, 2009; Ötsch, 2016). However, the EU considers the following features when identifying a potential tax haven:
“lack of effective exchange of relevant information with other governments on their taxpayers, minimal or no disclosure on financial dealings and ownership of assets,
no or minimal taxation on income and assets of non-residents, tax advantages to non-resident individuals,
generally not applying accepted minimum standards of corporate governance and accountability” (Remeur, 2018).
The principality is not listed on the Council of the European Union (2025) list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions. Monaco has faced pressure to comply from the OECD to reform its information sharing with other countries for tax purposes since 2000 (Veenendaal, 2020) and is currently rated as compliant (OECD, 2018). As Monaco is listed as cooperative, it is perceived to be less controversial and more transparent. However, Monaco offers desirable tax avoidance arrangements (Turalinski, 2014 cited in Przygoda, 2022) with no income, land, wealth and housing tax (Principality of Monaco, 2012). The principality has previously been included in official lists of tax havens (Palan et al., 2010) and included in researcher’s samples (for example, Laffitte, 2024).
Despite Monaco’s position as a microstate 2 km2 in size, it generates $115, 700 in Gross Domestic Product per person, ranking 4th in the world and considerably more than adjacent countries such as France (36th) (Central Intelligence Agency, 2023). Monaco’s economic performance despite its size is related to its economic policies that attract wealthy foreign nationals through its position as a tax haven (Veenendaal, 2020). As a constitutional monarchy, citizens can vote although the crown has more power than other European monarchs (Grinda, 2007). The principality has been a sovereign state since 1489 except for a period of annexation following the French Revolution (Grinda, 2007). Monaco was previously an agricultural economy (Gonot-Schoupinsky, 2021) until reduced territory when independence from France was established in 1861 required a new way to generate income for the principality. Charles III envisioned Monte Carlo casino after being inspired by the establishment of spa towns across Europe as a new way to generate income for the principality (Gay, 1998; Gonot-Schoupinsky, 2021). Direct tax was abolished in 1869 as citizens were too poor and in 1911, Monaco became a constitutional monarchy (Guillot, 2022). An agreement with France was established in 1918 where in return for protection, Monaco agreed to comply with French interests (Grinda, 2007). Increased tensions between France and Monaco resulted in the agreement of new treaties in 1963 resulting in French citizens residing in the principality being required to pay French taxes (Hancock, 1989). Monaco’s independence is dependent on French co-operation as France provides key functions such as defence and diplomatic assistance to citizens abroad (Tourbeaux, 2020). In addition to this, Monaco’s Minister of State who leads the government has always been French despite this role being open to Monegasque citizens since 2005 (Guillot, 2022). The maintenance of Monaco’s position as a principality requires a balancing act between French support for key functions and the support of its citizens to justify its independence as a separate territory.
The principality attracts wealthy residents attracted by its tax and economic development policies in addition to the provision of services for high net worth individuals (Guillot, 2022). Monaco is commonly perceived as an ‘idle playground of the world’s super-rich elite’ (Repo and Yrjölä, 2015). In addition to being a reduced tax jurisdiction, Monaco’s economy is based on luxury tourism that promotes the territory as environmentally sustainable (Gonot-Schoupinsky, 2021) and technologically innovative (Fabry and Blanchet, 2019). There are 2800 British citizens residing in Monaco (Principality of Monaco, 2024) forming 14% of the principality’s population who benefit from paying no direct tax. The presence of tax havens places pressure on other nations to maintain low tax rates as a response to the threat of wealthy individuals moving to take advantage (Ötsch, 2016). Tax is an important mechanism to redistribute wealth through the provision of public services to lower economic inequality (Carr, 2023). Kosenkova et al. (2022) state that further research is required on tax havens and this paper provides an opportunity to explore how citizenship in tax havens is presented in entertainment documentaries.
Constructing citizenship with Discursive Psychology
Research about migration using Discursive Psychology (DP) has been used to explore the concept of citizenship and construction of places. DP is a social constructionist approach that allows the researcher to explore how psychological concepts such as identity are constructed and speakers manage their accountability (Edwards and Potter, 1992). Andreouli (2019) states that studies tend to conceptualise citizenship as being a formal process that is connected to the nation although more informal conceptualisations are available. Researchers using DP have explored talk about migration and how citizenship is constructed placing an emphasis on good behaviour (Zisakou et al., 2024). Arguments against immigration warrant migrants as an economic risk to the host nation and unable to integrate (Goodman et al., 2015). Talk about citizenship presents employment as important for applicants who are presented as needing a work ethic (Andreouli and Dashtipour, 2014). Gibson (2009) identified an ‘effortfulness’ interpretative repertoire where British citizens benefit from the welfare state based on their effort. Interpretative repertoires are the ‘building blocks’ of talk, formed of everyday assumptions and are used to construct accounts (Wetherell and Potter, 1988: 172). The construction of citizens as receiving benefits from the state in return for fulfilling their responsibilities was popularised in New Labour’s third way political stance (Giddens, 1998). Citizenship is continually negotiated through discourse (Andreouli, 2019) and talk is used to manage access to places (Di Masso and Dixon, 2015). Place and identity are key to exploring constructions of citizenship. Proshansky et al. (1983) initially developed the concept of place identity and this was expanded by Dixon and Durrheim (2000) to place the concept as a discursive resource that is socially constructed through talk. Place and identity form an important part of individuals belonging to their local community (Korpela, 1989). Talk about Monaco provides an opportunity to examine how citizens are constructed and how their presence is legitimized. The low proportion of citizens to residents provides an interesting opportunity to consider how access to Monaco is legitimized particularly for Monegasque people who are subsidized through public funds yet do not pay tax.
Discursive approaches to tax
Discursive approaches have found that arguments against tax in UK broadcasts present the world as just as economic inequality is inevitable in a meritocratic environment (Carr et al., 2019). Talk about low tax jurisdictions draws upon neoliberal ideology to maintain their position (Weeks, 2021). Ötsch (2014) found that discourses about tax havens constructed them as safe and distant. They are also promoted as having warm climates and being of cultural significance (Ötsch and Di Pauli, 2009). In an Austrian context, tax havens are warranted as protecting people’s free will in newspapers (Ötsch, 2016) drawing upon neoliberal ideology. This aligns with arguments found in UK radio broadcasts that challenge tax as violating individual rights presenting tax as a form of theft (Carr et al., 2019). From this neoliberal position, welfare benefits are constructed as unfair as people are not required to be responsible (Goodman and Carr, 2017). Weeks (2021) found that discourse accounting for the position of Luxembourg as a reduced tax jurisdiction used the following rhetorical strategies: (1) competitiveness, (2) transparency, (3) need for a level playing field, (4) national interest and jealousy from larger nation states. The arguments constructed for Luxembourg’s position as a low tax jurisdiction were warranted as common sense. Companies were presented as needing freedom of movement and the Duchy’s transparency presenting Luxembourg as ethical. Talk about tax constructs moral identities to account for avoidance and to challenge arguments to fund welfare for groups such as the unemployed (Carr et al., 2019). Given that media coverage accounts for negligible taxes by drawing upon neoliberal arguments about individual responsibility, there is a need to consider how Monaco is positioned as a tax haven that supports the welfare of its citizens from public funds. The current study will explore how citizens are constructed in entertainment documentaries about Monaco and how their position is accounted for within the programmes.
Method
Data
The data was comprised of a 3-part documentary series, Inside Monaco: Playground of the rich that was broadcast weekly on BBC2 in June 2020 in the UK. The series is narrated by Fred Siriex, a public figure who presents programmes about dating and food. The initial programme broadcast on 8th June 2020 was watched by 4.3 million viewers (Barb Audiences, 2020). The series provides an opportunity to examine how Monaco is positioned in entertainment documentaries. The data is naturally occurring so that it is aligned with a DP approach (Potter, 1996). Entertainment documentaries have been analysed as a form of political communication with DP (Carr, 2020) to explore practices such as inheritance that maintain wealth inequality (Carr et al., 2023). The series provides an opportunity to consider how citizens are constructed in tax havens such as Monaco that attract the super-rich.
Analytic procedure
The data was analysed with DP that provides the opportunity to consider how talk about migration and citizenship are presented (Goodman and Kirkwood, 2019). A basic notation was used that included italics for voiceovers and narration (see Appendix 1), a common feature in documentaries, where footage of speakers is edited with other clips. Segments of footage were selected that featured people positioned as Monegasque citizens and/or subjects within the programme or talk about citizenship. Subject positions have an evaluative function as talk constructs social order producing and maintaining inequalities (Angermuller, 2018). Subject positions were analysed to explore how the dilemmatic positioning of Monegasque people as subjects and/or citizens maintains inequality within the principality. The initial analysis considered action orientation within the series and how talk about citizenship as a category was used. The extracts were analysed to explore how rhetorical strategies were presented to account for Monegasque citizenship and the benefits of this status. In addition to this, the analysis explored the use of interpretative repertoires such as effortfulness (Gibson, 2009). Further analysis considered the editing of the extracts to examine the use of strategic ambiguity (Condor et al., 2013) to construct vague arguments to challenge speakers through the production process.
Findings
Monegasque people are constructed as normal within an extraordinary environment within the television series. The positioning of Monegasque people is dilemmatic as they are categorised as both citizens and subjects. Footage contrasts displays of extreme wealth with everyday work and domestic settings to frame citizens as distinct from the extremely wealthy. Benefits of citizenship are accounted as being granted in return for supporting Monaco’s independence and contributing to the principality. Citizens are constructed as protected from extreme inequality through benefits provided by the principality. While citizenship is warranted as limited through ancestry, citizens are not presented as equal and subject to their place within a social hierarchy.
Positioning Monegasque citizens as normal
Talk about Monegasque citizenship is negotiated by speakers through talk about being normal. Extract 1 is from the first episode and filmed at a reception event at the palace hosted by Prince Albert the day before the Grand Prix takes place. The extract features the narrator (N), an unseen person from the production team (U), Mark Thomas (MT), real estate agent, Herre-Anne Noghes (H) and Yann-Antony Noghes (Y) as citizens. Guests are interviewed about whether they are a citizen or resident of Monaco within the segment by the unseen member of the production team. The interviews with guests provide an opportunity to explore how residents and citizens are positioned in Monaco and talk about normality is used.
Extract 1.
The setting of this footage frames the reception event as a luxury and exclusive environment. Viewers are informed by the narrator that access to the reception is by invitation only. This involves showing footage of guests dressed in black tie dress code showing invitations to uniformed security personnel and champagne being poured while guests mingle in a courtyard. Mark Thomas presents a contrast between residents and citizens as he presents citizenship as being the result of a person’s ancestry (‘the citizens (.) the Monegasque are the people (.) who are here generation by generation’ (2–3)). In contrast, residents are constructed as needing to be self-sufficient financially and abide by Monaco’s laws (‘be a resident with no criminal record (.) or you have a job or you have your bank account or you have an er um (.) apartment’ (3–4)). Mark’s talk is similar to discourse used by poorer migrant groups that present themselves as hard working and integrated into society (Goodman et al., 2015). However, Mark’s requirement for residency of Monaco also includes ‘there’s certain rules that you have to follow ((shrugs)) (5)’ that is less specific and his shrug further minimises his warranting of this part of the citizenship criteria. After being prompted by the unseen member of the production team (‘like what?’ (7)), Mark accounts for residency through vague talk about wealth ‘liquid’ that is presented as ‘normal’ and this is emphasised through the use of ‘for god’s sake’ (8–9). The use of pauses and laughter by him in response to this question highlights the difficulty in accounting for residency through wealth. In contrast, the narration of the extract undermines Mark’s presentation of residents as normal by showing footage of guests in black tie drinking champagne. The narrator’s talk constructs being ‘liquid’ as having disposable wealth questioning the conventionality of residents (‘Being liquid means being able to prove you have up to half a million euros always available in your bank account’ (10–11)). The use of strategic ambiguity (Condor et al., 2013) through the narration and visual footage challenges Mark’s discourse presenting residents as normal. The use of a disclaimer by the narrator supports Mark’s claim that citizenship is generational ‘but for the Monegasque citizens, it’s not your bank balance that matters but your ancestry’ (11–12)). The use of the interview footage of Mark establishes a contrast between residents and citizens based on wealth and family heritage.
The small number of Monegasque citizens to residents is emphasised during the interview with Yann-Antony and Herre-Anne Noghes. Yann-Antony’s looking around the courtyard and talk highlights the construction of Monegasque people as a minority with the use of fact to evidence his claim (‘We’re one ((looks around)) (.) we’re two of the few Monegasque citizens only 9000 citizens’ (16–17)). The interviewer’s questioning of the couple is presented as controversial as they use hedging (‘I’m going to ask your wife if I may ask did you marry your husband for his citizenship?’ (19)). The use of laughter (20–21) in Yann-Antony and Herre-Anne’s response evidences the controversial nature of this question. Both speakers warrant Monegasque citizenship as desirable to others (‘attractive’, ‘value’ (21–22)). Humour is used to manage the challenging nature of this question by the couple with Herre-Anne denying that her motivation for marriage was acquiring citizenship (‘he doesn’t need that’ (22)). Yann-Antony’s talk creates a distinction between him and others on the basis of affluence (‘I’m not a wealthy Monegasque (23)). He further presents this distinction through discourse about his genealogy (‘I’m one of the (.) true original my family’s been here for over 200 years’ (24)). A pronoun shift is used to form a distinction between residents and citizens based on their wealth (‘you know all Monegasques aren’t rich, residents foreigners who come to live in Monaco are rich’ (24–25)). This is followed by a disclaimer where Yann-Antony presents citizens as ordinary compared to wealthy residents (‘but ((finger quotes)) normal Monegasque are normal people’ (25–26)). Finger quotation marks are used to emphasise his claim to position citizens as normal. The use of talk about super-rich people being unconventional aligns with the framing of the segment in relation to the narration and visual footage that challenges Mark’s presentation of international wealthy residents as normal. Monegasque citizenship is constructed as the result of family history and relationships with citizens being positioned as ordinary compared to the luxurious setting and super-rich residents.
Rights and responsibilities
While Monegasque citizens are presented as ordinary within the series, they are also constructed as privileged through the state benefits that they receive. Extract 2 from episode three features the narrator (N), Thomas van Klaveran (T), an osteopath and Monesaque citizen and Tatev (Ta), his pregnant partner are interviewed by an unseen person (U) about housing and the benefits to Monegasque citizens. Extract 2 is preceded by a tour of the apartment and discussion of the balcony view of the sea and palace. The filming of the extract takes place mostly within Thomas and Tatev’s apartment. The extract explores how benefits to citizens are accounted for given the limited nature of Monegasque citizenship.
Extract 2.
The switching between the footage of the view and the couple sitting in the interior of the apartment provides a contrast been the position of Monegasque citizens as ordinary and Monaco as a place as extraordinary. The narrator outlines the support with housing that is available by the Monegasque government through talk about Thomas and Tatev’s situation (he and Tatev pay less than a third of the market value to rent this apartment and the state pays the rest (1–3)). Thomas constructs this benefit as a form of ‘protect[ion]’ (4) from the government and is warranted by ‘crazy’ (5) property prices. This presentation of the housing as irrational accounts for citizens being supported by the Monegasque government who are constructed as managing rents for social housing at a ‘reasonable’ level (7). While Thomas warrants housing support as ‘help’ (8), the unseen interviewer’s question upgrades this assessment as a ‘subsidy’ (10) that can be considered a formal government intervention. Given the extraordinariness of Monaco, citizens are constructed as requiring protection from the housing market.
Talk about Monegasque citizenship draws upon a rights and responsibilities interpretative repertoire. The footage of the baby’s room and narrator’s talk is used to construct the support provided to citizens as extensive (‘all of the benefits of being a citizen’ (14)). Thomas is then shown where he constructs the benefits of Monegasque citizenship through the use of a list to emphasise the resources available to citizens such as housing and employment (‘you will have a flat. You have a priority for jobs so if you know you have this security, you can travel with your free mind’ (15–16)). The benefits of citizenship are constructed as a form of security that allows Monegasque citizens to migrate and the free will to think independently. However, accounting for the benefits of citizenship involves a rights and responsibilities interpretative repertoire. Thomas uses a three-part list (Jefferson, 1990) to frame the ideal responsibilities of a citizen to migrate and to contribute to the principality (‘I study abroad, live and work abroad and maybe come back later to Monaco to bring his er to bring his everything he learnt outside of Monaco’ (17–18)). While Thomas initially uses the first person, there is a pronoun shift to ‘his’ to construct his desire for his son’s future. This is followed by a close up of Tatev’s abdomen (19) to emphasise the focus on his son. Thomas constructs citizenship as a commodity to be used and as a ‘big luxury’ (20). The presentation of Monegasque citizenship as a luxury is confirmed by showing Tatev’s nod warranting agreement (21) and footage of the view of the Monaco skyline from their apartment (22f). Narration is used to position citizenship as a limited luxury with footage of a small crowd of citizens waving flags (‘But it’s a status that’s only afforded to a select few’ (22)). The narrator warrants access to citizenship as possible through birth or marriage (‘The easiest ways to become a citizen are by birth or by marriage but you’d have to be married to a Monegasque for ten years before you’d even be eligible’ (23–25)). However, a disclaimer is used to position these routes to citizenship as limited with talk about a 10 year period before a spouse can apply to be naturalised. The series constructs Monegasque citizenship as limited with benefits for citizens in return for them contributing to the principality.
Subjects within a historical hierarchy
Within the series, Monegasque people are constructed as existing within a hierarchy and benefitting from supporting the principality through being invited to exclusive events. Extract 3 from episode one shows the preparations for a lunch being held for National Day. The extract features the narrator (N), Nicolas Saussier (NS), Palace Head of Press, Bettina (B), member of office staff, an unnamed member of office staff (U), Christian Garcia (C), Palace Chef and Grégoire Gomond (G), Palace Butler. The extract explores the dilemmatic positioning of Monegasque people as both citizens and subjects within a historical hierarchy.
Extract 3.
The footage of the palace constructs the event as luxurious and highlights the ostentatious consumption involved by showing staff busy preparing for the lunch. Talk about the initial date of the event and its longevity accounts for the legitimacy of the principality by warranting it as historical (‘Dating back to 1734, National Day is the annual celebration. . . their long reign’ (1–3)). The historical legitimacy of the monarchy is accounted for through citizen’s backing of the regime (‘support has been crucial’ (3)). Including a discussion of attendance (4–8) and showing the handwriting of invitations (9) present the event as exclusive with this framing being emphasised with talk about a ‘select few’ by the narrator (12). There is a contrast in the use of categories in the narration as ‘citizens’ (2) are also positioned as ‘subject[s]’ (9) warrants differing constructions of the relationship between the monarchy and citizens/subjects. While earlier in the extract, citizens are positioned as being needed to support the monarch, subjects are granted a public holiday and lunch by Prince Albert (9–11). Talk about subjects within the programme minimises citizen’s rights and constructs them as subservient to the monarch. The use of the differing categories within the extract provides a contrast (Edwards and Potter, 1992) where citizens are presented as more active than subjects.
Preparation for the lunch is used to construct the social hierarchy within the principality through talk about ‘protocol’ (14). Attendees are categorised as members of the ‘royal family and senior officials’ (13–14) or ‘subject[s]’ (9). The Minister of State who is referred to as the Prime Minister (17) is not constructed as a necessary part of the celebrations (‘He’s not attending again’ (20)). This provides a contrast to the role of the Prince who is warranted as granting citizens a public holiday and celebratory lunch earlier in the extract by the narrator (9–11). While Monaco is a constitutional monarchy, the role of the Minister of State is minimised within the extract in comparison to the monarch. The footage of the arrangements of the seating plan within the segment frames Monaco society as hierarchical as staff are working in a functional back office (15–27) that contrasts with the lavish décor of the formal rooms in the Palace. This part of the segment also constructs Monaco’s social order as gendered through discourse about seating ‘A lady cannot be at the end of the table. It’s always a man’ (24)). The narration accounts for the hierarchised nature of the lunch as historical (‘And old rules of rank and hierarchy still apply’ (25). Nicolas Saussier presents aspiring to sit closer to the monarchy as an everyday assumption through the use of ‘of course’ and ‘you know’ (26). However, he uses a disclaimer to account for rank being used to account for being seated further away, (‘but you belong to a certain rank so you’re being seated at a certain position’ (27)). Despite the principality’s independence being dependent on their support, Monegasque citizens are not equal as talk about rank is used to legitimise their position at the table.
Discussion
Monegasque people are positioned as conventional within an extraordinary environment. Talk about normality and everyday domestic settings for less affluent people contrast with footage of the luxury surroundings of Monaco and discourse about extreme wealth. The categorisation of Monegasque people is dilemmatic as they are warranted as both citizens and subjects. Citizenship is constructed as desirable and accounted for through talk about ancestry that excludes the super-rich. Benefits awarded to citizens in relation to employment and housing are warranted as protection by the principality. A rights and responsibilities interpretative repertoire and birth rights discourse accounts for Monegasque citizenship. The Monegasque people featured are also constructed as subjects within the television series that positions them as subjugated within a social hierarchy where they are granted benefits as opposed to equal and agentic citizens. The programmes present Monaco as having the features of a tax haven in media discourses such as a warm climate, free will, cultural significance and safe environment (Ötsch, 2014, 2016; Ötsch and Di Pauli, 2009). Talk about tax within the programmes is limited and only featured from the super-rich and narrator. In contrast, the principality’s status as a tax haven is a rhetorical absence (Billig and Marinho, 2017) for the Monegasque people featured within the programmes.
Categorised as subjects within the principality’s hierarchy
Within the television series, the identity construction of Monegasque people is dilemmatic between their position as both citizens and subjects of the principality. This reflects a similar discourse to the UK, a constitutional monarchy, where the two categories of citizen and subject can be perceived as the same (Garratt and Piper, 2003). The Palace lunch featured in Extract 3 positions people attending as subjects and constructs the principality as having a defined social hierarchy that is enacted through seating arrangements. Subjects are constructed as passive and having a place within the principality. An event for subjects constructs the concept of ‘keeping while giving’ (Clancy, 2021: 10) developed from Weiner’s (1992) discussion of ‘inalienable possessions’ (p. 3) that have a historical legitimacy and inherited through the generations. The principality’s land and titles are kept within the Rinaldi family forming their social identity and basis of political control. Subjects are given access to invited events as their gift in return with the National Day lunch, an ‘invented tradition’ that further constructs the historical legitimacy of the monarchy (Hobsbawm, 1983). The presence of a monarchy allows the public to accept inequality based on birth right (Billig, 1992) despite the dilemmatic identity construction of being both subject and citizen. Similar to newspaper coverage of Monaco where the royal family is presented as old fashioned (Repo and Yrjölä, 2015), the television series presents the principality as regressive and lacking openness as Monegasque people’s access is restricted to invite only events. The positioning of Monegasque people as subjects highlights their place within the social hierarchy and constructs the monarchy’s role in sustaining inequality.
Monegasque categorised as good citizens
Everyday constructions of citizenship present people as both equal and active (Garratt and Piper, 2003). The categorisation of Monegasque people as good citizens draws upon an interpretative repertoire of ‘effortfulness’ that has been found in talk about citizenship in the UK (Gibson, 2009). Monegasque citizens featured are presented as hard working both in the principality and abroad. Citizenship is also accounted for through ancestry and parentage (jus sanguinis) drawing upon an essentialist construction (Wood and Gilmartin, 2018). Similar to Scully’s (2024) finding that migrants granted citizenship presented themselves as grateful, people within the series warranted themselves as grateful for having Monegasque citizenship from birth. Emigration is warranted as a possibility for Monegasque citizens that allows them to contribute to the principality’s future. Discourse about emigration draws upon neoliberal ideology as citizen’s time abroad allows them to bring skills and experiences that contribute to the national economy and improve international competitiveness (Gray, 2002). Benefits for citizens such as subsidised rents and being prioritised for employment is warranted as protection for citizens. However, the series does not explicitly acknowledge the negative impact of wealth inequality and support provided for citizens is not discussed using terms such as welfare state or benefits. Despite their extreme wealth, the super-rich featured within entertainment documentaries are constructed as both ordinary and extraordinary (Carr et al., 2021). In Extract 1, both Monegasque citizens and an extremely wealthy resident position themselves as normal. The Monegasque speakers were featured presenting themselves as normal through their lack of extreme wealth creating a contrast that challenged the position of the super-rich as ordinary. Through being categorised as citizens, Monegasque people in the series are positioned as normal and contributing towards the future of the principality in return for state support that protects them from the negative effects of super-rich residency.
Monegasque citizens within the programmes are presented as both hard working and grateful for the benefits of citizenship. The use of a rights and responsibilities interpretative repertoire and talk about being grateful can be considered to meet the criteria for transferability in discursive psychological research as a discursive strategy that produces a similar action in differing contexts (Goodman, 2008). Similar to migrants presenting themselves as grateful for citizenship (Scully, 2024), Monegasque citizens are constructed as grateful for their position in Monaco to account for the state support that they receive to remain within the principality. Talk about Monaco as a tax haven was a rhetorical absence for speakers featured within the programmes highlighting a need for further research exploring how Monegasque citizens account for the principality’s status as a reduced tax jurisdiction. Given the diverseness of global tax policy, there is a need to explore how tax havens and their citizens are constructed in differing locations in the media. Further research could explore the construction of national identity in talk accounting for tax havens particularly as Weeks (2021) previously identified a strategy around supporting national interests in maintaining Luxembourg’s position as a reduced tax jurisdiction.
Conclusion
Entertainment documentaries present Monegasque people as ordinary within an extraordinary environment that is dominated by the super-rich. Within the programmes, the categorisation of Monegasque people is dilemmatic being positioned as both productive citizens and subjects within a historical hierarchy. The positioning of Monegasque people negotiates neoliberal orientations that prioritises individual autonomy and productivity when they receive welfare support from the principality. Monaco is dependent on its citizens to maintain its independence. The need for Monaco to maintain its status as a tax haven to attract the super-rich supports the reproduction of economic inequality globally.
Footnotes
Appendix 1
Ethical considerations
The research project was approved by the UWE Bristol Psychology Ethics Committee.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data availability statement
The dataset generated during and analyzed during the current study is not publicly available due to copyright reasons.