I read with interest Polly Toynbee’s column suggesting abolition of the monarchy (For today, even republicans like me can put up with the pomp with a drink in hand, 2 June) and it led me to peruse Republic’s website. What struck me is that Republic essentially wants what we already have – a head of state who is non-political, advisory, represents the nation and offers a “non-political voice at times of crisis and celebration”. Isn’t that really a description of the monarch? The only difference is an elected v non-elected figurehead. Its assumption is that a non-elected head of state operating outside the political system would, by nature, be corrupt – but aren’t elections a democratic process of expressing political opinion and bias? So an elected head would necessarily be politically biased, the very antithesis of Republic’s holy grail.
The monarchy, certainly during the present Queen’s reign, has had undoubted soft-power benefits for the UK and has influenced the spread of democracy across the globe through the Commonwealth. May I respectfully suggest that Republic gives some consideration to the abuse of legislative power by the increasing use of a non-elected judiciary and court system to challenge the democratic processes of an elected government? I would suggest that that is a far more insidious threat to democracy than a monarch.
Duncan Wilson
Hotham, East Riding of Yorkshire
• Polly Toynbee, in her typically cogent analysis, encourages us to think deeply about the need for a republic at the end of this present reign. However, I can clearly remember around 40 years ago that one could put the fear of God into all but the most fervent republican with just two words: “President Thatcher”? How much more repugnant would today’s equivalent be: President Johnson? If Britain is ever to become a republic, and I agree that it should, I therefore propose that a necessary prerequisite would be an absolute bar on anybody who has ever served as a member of either chamber of parliament from standing for election as president.
Roger Smith
Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire
• The future of the monarchy is inextricably linked with our constitutional arrangements. Our “elective dictatorship”, a term coined by the former Conservative lord chancellor Lord Hailsham in the 1970s, rests on the concept of “the crown in parliament” – the Commons and Lords acting in concert to exercise the powers of the crown. It may have been a good idea in 1689 when William and Mary were invited to take the throne, but time and incremental change have taken powers from Lords and Commons and vested them first in the executive and now in the prime minister. Hailsham outlined the dangers of government by gentleman’s agreement. And Boris Johnson is no gentleman.
Lyn A Dade
Co-founder, RebootGB.today
• I don’t think we know the future of the monarchy (This jubilee is not like any other: we look back but can also see the future, 4 June). Only 15% of the British population were born before Elizabeth Windsor became Queen. For most people, her presence is the norm. Whenever she dies there will be an unprecedented constitutional crisis, at which point we will all need to face an issue that has been kicked down the road for decades, and for which there are no easy answers.
Michael Peel
London
