Martin Kettle in The Guardian described Elizabeth’s seven decades on the throne “as a low-key but extremely effective unifying force”. But he warned that it was one “her heirs cannot assume they will be able to replicate”, especially if the now-King Charles “fails to earn the breadth of respect that Elizabeth enjoyed”. 6. Con: undemocratic The removal of the crown from the constitution and an elected second house are minimum requirements for a modern and mature democracy. Number two: monarchy is a pressure valve. It means that we have two forms of politics. We have the combative, punchy stuff – politicians do that – and we have a benign force that reflects the nation to itself. When, in France, the head of state lays a wreath, half of the people standing by hate the person laying the wreath. In Britain when the Queen or King lays a wreath nobody has a problem with it. Having been around the world with the royal family for many years, I have seen that the stability and the continuity we get is something we take for granted. In eastern Europe in the Nineties, for example, they were bowled over to see the Queen. For them she was the ultimate symbol of stability – and our monarchy still is, by the way. Far from being truer patriots than republicans, monarchists seem to have so little faith in our country that they dare not look beyond one family for a figurehead to embody us. Do they embody us? Are they patriots? Why not send their children to state schools? Why not have their children in NHS hospitals? Why ask for exemptions from laws? Why not pay inheritance tax? I refuse the idea that monarchy, with its magic, protects our democracy: if it does, it isn’t doing a very good job of it. I refuse its insistence it is apolitical because it seeks to preserve its power: that is a political position.

Those who insist the role of our monarchy is merely symbolic miss the point. It symbolises something extremely corrosive that persists in the present. It enshrines the hereditary principle in a system that increasingly enriches the privileged and privileges the rich; a system that favours not democracy but deference; where the poor know their place and the rich have their power. We should abolish the monarchy now because all of those trends are getting worse now. There has been some research, though, which tries to account for all that. Mauro Guillén, a sociologist and economist at the University of Cambridge, published a study in 2018 which looked at 137 different countries – republics, constitutional monarchies, absolute monarchies and dictatorships – over 110 years, between 1900 and 2010. Now, there are only so many ways that a polity can realistically be organised. Let’s look at republics – specifically those we have in Europe, which Britain might conceivably resemble. In his memoir Spare, Prince Harry chose to tell the truth of his life in this family, and he has been traduced for it. No one likes to have their dreams shattered.For a long time, it was possible to argue that the monarchy should be retained because abolition would involve major constitutional upheaval. But leaving the EU has already opened the door to “root and branch” reform of how Britain governs itself. Even Scottish independence and Irish unification are now realistic prospects—foreshadowing, perhaps, the breakup of the British state. In this context, abolishing the monarchy alongside other constitutional reforms can be seen to make a great deal of sense, especially if the UK is to fragment into two or more entities. It is refreshing to see Polly Toynbee argue clearly for the end of our feudal and anachronistic monarchy ( Clearly Britain loses more than it gains from the monarchy. Let us be brave and end it, 17 February). The Queen is rightly admired for her lifelong service, even by many of us who advocate for a republican Britain. This is the time to do it with minimum fuss and rancour, almost a celebration of Her Majesty as Polly shrewdly recommends, before moving on to becoming a modern European state. This is a very timely reminder of the constitutional absurdity of our taxpayer-funded Royal Family that is at war with itself. Whether you're in favour of abolition or a more slimmed-down monarchy in keeping with modern Britain, Graham Smith puts the case for reform eloquently and forcefully. Robert Verkaik, author of Posh Boys My presence in this chamber would have been as unlikely to my mother as anything else she hoped I might achieve as we padded around our living room. I am the child of, among other things, aspiration.

Even at 14, I assumed most people would not want to live in the utterly infantilised state of being a subject. At one stage, I went to lots of meetings about republicanism and dry constitutional shakedowns and I was patronised by experts who told me Diana’s disruption was not the right kind: she was disturbing the narrative by not accepting its rules, that Charles could have an affair. The way to get rid of the monarchy had to be highbrow and political; it should never be personal. Or, actually, cultural. Due to the power of this dreamworld, we do not have a transparent and accountable system of government. We have, rather, a gaudy merry-go-round that, with the rising crises in the world, seems odder by the year. Britain feels necrotic and undynamic. Our fancied exceptionalism feels less exceptional these days. But I held off any strong public declaration of wanting to see the monarchy abolished out of respect for Elizabeth whom, I had already been led to believe, was doing a great service for the country in all the work she did with leaders around the world. Plus, there were always the arguments that the monarchy bring in huge revenues in tourism and that the British public overwhelmingly loved the royal family. And in the end, they don't have any power, surely, so it does no harm to keep them. All good stuff, right? Democratic societies accept as fundamentally true that all people are moral equals. It is this equality that grounds the right to equal participation in government. On September 8th, 2022, Queen Elizabeth II of England died at the age of 96. She held the crown for 70 years, making her the longest reigning monarch in the history of Britain. Her son, now King Charles III, will likely be coronated in mid-2023.Like Smith says in the book itself, if you are a monarchist, this book is probably not for you - which is the precise reason I would recommend it to all the monarchists out there. It has been long enough that monarchists and the democracy-averse refuse to engage with polemics that challenge their beliefs in hereditary rule and concentration of power in an secretive, corrupt, inbred and embarrassing bloodline. Smith correctly points out in this fantastic manifesto the fact that British media and public discourse does not allow for even a shred of anti-monarchy (thus pro-democracy) sentiment in the media or other spaces of debate, lest the lumpen learn that they’ve been duped into supporting their own (by all objective measures of wealth and political power) oppressors. Smith wants an elected president who would act as both a figurehead and a constitutional safeguard. I enjoyed learning about Icelandic and German success stories and, briefly pushed out of my royal comfort-zone, I was forced to confront the questionable appeal of the same privileged white Protestant men heading our state for another 100 years (assuming that Prince George is blessed with longevity). For the most part, Smith’s case is well made – if there were footnotes, this might be recommended reading on an A-level syllabus – and the timing, post-Coronation, opportune. The figure may remain low, but at 25 per cent, polled support for the end of the monarchy is higher than it has ever been.