Martin Kettle explores the history of the ban on discussions about the royal family in parliament and advances reasons why this is no longer legitimate in the modern relationship between the monarch and parliament (Why is parliament still banning itself from talking about the monarchy?, 25 January). He does not refer, however, to the most important reason why this ban should be removed.
It is that, in constitutional law, the legislative process culminates in the royal assent given to a parliamentary bill that transforms it into an act of parliament. Over the past year the Guardian has revealed a hidden stage in the legislative process whereby some bills, prior to their submission to parliament, are sent to the monarch for their “consent”.
It would seem clear that the ban should be lifted so that MPs be allowed to debate the reasons why it is deemed necessary for a bill to be sent for the monarch’s consent in the first place.
Gerald Crawley
St Briavels, Gloucestershire
• Britain really is Ruritania. As Martin Kettle explains, our “constitutional monarchy” is quite bizarre. Our state institutions are warped by our absurd and antiquated unwritten constitution. Our prime ministers wield electoral dictatorship powers, never mind how small their majority in parliament. Part of this is because of the “royal prerogative”. Our House of Lords is an offence to all who believe in democracy. All of us are “subjects” of the monarch rather than equal citizens. We are a neo-feudal society, burdened by a caste-like class system which maintains and reproduces a social hierarchy with the monarch at the top.
Philip Wood
Kidlington, Oxfordshire
• Martin Kettle writes that “no minister answers to parliament for the royal family”. This is not quite correct. It is the duty of Stephen Barclay, as chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster and a member of the cabinet, to be “responsible to the sovereign for the administration of the duchy”.
What is the duchy? According to its website, it is a private estate owned by the Queen comprising commercial, agricultural and residential properties and a portfolio of financial investments.
What’s more, the chancellor of the duchy answers parliamentary questions “on matters relating to his duchy responsibilities”.
Kettle is, however, spot-on when he states that “we are adults, entitled to discuss the constitutional monarchy under which we live”. The Speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hoyle, should take note.
Paul Tattam
Chinley, Derbyshire
• Thankfully, the Speaker only has jurisdiction over the Commons, and not over the many parliaments of cafes, pubs, clubs, Twitter and Facebook, where discussion of the UK constitution can be robust and unhindered by Erskine May.
Robin Le Mare
Allithwaite, Cumbria
• Martin Kettle is right, that while Britain remains a constitutional monarchy, it is absurd that the crown can’t be discussed in parliament. No doubt that means 30 January, the day in 1649 when Westminster saw the world’s first parliamentary democracy instituted, will pass without note in the Commons. Another bit of history Boris Johnson probably prefers not to remember.
Keith Flett
Tottenham, London
• If I understand constitutional monarchy correctly, the UK parliament has had the ultimate authority to determine the monarch since it turfed James II out. Thus there should be no doubt that parliament has the right to question the monarchy insofar as it affects the governance of the state or the credibility of the constitutional monarchy system.
Here in Canada, our parliament does not have the authority to determine the monarch. We take what you give us; please choose well.
David Beattie
Chelsea, Quebec, Canada
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
