Martin Kettle’s thoughtful article on the future of the monarchy (16 February) ended with the phrase “a story about the kind of country we choose to be”. Am I unduly pessimistic in thinking we have very little choice? The norms of our society are set primarily by huge international technology companies and their relationship with advertising and social discourse. Our politics is conducted under systems and conventions that are no longer fit for purpose, where the House of Lords seems more representative of democracy and justice than either the Commons or the government. Not even supporters of Brexit can have chosen to bring the country to its present sorry state. And there is nothing we (the people) can do, until the powers allow us another vote.
Yes, the monarchy needs changing (or for some, abolishing), but the whole structure is in desperate need of reform. The status of the monarchy, the power and structure of the executive, the powers of legislation and scrutiny of parliament, the methods of election and appointment, justice and accountability – all these and no doubt other matters need to be examined publicly and forensically in citizens’ assemblies. Then “we” can choose, and it is to be hoped that our political establishment will listen and put through parliament the bulk of our wishes, regardless of the vested interests against them.
Hugh Legge
Northampton
• It is unfortunate that Simon Jenkins (Whisper it, but the time is right for the Queen to abdicate, 14 February) does not stay with his thought that the head of state being chosen by birth and religion is inherently absurd. It is also inherently undemocratic. Tom Nairn, in his work The Enchanted Glass, proposes that the “constitutional monarchy” is “both the apex and essence of the British state, the symbol of its backwardness”.
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.
The removal of the crown from the constitution and an elected second house are minimum requirements for a modern and mature democracy.
Nigel Florence
Mevagissey, Cornwall
• 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.
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.
Christopher Tanner
Llandovery, Carmarthenshire
• 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.
Andrew Dean
Exeter
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
