Political journalist and author Eve Livingston argued in The Independent that the royal family “exist as a glaring symbol of the unearned privilege and inequality that pervades the roots of British society”.

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. Constitutional monarchies, in particular, “fare the best,” he says, even when compared “not just to all republics but to a type that looks kind of like a constitutional monarchy, a parliamentary democracy,” one with an elected but essentially powerless figurehead president. To live in a country with a monarch is to have an individual person and family deemed your social superiors, a group to whom you are expected to show deference, despite your moral equality. This is not a relationship you choose, but rather, one that is thrust upon you. Further, the deference we are said to owe to, and the higher status of, monarchs is not earned. Rather, it is something that they are claimed to deserve simply by virtue of who their parents are, who in turn owe their elevated status to their lineage. Finally, beyond merely commanding deference, monarchs are born into a life of luxury; they live in castles, they travel the world meeting foreign dignitaries, and their deaths may grind a country to a halt as part of a period of mourning.They say Britain should be proud to have the mother of parliaments, to be a shining beacon of democracy and an example to other nations. But there's an elephant in the room. The problem with this argument is that it compares the incommensurable. It responds to a moral concern by pointing out economic benefits. Finally, one might argue that abolition is unnecessary. Compared to their status throughout history, monarchies have fallen out of grace in the 20th and 21st centuries. Of the nations with monarchies, few have a monarch which wields anyth There is no guarantee that the Queen’s successors will be like her. Electing our head of state would allow all the safeguards that Polly mentions to come into effect. Most importantly, it will pull the rug away from class-based entitlement that has bred a nation of inequality. And let’s have some meaningful honours – drop the “empire” as if it were alive and well, and something that citizens who serve their country and society should be made “members” of.

It is simply not the case that the monarchy’s role is powerless and “emphatically detached from political partisanship”. The powers are real, even if not usually exercised. The recent revelations of the process of Queen’s consent further undermine the notion of being free from partisanship and independent of the political process. Even in my most evangelical of days as a teenager (I really must have been insufferable in my religious fervour) I could see that the belief the monarchy was somehow 'God-given' was simply not true. There is no biblical basis for it whatsoever. Charles, even before Diana's death, was clearly a selfish fool and his father was already infamous for his foul faux pas. In more recent times we've seen Charles can't even deal with a pen without having a hissy fit. The monarchy is supported financially by UK taxpayers via the Sovereign Grant, which covers central staffing costs and expenses for the monarch’s official households, maintenance of the royal palaces in England, and travel and royal engagements and visits. Equal relations stand in contrast to hierarchical relationships. Hierarchies occur when one individual is considered “above” some other(s) in at least one respect. In Private Government, Elizabeth Anderson distinguishes between multiple varieties of hierarchy. Particularly relevant here are hierarchies of esteem. A hierarchy of esteem occurs when some individuals are required to show deference to (an) other(s). This deference may take various forms, such as referring to others through titles or engaging in gestures like bowing or prostration that show inferiority.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. Even in the 1990s when the late Queen was struggling with an annus horribilis, her children’s marriages imploding left, right and centre, the overall popularity of the monarchy remained robust at 69 per cent, only falling to 55 per cent in the wake of the Prince Andrew and Harry debacles. But regardless of the odds, for over two decades Smith has been tugging away at the stitches of our constitutional monarchy, pulling at loose threads, developing his republican thesis and focusing his ire. Calling for the monarch to be replaced with an elected head of state, the group said that because the public cannot hold the royal family to account at the ballot box, “there’s nothing to stop them abusing their privilege, misusing their influence or simply wasting our money”.

At the heart of power is a single family. They weren't elected but they live off the public purse. They aren't accountable to anyone, and yet between them they are privy to more government secrets than many cabinet ministers. Divinely appointed using a special hat, the head of the family is your superior, you his subject. Apparently he is guardian of our constitution - but we're also told he wouldn't dream of interfering in politics. Get rid of the monarch, and we don’t get rid of kings; we make kings of politicians. So, between the elected politicians who would be king in a republic and the unelected British monarchs of modern times, who inspires greater confidence from ethnic minorities? For me, the monarchy. It isn't! Evidence points to some royal weddings actually having a negative impact on inbound tourism. 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 person who spoke this truth has many obscure titles. He is for one the patron of the aforementioned Islamic centre.

Duchy Law Appeal

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” Thomas Paine.

I’m not going to talk further about what monarchy does to us. I want to talk about what it does to them. It’s not a very comfortable place to be I think: a deity in the age of mass media; something to stare at; something to feast on. My mother wears a hijab, doesn’t speak much English, and was very fond of the Queen. She’s unimpeachably British in a way that is impossible in any comparable European republic. In France, her clothing would be against the values of the republic. In Germany, she most likely would not have a German passport, which is harder for those without German blood. But in the United Kingdom, no such authoritarian demands are made of her – except a pledge of allegiance to the King (and even that is not really insisted upon). Juliet Arday says it is difficult to imagine the monarchy gone in 50 years and that there is a deep affinity for the monarchy. But we should think about what a different type of institution could look like. "I think we need to think about how we repurpose monarchy for 21st century Britain," he says. 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. Only saddos like me, the sort of people who tell small children Santa isn’t real, moan about the monarchy as well as the Lords now. (Admittedly, the Lords often has better discussions than anything that goes on in the Commons – but then so do most sixth forms.) We all know how the argument goes: you don’t like hereditary privilege? Well, do you think an elected head of state would be better?

My claim is not that monarchy is bad in every respect. Indeed, we can take it for granted that having a monarchy produces economic benefits. However, my claim is that it undermines the moral justification of democracy. Over the recent years there have been many debates as to whether the monarchy should be abolished. The monarchy has been part of the British constitution for centuries and it symbolises the unity and traditional standards of the nation. However, having a monarchy merely hinders the modernisation of the society and the traditional values are seen to be outdated. This essay will look at the arguments which are in favour of abolishing the monarchy. These include the fact that the monarchy is very costly, the monarch does not exercise formal powers herself, but it is exercised by ministers. Having a monarch creates social and class divisions. The hereditary privilege which the royals are ultimately born in to is no guarantee that the person in office is fit by birth to be head of state. We are told that, without the magical spell of monarchy, we will fall to a greater evil: a troll, or a Farage, as if no elected head of state has ever been fit for the task but a Mountbatten Windsor. It’s another element of the fairy tale we have chosen to substitute for a healthy national life, which we might see under a republic: one that is fair and vigorous; forward-looking and vital; filled with hope.