I believe that sacred monarchy infantilises us, as if Gandalf and Frodo were characters in our national life. I believe in the truism that the larger your dreamworld – and monarchy is a dreamworld – the smaller, sadder and more brittle is your real world. I think this is reflected in our politics, which are not imaginative, or functional, or even particularly reactive. While it’s true that monarchies are long traditions in many nations, this argument only gets one so far. A practice being part of a people’s culture does not make it immune to critique. Had the Roman practice of gladiatorial combat to the death for the sake of entertainment survived to this day, we would (hopefully) think it ought to be eliminated, despite thousands of years of cultural history.

Generally, hierarchies of esteem are not automatically impermissible. One might opt into some. For instance, you might have to call your boss “Mrs. Last-Name,” athletes may have to use the title “coach” rather than a first name, etc. Yet, provided that one freely enters into these relationships, such hierarchies need not be troubling. Further, hierarchies of esteem may be part of some relationships that one does not voluntarily enter but are nonetheless morally justifiable – children, generally, are required to show some level of deference to their parents (provided that the parents are caring, have their child’s best interests in mind, etc.), for instance. Unlike Smith, I don’t predict or want the demise of the Crown in the foreseeable future. I do, however, think our political landscape is richer for protest movements like his – police, take note – and that our constitutional monarchy is potentially stronger when it’s tuned into its most vociferous opponents. 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. The obvious problem with the moralistic approach is that any society, let alone one of sixty-five million people, will harbour a vast diversity of values, as is borne out by recent polls of public attitudes to the monarchy itself. Perhaps unwittingly, Smith concedes as much. He says that the attitudes of the royal family to race are contrary to the nation’s sense of fairness and equity. At the same time, however, he refers to the outpouring of public support for the courtier Lady Susan Hussey when she was accused of racism. monarchy is by its very nature anti-democratic and not suited to a country which prides itself as a world leader in political rights and freedoms

People are donating today so we can do more in 2024!

This book, written by Smith in the lead-up to that coronation, lays out concisely and with great precision his argument for abolition of the British monarchy, and how a republican system of government could work in Britain.

For me the most interesting comparison,” Guillén says, “was democratic monarchies and democratic republics.” Looking at the mechanisms he described, the only one that was significantly different there was the length of political tenure, but he found that nonetheless, monarchies performed better. “The mechanism is that when politicians perpetuate themselves in power, property rights suffer,” he said. “Having a head of state who’s the monarch, above politics, not elected, essentially helps put the politicians in their place. The thing that doesn’t change is the monarch, while the politicians come and go.” 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. It’s very hard to tell, says Neil Lee, a professor of economic geography at the London School of Economics. “There’s a big difference between, for instance, Saudi Arabia and Denmark,” he says, both of which are monarchies.That is not the monarchy’s fault. But that is what the monarchy represents. I am not only a child of aspiration. I am also a child of free school meals, student grants and urban revolt. I danced here not only on my mother’s feet but on other people’s dreams. The monarchy was not just absent from those dreams for a more equal and inclusive society. It was the antithesis of them. The monarchy says, “Don’t dance: bow.” The monarchy says, “Don’t sing: hold your tongue.” The monarchy says you are not a citizen but a subject. This country does not belong to you but to those who were born to rule over you. I commend the motion. The UK monarchy is unusual, among Western constitutional democracies, in that it is big, glamorous, show-stopping. The Dutch, Norwegian, and Danish royal families are surrounded by much less pomp and circumstance. It would be possible – and it seems as though King Charles is keen on the idea – to remain a monarchy, while reducing the scale of the institution. Perhaps what is most encouraging about this book is Smith's arguments against the contention that most people want the monarchy to continue. The figures have come down over recent years so that even royalists admit it is close to half the country wanting to be rid of the institution. Their argument is the old classic 'now is not the time' when it comes to demands for a referendum. Wait until the consensus is much greater and don't make a fuss now, they argue, ignoring the fact that much of the change in opinion has come through the efforts of people like Graham Smith, campaigning for years. Smith counters this argument brilliantly in essence showing that there is a great difference between being actively in favour of something and passively being ok with it continuing. This is the crux of the matter: it is likely that those who truly want to keep the monarchy are actually now in the minority. Robert Hardman is a writer and broadcaster specialising in the monarchy. His most recent book is “Queen of Our Times: The Life of Elizabeth II” (Macmillan)

My opposition to the motion is based on my understanding of politics and power, the British culture, and the implication in the motion “it’s time to abolish the monarchy” that it’s time now. Because I would put to you that we are as a country in an incredibly fragile and dangerous position. My main argument is that we are too fragile. I don’t want to go through another Brexit. You couldn’t abolish the monarchy without a referendum. Any referendum, at the moment, would be incredibly divisive. And all those people who felt that they were cut out by the so-called Westminster elites in the past will feel it even more so on this subject. I can see a really nasty, corrosive, divisive process. It wouldn’t be easy, it wouldn’t be comfortable, it would be very unpleasant indeed. I think, given the parlous nature of the country right now, this is the wrong time to do it. The time may very well come and in due course, one day, I hope it does, but it’s certainly not now. 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

Campaign group Republic and other anti-monarchists argue that “hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle”. this change will be a win for democracy and British pride, and the abolition of hereditary rule is a good rallying point for lovers of democracy, and furthermore a good first-step for other democratisation and anti-corruption practices that could be undertaken in government and Parliament 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. Polly Toynbee is right. The future of the monarchy is worthy of a full-blown inquiry. It will take time to reach its conclusions, but who seriously thinks that hereditary peers is a feature we should be happy with in the 21st century, and will there ever be a more suitable monarch to be the last? It is time to start the process. See also: Royals exist in a different realm from the rest of us] Tanya Gold: “The British monarchy is a tapestry of ruined lives” Photo by Martin Bond

I came to the end of Graham Smith’s Abolish the Monarchy and found myself wanting to know more about the man. He recently hit the headlines when arrested on Coronation day in association with anti-monarchy protests. (The Met has subsequently expressed “regret”; Smith, CEO of the pressure group Republic, is taking legal action.) Here is an individual who, for the best part of his adult life, has fought to get rid of an institution long hailed the touchstone of British identity. When a practice violates our society’s foundational moral principles, it ought to be abolished no matter how attached to it we have become. The result is a very timely work, though it is doubtful how relevant this book will remain outside of this year, let alone the coming decades.But Toynbee says that in countries like Ireland, presidents have a different but equally as dignified role, showing that a king isn't required. What is wrong with a system like Ireland's, Moore is asked. ​ I should start off by saying that I am partially here under false pretences. Because, although I am on this side of the chamber, I am not in fact a monarchist. I don’t actually believe that anything based on bloodline and heredity, in the modern world, given all we understand, is sustainable in the long term. However, there are some obvious ways one might try to respond. One could object on economic grounds. There is room to argue that monarchies could potentially produce economic benefits. Royals may serve as a tourist attraction or, if internationally popular, might raise the profile and favorability of the nation, thus increasing the desirability of its products and culture. So perhaps monarchies are justified because they are on the whole beneficial. 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. Tanjil Rashid is a journalist and filmmaker. He has recently produced documentaries on the war in Ukraine, Isis and US politics, and writes for publications including the Financial Times, the Times and the Washington Post