Keir Starmer’s Labour Government quietly drops His Majesty branding from official communications across Westminster in London

It was not announced with a press conference.

There was no grand statement in the Commons. No glossy relaunch campaign.

But somewhere in the machinery of Whitehall, a decision was made — and now it has exploded into a full-blown political row.

Sir Keir Starmer’s Government has quietly stopped using the phrase “His Majesty” in public-facing communications, replacing it instead with the simpler label “UK Government.”

To supporters, it’s a tidy branding update.
To critics, it’s a symbolic snub to centuries of constitutional tradition.

And in Westminster, symbolism matters.

---

From “HM Government” to “UK Government”

For decades, official announcements, press releases, and policy documents proudly carried the title “HM Government.”

The branding was deliberate. It reflected Britain’s constitutional monarchy — the idea that the Government operates in the name of the reigning monarch.

Now, under updated guidance issued since Labour took office, “UK Government” has become the default identity for public communications.

Cabinet Office Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds confirmed the change when answering a written Parliamentary question.

He explained that branding guidance was revised following the accession of King Charles III and the introduction of the updated Royal Coat of Arms.

A “strategic decision,” he said, was taken to adopt “UK Government” as the primary identity for public-facing materials.

That phrase — “strategic decision” — is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

---

No Announcement, No Consultation

What has fuelled the backlash isn’t just the wording itself. It’s how the change happened.

There was no public consultation. No ministerial speech laying out the rationale.

No debate about modernisation versus tradition.

Instead, the shift only came to light through a written parliamentary question — effectively tucked away in the formal back-and-forth of Commons procedure.

To critics, that feels deliberate.

The Conservatives have seized on the move, accusing Labour of trying to “quietly obliterate tradition.”

They argue that the monarchy is not decorative branding — it is part of Britain’s constitutional framework.

---

The Conservative Counterattack

Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Alex Burghart didn’t hold back.

He described the move as “modernisation for modernisation’s sake” and pledged that a future Conservative government would reverse the decision “on day one.”

The Tory line is clear: this isn’t administrative housekeeping — it’s cultural drift.

They argue that “HM Government” is a trusted and recognised identity, something reinforced in previous Government Communications Service guidance, which described it as the “master brand” for official messaging.

To them, removing “His Majesty” weakens the visible link between state and Crown — a link they see as central to British stability.

---

Labour’s Defence

Labour insists the criticism is overblown.

Government sources say “HM Government” has not been abolished as a constitutional style.

It remains in use where formally required — including legal documents and official records.

The shift, they argue, is about clarity.

Communications teams are now advised to use “UK Government” in public announcements so people can more easily understand who is speaking, especially when multiple departments are involved.

In other words, it’s branding, not ideology.

---

A Familiar Accusation

This isn’t the first time Labour has faced claims of downplaying royal references.

During the New Labour years under Tony Blair, “HM Stationery Office” became the “Office of Public Sector Information.”

“Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Fire Services” was rebranded as the “Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser.”

Each time, critics accused Labour of chipping away at tradition in the name of modernisation.

Supporters argued that government titles should reflect function rather than ceremony.

It’s a debate that seems to resurface every decade or so — often less about logos and more about identity.

---

The Monarchy’s Constitutional Role

At the heart of the controversy is a bigger question.

Britain’s Government technically governs in the monarch’s name.

Laws receive Royal Assent. The Armed Forces swear allegiance to the King.

Passports are issued in the monarch’s authority.

The phrase “His Majesty’s Government” isn’t ornamental — it reflects that constitutional structure.

However, in day-to-day political life, ministers exercise power independently.

The monarchy remains politically neutral, and modern governments increasingly emphasise democratic accountability over monarchical symbolism.

So the branding shift lands at the crossroads between tradition and practical governance.

---

The Mandelson Shadow and Internal Turmoil

The row has also tangled itself with Labour’s internal dramas.

The Conservatives have pointed at former communications director Tim Allan, who resigned after just five months amid the broader Mandelson controversy, claiming this rebrand will be his “lasting legacy.”

Whether or not he was the architect, the timing has added fuel to the fire.

In politics, perception can matter as much as policy.

---

Why This Matters Beyond Logos

On paper, swapping “HM Government” for “UK Government” may look minor.

But branding in government isn’t neutral.

It signals how a state presents itself — to its citizens and to the world.

Some see “UK Government” as cleaner and more inclusive across the Union, particularly in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, where debates about identity and sovereignty remain sensitive.

Others see the removal of “His Majesty” as symbolic distancing from the Crown at a time when King Charles III is still consolidating his reign following Queen Elizabeth II’s historic tenure.

---

What’s Next?

Politically, the issue is unlikely to disappear quickly.

The Conservatives have already pledged to reverse the branding if they return to power.

Expect it to become another cultural dividing line in the next election campaign — framed as tradition versus technocratic modernisation.

In the short term, Parliament may see further written questions and possibly even a Commons debate pushing ministers to clarify exactly where and when “HM Government” remains in use.

Outside Westminster, public reaction may ultimately determine how significant this becomes.

If voters view it as trivial, the storm will pass. If it feeds into a broader sense of institutional change, it could linger.

---

The Bigger Picture

Britain has always evolved through small, incremental shifts rather than sweeping constitutional ruptures.

Sometimes those shifts are legislative.
Sometimes they’re symbolic.

Whether this rebrand is a practical update or a cultural misstep depends largely on perspective.

For some, “UK Government” simply reflects a modern administrative state.

For others, losing “His Majesty” from public view feels like loosening a thread in a centuries-old constitutional fabric.

The debate, in truth, is less about a logo — and more about what kind of country Britain believes itself to be.

---

Summary

The Labour Government has replaced “HM Government” with “UK Government” in public communications, describing the move as a strategic branding decision made after King Charles III’s accession.

The Conservatives have condemned the change as disrespectful to Britain’s traditions and constitutional monarchy, promising to reverse it.

Labour insists the constitutional style remains intact where required and says the update is about clarity, not ideology.

What began as a quiet administrative adjustment has now become a symbolic political flashpoint — one that touches on history, identity, and the future direction of the British state.