I'm a Monarchist... Get Me out of Here!

Of course you haven't met anyone who's said "I can't achieve 'X' because of The Queen". That's not what we're saying. What we're saying is that the monarchy sends a powerful message to the British people: "However hard you work, whatever talents and skills you have, no matter what you do to help others, the royals will always be better than you."

The Prince's Trust is irrelevant to the debate about what kind of constitution Britain should have. The Trust would continue in a republic, and Charles would be freer to get actively involved in its work. I would urge you, however, not to downplay the work done by the dedicated staff of the Prince's Trust.

The monarchy does not provide stability. An open, healthy democracy with a strong civil society provides stability. As for continuity, I think that the values of fairness, equal citizenship and political responsibility form the "common thread all generations shared and continue to share for our entire lives" - not the Windsor family.

We are not envy-driven at all. We simply believe that the British people deserve the best - and that means a republican constitution.

We clearly disagree that the monarchy has "worked for the past 1000 years". The monarchy is secretive, unaccountable and hugely wasteful. More importantly, it puts almost limitless power in the hands of politicians.

It is simply untrue to say that "there are no real governmental powers possessed by their majesties". The Queen has the power to appoint the Prime Minister, dissolve Parliament, dismiss the Government and withhold assent to legislation. But the real issue is the power wielded by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Crown. It's not just Queen Elizabeth we're concerned about - it's King Gordon.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the upkeep of relations between countries around the world". You seem to be dismissing the hard work of British ambassadors, other diplomats, politicians and businesspeople. These are the people who foster good relations with other countries, not the Windsors.

There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that having a republican constitution would "bring political, religious, and moral unrest around the world". That's a truly fantastical claim.

I think the British people deserve the best democracy possible - why should I be ashamed of that?

Thanks for getting in touch via the "I'm a Monarchist ..." page.

You need to ask why the thought of President Blair, Thatcher or Brown fills you with dread. As Prime Minister, these figures enjoyed almost limitless power - power 'loaned' to them by the monarchy and the Crown. They had far more power in our monarchical system than they could ever have in a republic.

It's also extremely unlikely that an ex-PM would win a popular vote. We hear the "President Blair/Brown/Thatcher" argument so often that I think you'd be hard pushed to find a single person who would vote for them, let alone a majority.

But that's not really the point. In a democracy the people get what the people want. If the people want President Blair then that's what they'll get.

You may feel the Queen has done a good job - lots of republicans agree with you. It is worth asking, however, what exactly her job is. Her role has never been properly scrutinised and she is entirely unaccountable to the people of Britain.

We could have had much better heads of state had they been elected from among the people, by the people. Such heads of state would have been free to be themselves, to be ordinary people doing an extraordinary job - an inspiration to us all.

On what basis do you believe Elizabeth Windsor would make a good PM? What do you know about her skills as a politician or leader? What do you know about her ideas, values and concern for the British people? It's just sycophantic nonsense that you're trying to pass off as argument.

Republic hasn't said Britain is broke, just our political system. This is elaborated on on various pages of this site, but in short our system concentrates virtually all power in the hands of the PM, it robs the people of proper control and it puts no limits on the power of the politicians.

You quote the £40m figure (which is actually more like £180m). You do the maths. Just take the £40m and divide it by 15 (the number of royals), then take £155m and divide it among all the MPs. Royals are more expensive. (Use the full costs and royals turn out to be 21 times more expensive than MPs).

It's necessary to compare like with like. China and America have very different political systems. It is not possible to compare the president of the US with the Queen, because one is head of state and head of government while the other is just a ceremonial figurehead. It would be like comparing a highly trained police officer with a Beefeater.

The comparisons are between specific institutions: ceremonial presidencies v the monarchy. In each there is only one head of state, only 365 days of the year in which to perform ceremonies, attend events and so on. As these positions are not involved in the governing of the country the size of the country or its economy doesn't come into it.

The difference between monuments and the monarchy is that the monarchy is a central part of our deeply flawed constitution. The issue is to do with power, politics, transparency and accountability. If the monarchy were just a monument this campaign wouldn't exist.

Your point about the US presidential elections misses so many points I'm not sure where to begin. Firstly, Republic doesn't propose a US system (although some republicans do). There are different types of republic and the model we propose is on our website.

Secondly it is difficult to accuse the US presidency of corruption when drawing comparisons with the British monarchy. For all its faults the US president and the candidates have to be completely open and transparent about the funds they receive. Once in office every dollar spent on the president is accounted for. Our monarchy is run in an environment of secrecy, opaque accounting and deference which are in place to dissuade any attempts at scrutiny and accountability. With the president you can see where his loyalties lie, you can find out who is influencing his decisions, and if you don't like it you can vote him out. With the monarchy we have no idea what vested interests are being served by the Windsor family and we have no means by which to remove them.

Having a republic is about taking responsibility for these issues and demanding more accountability, more democracy, more transparency. Supporting the monarchy is about passively hoping that the Windsor family will not be corrupt.

Finally, those who make all the legislative decisions in this country are elected and are funded by vested interests. Once in office they can then enjoy the unlimited power of a King, thanks to the monarchy. Same problems as the US made worse by our monarchical constitution.

The 'stability' argument is demonstrably false (and James has written a blog on the subject), in that many monarchies have been unstable and have in fact collapsed into civil war and conflict, ending with the abolition of the monarchy.

In modern Britain the argument is just plain daft - so daft in fact it's difficult to argue logically against it, but I'll try. The Queen has no means by which to command the armed forces - oaths of allegiance are meaningless niceties (and the Royal Navy doesn't take the oath). The armed forces are commanded by the elected government. The argument supposes Elizabeth Windsor is on the side of liberal democracy, when all the evidence is that her whole family are fairly reactionary conservatives who have in the past had sympathies for dictatorships (and are good friends with some pretty unsavory dictatorships today, too).

Your next point - the general complaint about the lack of democracy in the UK - should lead you to the conclusion that the monarchy must be abolished. The power of the PM and parliament is derived from the Crown and is protected from proper scrutiny by the monarchy. What we need is a genuinely democratic constitution that puts the people in charge (and incidentally would make the allegiance of the armed forces to the people and to the constitution).

This is explained in various parts of the "what we believe" section of the website. The Crown is the heart of our undemocratic constitution and must be removed.

Hi Nick

You seem terribly confused. The monarch doesn't have an active role to play, so does nothing to counter the power of our elected leaders, she is not an arbiter and the 'buck' never stops with her.

The Queen is a puppet - she does as she's told by the Prime Minister. It is possible for that relationship to work the other way around of course - for the Queen to influence the PM - but we have no way of knowing what influence she is wielding or in whose interests as she lives in secret.

You make rather sweeping claims on the good nature and generous spirit of the Windsors, despite evidence to the contrary. The Windsors go out of their way to 'feather their nests' and do all they can to ensure the public can't see how that is being done with taxpayers' money.

Why do you choose to blindly believe in the benevolence of Elizabeth and Charles Windsor and yet reject the idea that you can help this country choose our own heads of state? Where's the sense or reason in that? Do you have so little self-respect that you can only sit back and passively rely on the goodwill of the unelected?

Democracy and the mechanism of elections are proven to be the best and most effective means by which to dilute power and protect against abuse and corruption. Citing Iran does not counter the experiences of all the successful democracies in the world.

Hi Matthew

You make some curious claims in your email.

You claim the royals have "pioneered amazing changes in the way this country and other countries throughout the world operate." Care to name any? I can't think of one. Our constitution is the result of a continuing struggle to take power away from those at the top and move it closer to the people - any democratic innovations are the result of the efforts of ordinary people, not the royals.

You claim that independent financial advisors have shown the royals to be a net earner. Where is the evidence for that? Where are these reports?

You claim they donate money to charity - where is the evidence for that? If they do, why can't they do that as private citizens? Are you suggesting we determine who our head of state is by how much they donate to charity? Are you suggesting that the Windsor family only make charitable donations if they get something in return (eg. The British constitution and a lot of taxpayers' money)?

The system we propose is a lot different from the Americans. You might like to check your facts. You resort to personal abuse toward presidents, rather than give cogent arguments for the monarchy. You're not getting very far in developing any kind of case here.

You say we live in a "liberal dictatorship". If that's the case, why do you support the monarchy? The monarchy is currently in post, they have clearly either failed to stop such a dictatorship or are involved in it.

It's very sad that all you can do is resort to juvenile abuse, when there is a serious constitutional debate to be had here. But I guess if you can't think of a serious argument for the monarchy that possibly says a lot about the monarchy, as well as about you.

Let's be clear about the 68p figure - it comes directly from Buckingham Palace. Each year Sir Alan Reid takes the total 'official cost' of the monarchy (which, as we explain elsewhere on the site, is about £100 million less than it actually is) and divides it by 60 million. The Buckingham Palace press office then issue statements saying "Monarchy costs the same as a loaf of bread" or similar. It's an exceptionally dishonest piece of spin - dividing any amount by 60 million makes it seem small.

I'm afraid you have been taken in by more of the Palace spin with regard to the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate has never been the personal property of the monarch. It is officially described as "hereditary possessions of the Sovereign", not the personal possessions of the individual acting as Sovereign. If the monarchy were to disappear tomorrow, the Crown Estate would continue to do what it has always done for nearly one thousand years - provide income for the administration of this country.

You say that the Queen has respect from lots of people. This may be true. That's not a reason to have a monarchy though. A central principle of democracy is that people hold public office on the basis of a mandate from the electorate, not some vague and untestable notion of respect.

Your final point is interesting. You seem to be saying that you want your head of state to intervene in the political process, but are happy for them to be entirely unaccountable. You want this, you say, because it is democratic. That's very muddled thinking. Many people would agree with you that Gordon Brown is abusing his power, but he gets that power from the monarchy and the Crown. We think power should come from the people.

Finally, you say Gordon Brown is unelected. That's not quite true - the people of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath elected him. We have a Parliamentary democracy and that's how it works. If you'd like the head of government to be directly elected, then you're looking at a US-style republic. That's not the model that Republic proposes, but it's certainly more legitimate than our current system.

As we say elsewhere on the site, we want a republic because it is more democratic not because it will be cheap. But the fact is that it would be a lot cheaper. Our monarchy costs 15 times more than the German presidency, which itself is one of the more expensive in Europe.

The 63p figure you quote is obtained by dividing the 'official cost' of the monarchy (which is about £100 million less than it actually is - see our finance pages for more information) by every single person in the country, not just taxpayers. You could justify any cost that way - imagine MPs did the same with their expenses.

You ask how a republic would benefit us - read the website. Put simply a republic would mean a fully-functioning democracy with greater limits on the power of politicians. For the first time we, the people, would be in charge. Power would come from us, not the Crown.

As to your final point, arguments should be judged on their own merits, not by the number of people that support them. You're right that republicans are currently in the minority (although there are at least 10 million of us so we're not a particularly small minority). That doesn't mean our arguments have any less weight.

You say "We have had a monarch for many centuries and it seems pointless to abandon it now". It wouldn't be pointless at all. A republican constitution would put the people in charge for the first time. As you rightly point out we've had a monarch for many centuries and in all that time power has never been in the hands of the people. Instead, our monarchical system puts almost limitless power in the hands of politicians. We think that should change.

As for your point about the Church of England. Many Anglicans - including Rowan Williams - now recognise that the case for disestablishment is very strong. In fact, a disestablished Church could thrive without its connections to monarchy.

Let's be clear. The monarchy doesn't make the British people "backward". It makes our constitution backward. Having an unelected hereditary head of state means we are a quasi-democracy, not a fully-functioning one. Pointing to other quasi-democracies does not change that.

You take issue with our criticism of Prince Charles for involving himself in controversial political issues. You seem to believe that it's fine for a future King to take sides in political arguments (though apparently only when his views are "laudable"). It's not Republic that says Charles can't have an opinion, it's the British constitution! We think Charles should be free to speak his mind, but the institution of monarchy forbids him from doing so. An elected head of state, accountable to the people, would not have this problem. They could be as outspoken as they liked because they would have a democratic mandate.

The Commonwealth under Cromwell, Germany under Hitler, the USSR under Stalin and China under Mao are not examples of democratic republics. They are irrelevant to the debate. All you have demonstrated it is that not all bad people go by the title "King". Not a particularly convincing argument for monarchy is it?

You then list some deposed monarchs. Again, this is not relevant to the debate about whether we should have a republican constitution in Britain. Your example of Tsar Simeon of Bulgaria is an interesting one, however, and demonstrates that ex-royals can still succeed in democratic politics.

We don't actually claim to represent the will of the people. What we say is that a constitution based on the Crown necessarily precludes the British people from taking full control of their political destiny. That doesn't mean we are less free than "Communist China or Oligarchical Russia". Democracy is a sliding scale - pointing to countries further down doesn't mean we shouldn't move up.

You say the majority of "the people in this country approve of her majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the monarchy" When were we asked? Do you accept the results of a few opinion polls as an authentic expression of the will of the people? In that case, as the Conservatives are ahead in the polls, we needn't bother having a general election next year. Brown could just hand straight over to Cameron.

Opinion polls are no substitute for a referendum.

Hi Zed

You answer this point yourself really - the monarchy doesn't drive long-term policy. It is irrelevant to the general pursuit of public policy and has no meaningful place in government and politics (aside from some unwanted interference and lobbying from some Windsors).

There are of course plenty of long-term projects that are put in place (the NHS is an obvious example) and as the last two British governments have both lasted over a decade I'm not sure this is a problem anyway.

Put simply the monarchy does not offer a solution to a problem which is not really a problem.

Do you really believe all this? I do wonder sometimes if monarchists actually stop to look at what they're saying, analyse it for even a moment.

Firstly, the 'Cromwell' argument. It's not much of an argument, is it? What happened over 300 years ago, when the country and the world were so completely different, has little bearing on the current debate. That's not to say it's irrelevant - some important political and legal principles and traditions were established during that time. But British society is quite evidently a whole different place to what it was then.

Aside from anything else, Cromwell's history is evidence that the monarchy failed too. It only came back because one group managed to stage another coup against another.

This is 2009. This is a modern and stable country that is quite capable of changing its constitution in a peaceful and sensible manner (I really shouldn't need to spell this out). There will be no chaos. The Commonwealth, which has little to do with the monarchy (most countries in the Commonwealth are republics), will continue just fine.

The royal family has completely failed to stand up for Britain. Yes, they were once our political leaders, and some of them did ok. But that hasn't been the case for some time, and they rarely had the best interests of the ordinary people at heart when it was. Now their main concerns are with protecting their own positions.

To suggest we should not reform our democracy because the country's name wouldn't sound so good is clearly daft.

As for leaving the country - people do that all the time. I very much doubt you or anyone else would actually abandon their families and friends because of a constitutional change that would make Britain a more democratic place, but if you do, that's your choice. I've met people who have said they'll only return to Britain if we abolish the monarchy, so I guess it'll even out!

Hi Francis

The list on our website proves only that thousands of people are committed to the idea of republicanism and the ambition to have a strong British democracy. We are aware of current public opinion, we are also aware that public opinion changes over time, and that there is every chance of success for the republican campaign.

Changing coinage, stamps and the Royal Mail are not "massive changes to society" - they are fairly simple changes. Companies such as Royal Mail often re-brand, it's not a big deal. And of course there's no law that says Royal Mail would have to change its name. Stamps and coins are always changing anyway, so no upheaval there either.

It is simply not true to say the monarchy costs just short of 70p per year. See our page on royal finances for more detail on that.

The comment about royal upbringing is clearly just daft. Really... stop and give this some thought. Think about all the intelligent and accomplished people we could choose to be head of state, think of all the heads of government who do just fine conducting themselves in the public eye (with considerably more pressure on them). Then think of the way the Windsors behave and they manner in which they use and abuse their own positions for personal gain, and demand deference without offering accountability.

We have explained why the system is broke - and we're not alone in believe it is. The British system is deeply undemocratic, lacks proper accountability and gives the people little opportunity to participate in the political process except for the occasional election.

Hi Piers

Your opening point just doesn't make any sense - we don't claim the monarchy is a drag on our economy. We do say it is very costly and a waste of taxpayers' money, but it certainly isn't a 'central' claim. Our main point on that issue is that we are challenging the spin of Buckingham palace, which claims - quite absurdly - that the monarchy is "value for money".

You go on to talk about equality in the US, and I'm unsure what that has to do with anything, but the monarchy is certainly not helping improve equality in this country.

Your complaints about Labour, inequality and the EU all seem to miss the point that those things you complain so bitterly about have happened while we have a monarchy. It is obviously failing to deliver or protect the things you want.

Your statements about the Queen are just nonsensical, and her mother never had any significant constitutional role, so she's a largely irrelevant character in the recent history of the monarchy. Our point about saying the monarchy has abdicated power is that it is clearly happy with not being responsible for anything while continuing to enjoy the privileges of power.

I'm very sorry you have no commitment to democracy. If you think the monarchy should actually have power then you are in a very small minority indeed. All I'd really say to that is this: do you not have sufficient self-respect to want to govern yourself, to choose and hold to account your own leaders? Why do you need to seek comfort and solace from some kind of political mother figure?

Who ever said that republicanism is a new idea?

The wealth and stability of nations has nothing to do with the British monarchy or the British constitution - or their own monarchies. Having said that if you look at lists of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita most of those at the top are republics (Ireland, US, Switzerland) while those few monarchies at the top include Qatar and Brunei, not exactly countries whose constitutions we wish to emulate.

The idea that people who wish to change their country should instead move is patently nonsensical. That's an argument for scrapping elections and instead embarking on massive migration until all populations are sorted geographically according to their political views.

You've not actually provided any kind of defence of the monarchy other than "I like it and it's still there".

We have both a right and a responsibility to challenge those who will obstruct and oppose genuine democracy in this country. As we are on the side of democracy and campaign for power to rest fully in the hands of the people we are not in the slightest bit 'treacherous'. We have no need to profess loyalty to the head of state - our loyalty is to this country.

The 'president Blair' argument is as old and tired as it is complete nonsense. It displays a contempt for democracy and a complete misunderstanding of the British constitution. This is about power of politicians v power of the people. Which side are you on?

It is 'broke'. It robs you and all people of the responsibility of governing ourselves. It gives considerable power to those very same politicians you clearly despise. This is not a choice between Elizabeth Windsor and Tony Blair. It's a choice between the power of politicians and the power of the people. Which of those two sides are you on?

Well the monarchy certainly fits the plot line, but I like to think we can aim for something better than a 'crap' monarchy. It's time we promoted aspiration and ambition.

Hi Damion

Firstly, no, I can't imagine a president Blair or Brown. Who would vote for them? The whole point of democracy is that you get to choose who you want to serve you, and you get to remove them. If we got president Blair it would be because the people wanted him. If we then changed our mind we would be free to remove him at the next election and he would have no means by which to resist his removal.

The monarch does absolutely nothing to act as a buffer or safety net. Just what constitutional mechanism do you think allows that to happen? And, given current events, just how bad does it have to get before she steps in? You are arguing on the basis of paranoia and fantasy if you think the Queen protects us against corruption or will be able to command the armed forces against the government.

The rest of your email is just daft. It is demonstrably the case that the royals cost the taxpayer many millions every year - they even own up to a lot of that cost (although not all of it). The suggestion that the Queen is "the most hard-working person" is not only ludicrous but it is also an insult to all those ordinary people who do work very hard for a pittance of a salary. We're not really concerned with how hard the Queen works, but to make the claim you're making just shows how desperately inadequate monarchist arguments are.

Read our page on tourism to see our answer to that point. In short, the monarchy doesn't bring in tourists.

The nobility has little relevance in British politics these days - at least in any coherent or formal way (there are no doubt "aristocrats" in parliament of course.) Abolishing titles achieves very little except to change the window-dressing of this dysfunctional political system.

If you read our arguments for a republic you'll see there's much more to the issue than the royal family. This is about the Crown and the British constitution. That is what has to be reformed and abolished. That would inevitably include replacing the House of Lords with a democratic upper house. It should also include a system that has no room for a monarch, and which will most likely create an elected head of state who can perform a serious constitutional function.

You say "It is not the money it is the principle". I couldn't agree more. Sometimes, however, the principle and the money become intertwined. In the US, voters can find out exactly how much of their money Obama spends, and on what - right down to that burger. Contrast that with Britain, where the royal household is completely exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. The monarchy's 'finance reports' are prepared and published by the Palace (not an independent auditor), so they can put in and leave out whatever they like.

I would disagree that there are only a couple of Presidents around the world that "have not been linked with shady deals, personal gain or questionable tactics". That's demonstrably not true. But the point is that the people can always get rid of a President, but we can't boot out a monarch. We need a fully-functioning democracy, where people lies with the people not the Crown - that's the most important principle. A Head of State in such a system would be fully accountable to the electorate.

Lots of people may say that the monarchy is the only thing left to command respect, but what does this actually mean? What is this respect founded on? I don't believe anyone should be compelled to be 'appeciative' of the Queen and I certainly think she is open to criticism. We are often told that she's very good at her job but are rarely told what it is she actually does. I also disagree with your assertion that the royals "rarely, if ever, let us down on state visits".

That said, this isn't about the Queen or her family. It's about finding the best, most democratic system of government for Britain. We don't need to be told "be proud of your country" because we already are. We believe Britain deserves better than a feudal constitution that gives almost limitless power to politicians, while denying us a real stake in our democracy.

You may well be very happy with the status quo, but many, many people aren't. At least 10 million people would vote to abolish the monarchy tomorrow and the vast majority of the electorate think we need a new system of government. The point is that the monarchy is our system of government.

Hi Mark

That's a very curious argument. Basically you're saying "republics and monarchies can both fail".

Well, yes. Obviously. But this isn't about 'failing', it's about improving Britain's constitution and democracy.

On that point though, it is incorrect to say that republics fail more completely than monarchies. All European republics were once monarchies and so all are examples of monarchies that have failed 100% - there's no trace of them left. France and Germany remain republics and thrive and prosper as such. Constitutional difficulties may prompt them to change or replace their constitutions, but they remain republics.

Changing a constitution is not a sign of failure, it is the normal process of democratic governance.

Republics in Africa are not really relevant or comparable. A republic is based on popular sovereignty - it is not simply the absence of monarchy. So most African states sadly fail to make the grade. Africa also demonstrates that there are numerous other factors well beyond constitutional considerations that determine the success or otherwise of a country. Economics and imperialism are two such factors that have marred Africa and held it back from properly developing.

We've made no claim that republics are inevitably more robust in the sense that you are talking about. We do however claim - quite rightly - that a republican constitution is far superior to a monarchical one. Particularly in Britain.

We also make no claim to perfection. Nothing is perfect, particularly in politics, but as I've said, a republican constitution is far superior to the monarchy, for all the reasons outlined on our website.

I'm not sure you've really presented any argument at all really - certainly not a case for the monarchy. You've attempted to criticise a claim we've not made.

Hi Cristy

As you live in Texas it's not surprising you have such a poor understanding of Britain, but I think most British people would be offended by your suggestion that there would be "nothing left" if we got rid of the monarchy.

If you visit this country you'll see it is a vibrant and exciting place, full of talented, intelligent and successful people. It is these ordinary people who make Britain a great country, not Elizabeth Windsor or her family.

Any points you make about Elizabeth Windsor's experience or qualities are irrelevant to the arguments about the monarchy. The institution and the current incumbent are not the same thing. The Queen clearly didn't have any experience when she became head of state. It's quite possible we'll have William as King when he's still in his late twenties, with no signs of having any interest in, or ability for, the job of head of state.

The Union between England Scotland is pretty strong, and it's easy to see that a British republic could make it stronger, given Scotland's strong republican sentiment. The monarchy plays no part in strengthening the Union at all.

It is, having said that, quite possible that Scotland will choose to be independent. That's their choice and it's quite a separate question to the issue of the monarchy. England makes up 85% of the UK, so we certainly won't be "the most insignificant state in Europe".

It is complete nonsense - and again, deeply offensive - to suggest that Britain is only 'noticed' because of the royals. They play a very small part in Britain's international relations.

The royal family are insignificant to modern British culture, the monarchy is insignificant to modern British politics. Few people in this country pay any attention to what Charles says and the rest of the family say nothing at all.

I suggest you pay more attention to what Britain is really about, and also try to understand our constitution. It is the power and the politics of the monarchy - the way in which the Crown gives our prime minister enormous power - that is at the heart of this campaign. The royals are symptoms of a corrupt and undemocratic system that has long passed its use-by date.

It's a fair point. Perhaps we should install a hatocracy?

Firstly let me correct you on a couple of things. The monarchy does not cost each tax payer 66p per year. Not even the palace PR machine claims that. Their claim is that it costs 'every person' (every man, woman and child regardless of whether they pay tax) around 66p per year. This is demonstrably false and is dishonest. Republicans have not agreed with this piece of royal spin, and it is simply untrue to say that elected heads of state would cost far more. I suggest you look at www.republic.org.uk/royalfinances for more information on this.

Secondly it is not true that the electorate don't want to pay for our elected representatives, we are simply (and understandably) angry at apparent fraud and dishonesty in the way in which expenses have been claimed.

Thirdly, our whole constitution is being drawn into question, by us and by many others. This scandal is happening while the monarchy is in place, and the monarch is playing no role to "see this nation through" as you put it.

Hi Fraser

The British political system is still very much based on the power of monarchs, it just happens that most of that power has been taken away from the palace and handed to parliament and the government. But the monarchy is still the core of our political system - which is why, as well as being republican, we are also anti-monarchist.

Nationalism and republicanism are two different concepts. While many nationalists are republicans and many republicans are nationalists there are also many nationalists who are not republicans and many republicans who are not nationalist.

Republic has no particular view on the question of the Union. Assuming that the Union survives (and I believe it probably will) we would want to see the Union having a single republican constitution with a single elected head of state. If Scotland, for example, achieves independence then we would aim for two republics. Our core aim is for all people in the Union to be able to live within a republican political system.

There is certainly no reason at all to believe a republic would cause or hasten a break of the Union. Given that the monarchy is less popular outside England a republic could in fact strengthen the Union.

Hi Mike

We make the case repeatedly on this website, on the blog and elsewhere, so yes it is our job to convince people. However this page is asking monarchists to defend the monarchy and to provide some - maybe even one - decent counter argument against us.

You've not provided any argument at all but rather just told us why you 'like' the monarchy. If this were just about personal taste then that may be adequate, but it's not. This issue is about political power - who has it, why, how much they have, how they can be held accountable and so on.

I can answer your various points quite simply:

• continuity exists regardless of the monarchy, and if it's only a symbol of continuity you want then how about the flag or a written constitution, something that doesn't do any harm to our democratic system?
• sovereignty needs to be with the people, so where's the value in the monarch 'personifying sovereignty'? And what does that mean to you, really?
• no-one is arguing against pomp and ceremony, that exists in republics too.
• in a democratic society the freedom to be defiant towards the political government of the day is a core principle. It is not something helped or hindered by the monarchy. The monarchy is irrelevant to this point.
• monarchy is not unique to us, except to say our monarchy is unique in the same way our president and our republic would also be unique.
• something being 'ours' doesn't give it any value... this is just lazy thinking and suggests a desire not to address the serious issues about politics and power and the value of democracy.

You must mix in some odd circles if what you say about the republicans you know is true. I've never met one who is "fueled by spite and anti-establishment malice". Both sides can easily trade tired old cliches, but can't we do better than that?

I've certainly met many people from Northern Ireland, from all parts of the community, who support the sort of republicanism we promote. If the troubles of Ireland teach us anything it is that an optimistic forward looking and democratic approach will always trump backward looking obsessions with history and identity.

Hi Richard

I can't imagine why you think it would be 'daring' of me to post your reply, but I'll do so anyway.

As before you've not provided any defence or reason for the monarchy, and it appears you've misread my email to you.

In my reply to your initial email I pointed out that we have support from across the political spectrum. This is true. That support doesn't (yet) include any high profile conservatives, but we do have many conservatives in our membership. To make comparisons with Australia is fairly meaningless - we've never suggested that the cause in Britain is as advanced as it is in Australia, where they've had a referendum, they've had a republican prime minister and the issue has very different implications and arguments.

I haven't said that we should change the constitution via 'elections', that would be done via a referendum as you suggest. My comment about elections was that Elizabeth Windsor would only be acceptable as head of state if she got that job as the result of a democratic process, rather than as a result of birth.

As for changing the constitution, of course our mission is to secure support in a referendum for a republican alternative to what we currently have. If such a referendum were to be won there would be no requirement to hold further regular referenda on restoration, but such referenda would not be out of the question. It would be down to monarchists to campaign for, and if they could persuade the people for a reversal of their previous decision then a fresh referenda would be reasonable.

20% is not a 'niche' group, it's a sizeable portion of the population (up there with the number of people who voted Labour at the last election). Our commitment to democratic ideals is fundamental to our cause, and you have no claim on those ideals yourself given your support for a constitution that denies the people the right to popular sovereignty and to choose their own representatives.

My reference to Saudi Arabia was simply a rejoinder to your rather silly suggestion that I should live in Iran or Korea. Those countries have less in common with democratic republics than Saudi Arabia has with the British monarchy.

I believe it was Bagehot who coined the phrase about the 'dignified' part of the constitution. My reply would be that there's nothing dignified about nepotism and the obstruction of the democratic process.

Dear James

It is clear that your support for the monarchy comes from a very specific understanding of Christianity. Republic has no wish to get into debates about religion (other than in the context of the monarch's role as supreme governor of the Church of England) - we have people of all faiths and none in our membership.

That said, it seems you are committing what Habermas termed the 'performative contradiction'. You are engaging in an argument with unfalsifiable statements. It is unsurprising that our 'Case for a Republic' didn't convince you because ultimately, as you say in the subject line, you are against democracy.

Arguments about monarchy are neither here nor there because you don't support the fundamental principle of 'rule by the people'. That is fine - it's your view. But in that case you cannot oppose Italian fascism, Soviet communism or the absolute monarchies of the Middle East. You could argue for any of those systems on the same basis.

I would agree that aspects of the 'Englightenment project' may be flawed, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss the whole thing. Having criticisms of Descartes' understanding of subjectivity shouldn't necessarily lead to a wholesale rejection of all political systems based on rights and universal norms. Is that not the mistake that the postmodernists made?

Dear Chad

Thanks for your comments via the 'I'm a Monarchist' page of the Republic website.

You say that we do not state anything we can "actually prove". That's a little disingenuous - we prove how our monarchical system gives the Prime Minister almost limitless power, we prove that the monarchy is unaccountable and wasteful, we prove that a republic would give people a greater stake in their democracy. Whether you believe these things to be good or bad is another issue.

The monarchy contributes to our attitude of "no you can't" by telling us that the most talented, wise and dignified citizen is no match for even the most immoral and corrupt royal. By giving almost limitless power to one person (the Prime Minister) our monarchical system precludes us from taking full responsibility for our political destiny. It says "no you can't" have a real stake in your system of government, "no you can't" have the best democracy possible, "no you can't" aspire to be head of State.

The Prince's Trust and Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme are irrelevant - they could continue in a republic. In fact, the Windsors would have even more time to devote to their charities and more freedom to get involved in their campaigns.

Republicans are currently in the minority, yes, but that doesn't change anything - it certainly doesn't make us anti-democratic. As we say elsewhere on the site "Holding a minority view and campaigning to popularise that view through peaceful means is the very essence of democracy. Democracy is rule by the people - not simply rule by the majority - and democratic ideals underpin our campaign. "

Why would a directly elected head of state "be elected by party members rather than the public"? That's the point of democracy - the people get who the people want.

You say that we are campaigning "against our whole political system rather than the monarchy". That's partly true. The point is that the monarchy is our whole political system. Our constitution is based on the Crown and that's where power comes from in Britain.

You ask: "why has our model been adopted by so many other countries around the world?" I assume that you mean our Parliamentary model, which could of course continue in a republic (and indeed our proposed model is a Parliamentary one, much like that of Ireland or Germany).

As for our Facebook page, it's one of the most popular political campaigns on the site so I don't think you could describe our support as 'paltry'. There are certainly many more members of our Facebook page than of the monarchy's!

Dear Clive

Thanks for your comments via the 'I'm a Monarchist' page of our website.

We could hardly be more open about our campaign. We're regularly quoted in the national press, give public talks and take part in debates across the country. We invite debate and discussion through our website, blog and Facebook page and our contact details are easy to find. There's no "backdoor smoke filled rooms" involved - we exist to persuade a majority to support a republic and we can only do that by gaining as much exposure as possible.

As it says in the FAQs section of our website, our mission is not to govern Britain, but to change the way Britain is governed. People vote for a package, not a single issue. Establishing a 'republican party' would mean alienating the MPs who already support us (who would have no choice but to leave Republic), while precluding the possibility of gaining further Parliamentary support. Further to that, we'd instantly lose the half of our membership who already belong to political parties.

Your idea of what issues constitute a "pressure group style thing" is very narrow. We know that changing a system of government is a major upheaval and that's exactly why we need to build cross-party consensus. Our aim is to spearhead a mass movement and that can only be done if we remain outside the party-political system.

We do, of course, support a referendum to remove the monarchy - that decision must rest with the people of Britain.

Hi James

You've made a lot of assertions there, most of which are entirely unfounded. You say, referring to the Queen that, "we know that all Prime Ministers have found her advice invaluable" but we know nothing of the sort. You suggest "There is not a single person in Britain who has the political knowledge and experience that she has." What is the evidence of that? Simply because she's been Queen a long time? Her 'experience' is of limited use and, of course, is not a permanent feature of the monarchy. You cannot argue for the monarchy and against all the strong republican arguments simply on the basis that the present Queen has been on the throne for a long time. In 1953 she had been on the throne just a few months and was in her twenties - was her experience and knowledge valuable to Winston Churchill? Of course not.

You then get into this 'hard work' argument, again making all sorts of assertions that don't stand up to much scrutiny. You claim the Windsors "work damn hard". Where's the evidence? And why exactly is their level of work relevant to the argument for or against monarchy.

Are you seriously suggesting that Anne does 570 engagements each lasting several hours? That would make her super-human, not just hard working. The evidence is there that these 'engagements' last barely an hour. Not so long ago I wrote to Clarence House to clarify and received a letter in reply confirming this point.

Regardless of how many hours are recorded on the Court Circular, it is still true that these engagements are not 'hard work' in the sense that ordinary people understand the term. The royals do not personally organise the engagements, they do not need to take any serious decisions, they are not held to account for any decisions or actions, they are not obliged to even turn up or to agree to do anything. There is never the threat of redundancy or performance evaluations and they do not need to compete for jobs and promotions. They do not have to deal with any of the usual house hold chores the rest of us must deal with after work. In short, their 'work' is nothing of the sort. To suggest otherwise is to insult all those people out there - nurses, teachers, police officers, shopkeepers, firemen and others - who do work hard every day.

You say the Queen "will often spend hours every day examining government papers" but on what you do base this assertion? Where is the evidence? Even when she does 'examine' government papers what do you think she does about it? Do you think she understands macro-economic policy, the detail of geo-political diplomacy, what's best for the NHS, how to improve our schools in the face of a recession or any of the other complex legal and political issues the government must deal with?

Your comment about Prince Charles is equally fanciful. Prince Charles does certainly contact government departments, but that contact is rarely welcome and plays no part in shaping government policy - and a good thing too. To suggest it "takes someone who knows they're here for the long-term to help create a co-herent plan" is to fundamentally misunderstand how our government operates and how policy is made. We have a professional civil service and a highly skilled and educated academic sector which work together to shape policy with ministers. There is no benefit in calling on the uneducated ideas of a 'prince' who is not interested in debate and who does like to be told he is wrong. He has nothing to offer serious intellectual debate about public policy.

Your last paragraph is just extraordinary. No one thinks they sit around in palaces all day - they spend their time pursuing their own interests and going to 'engagements' that very often coincide with their own interests. I would strongly recommend that you stop engaging in this fantasy about the Windsor family and look carefully at the way Britain is run and what the monarchy means for our democracy.

Hi Matt

Your argument is rather confused and unfocused and seems to be hinging on unrelated points.

The purpose of a written constitution is to ensure that the power of politicians is limited, not limitless. The constitution will provide those limits and would be amendable only by the people, so the politicians can't re-write the rules of the game. What rights we build into that constitution are a separate issue and need to be decided by the people through a national debate.

To say that there's an advantage in our system because nothing is constant doesn't really make sense. Our system is very 'constant'. The paradox of our constitution is that because it is unwritten and based on the sovereignty of the Crown the government can exercise considerable sweeping powers, but finds it very difficult to actually change the constitution itself because what one government changes the next government can change back.

The strength of a written constitution is that there would be a clear mechanism for changing it - by asking the people to agree to a change via a referendum - and at the same time the powers of the government would be limited, not limitless.

You seenm to contradict yourself in the fifth paragraph by saying the present system puts power in the hands of the few (which it does) and then saying localism empowers the people (which it doesn't - at least not in the present system, which I'm assuming you're refering to).

You say "Democracy is about how laws are drafted; whether legislation and regulation are implemented by the people or by the few and by the bureaucrats" which is generally correct, but then say "A Monarchy makes no real difference in the scheme of things" which is incorrect. This statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the British constitution. It is the monarchy, and more specifically the Crown, which gives considerable power to the government to act without the consent of the people. It is because of the Crown that parliament, under instruction from government, has been able to attack liberties, take us to war and sign treaties with the European Union.

So as you see, the real issues that matter to real people are very, very relevant to the issue of the monarchy.

Hi Andy

Our motivations are clearly set out on the website - the monarchy is the basis for the British constitution and our constitution is fundamentally undemocratic. In terms of actual benefits to the lives of ordinary people, those benefits will come from having a democratic written constitution which will limit the power of government and give more power to ordinary people.

The "jealousy" accusation is just nonsense. Aside from anything else there are republicans out there who have more money than the Windsors. But that's hardly the issue. This is about Britain finding a better way to do politics, and it's about Britain genuinely and wholeheartedly signing up to the principles of democracy.

Republicans aren't against inheritance of private wealth and property - we're against the inheritance of public office and public wealth and property. Public office is just that, public. It belongs to the people and the people must be able to choose who occupies that office and decide what powers it has.

If you don't think any of this matters, you won't mind if we get rid of it.

Hi Richard

That's hardly a very intelligent argument for the monarchy, is it? We're raising serious issues about how Britain is run, about who exercises power and how, and you want to get into petty name calling and abuse.

Republic is supported by a wide range of people from all walks of life and from across the political spectrum. Our supporters page shows thousands of names of ordinary people from across the country who support our campaign.

It is complete nonsense to suggest that we should accept that the monarchy is there by popular consent. Consent needs to be tested and proven, not assumed on the basis of opinion polls.

The popularity of the monarchy is superficial at best, and opinion polling almost always favours the status quo when it is about an issue most people have not given much thought to. Once a genuinely national debate is well under way and all the issues about our constitution have been debated, then we can get a proper test of support through the ballot box.

We would support the Queen only if she seeks and receives the clear consent of the people to be our head of state through a genuinely open and democratic process. But that process must require her to seek a renewal of that consent on a regular basis - it's called having elections.

Your tired and sad line about Iran and North Korea is typical of the unthinking monarchist. I could just as easily counter by saying that if you love monarchy so much why don't you go and live in Saudi Arabia or any one of the other Middle Eastern monarchies. It's not an argument for the monarchy, it's just evidence you don't have anything intelligent to add to this debate.

Hi Ian

Aside from that one quote, which is a personal quote from one individual supporter (and not particularly offensive, just a fairly light-hearted commentary on the royals), what aggressive stance do you object to? Are you suggesting the Windsor family is above criticism?

And are you seriously suggesting that a serious debate about the British constitution should hinge on one quote from Claire Rayner?

On the question of personal attacks, the monarchy is a highly personalised institution, the palace and monarchists use the individuals within the institution to sell the monarchy brand. Many people seem to believe that the monarchy's strength is the family. So it's entirely reasonable and justified to counter those ideas and arguments by highlighting where the Windsors fall short of accepted standards. Our criticisms never stray into their personal lives unless there are solid grounds for doing so.

We have a clear policy. We will forcefully criticise an individual royal when:

• there is a serious constitutional point to be made;
• there is evidence of corruption and abuse of privilege; or
• their behaviour illustrates the vagaries of hereditary public office.

On the question of democratic credentials, yes, of course we support a referendum to remove the monarchy.

Dear Elliott

That's not really an argument, is it?

Elsewhere on this site we respond directly to the tourism myth. What evidence do you have that the monarchy is good for tourism? If you have any, I'm sure the tourist industry itself would be interested - their trade body Visit Britain recently issued a report showing that 'royal attractions' were way down on the list for most tourists.

But ultimately decisions about democratic constitutions should not be made on the basis of projected income from tourism. We believe the British people are worth more than that.

You may not be able to imagine Britain without a monarchy, but we can. And it's a much brighter place.

Hi Matt

In answer to your first question, it is important to appreciate that we don't believe the same rules should apply for a monarch as would apply for an elected and democratically accountable head of state.

Charles wishes to have the position of head of state given to him as if he has some God-given right to it. He does not wish to debate issues, only to tell the world what he thinks. He does not wish to be accountable to the people, only to be listened to.

The position of monarch is largely pointless in the workings of our political system. The reasons for this come back to the nature of the monarchy and our unwritten constitution and the fact that the monarch is not democratically accountable. What we want is an alternative system which gives us an accountable head of state who is not pointless, but who has a role to play.

So:

• the monarch is pointless because she cannot comment publicly on anything political or take any action independently of the Prime Minister, because she is not democratically accountable. It is because of this lack of accountability that she must remain silent and not interfere in political issues. It is for the same reason that Charles must remain silent and not interfere.
• an elected head of state would be accountable and would therefore be able to speak on certain issues, although would be expected not to get involved in party politics. If she stepped over the line she can be held to account and can be removed from office.

To address your three points on why Charles should not be criticised I would say this:

• Charles has no right to be a Privy Counsellor and is, unlike other Privy Counsellors, entirely unaccountable and lacking in democratic legitimacy.
• When he is King he will have no legitimate right to have access to ministers or to make his views known anymore than you or I have such a right. Even if you accept he has this right (and he will certainly have that privilege), this contradicts your view that he should be able to speak out because his views are now public knowledge - so his 'confidence' will be meaningless.
• It is not good enough to argue that Charles can say what he likes until the day he becomes King. There aren't fixed terms of office for the monarch. It all depends on when his mother dies, which could be tomorrow, next week or ten years from now. In terms of his public commentary the damage is done. It is hard to argue that his views stay away from party politics - his pet hobbies are health, architecture/planning and the environment. All these are highly contested and are dealt with quite differently by the various political parties. Not so long ago, for instance, he gave a speech in Brussels arguing that the EU should play a stronger role in tackling the environment. Understandably many euro-sceptics were pretty angry about that.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're making regarding the Queen being a check on power. Put simply though: the Queen is no check at all, she cannot stop the government doing anything without causing the mother-of-all constitutional crises. As you say, the Irish and German presidents have some role to play as a check. The key difference is that in those countries legislation can be ruled to be unconstitutional. That can't happen here.

The constitutional monarchy does not exist to uphold democracy. Just how do you think it does that exactly?

It would be wrong for the monarch to over-rule parliament. The difference in Germany is that the president has a constitutional role to play and a constitution which sets out that role. He may not be directly elected, but he is still democratically accountable through parliament. As I said, the crucial difference is that Germany, like Ireland, has a written constitution which makes certain laws unconstitutional. The president can ensure parliament doesn't get away with passing any such laws.

Democracy is not a privilege. That would imply it is something given to us by a higher power, granted to us as a favour. That is not the case. It is something we have a right to and must take for ourselves. Whether we use it wisely or unwisely is entirely subjective and essentially irrelevant to the debate about whether or not we have a right to it.

Your last paragraph seems to be suggesting that we can have a monarch who is legally able to act independently of the advice of her ministers. That is utterly unacceptable in a modern democracy. By what right would a monarch have the power to intervene in the political process of a democracy? And why, if we want a head of state who can actually play a role in our constitution, would we choose one over whom we have no control and whom we cannot choose, over one who we can choose and who can be held accountable?

The overbearing nature of our executive, the weakness of our parliament and the pointlessness of our head of state are all symptoms of having an unwritten monarchical constitution based on the sovereignty of the Crown. Our argument is that we need a written constitution based on the sovereignty of the people, one which ensures all political offices are democratically accountable, are clearly defined and have limited powers.

Hi Neil

You've done well to get so many misunderstandings and half-truths into one short email.

Firstly, we don't have an "impartial" head of state, we have a pointless and silent head of state.

But let's say for a moment the monarch is impartial. What purpose does this apparent impartiality serve? The monarch has no authority and virtually no power, all of that resides in Number 10. So what does it matter if she is impartial?

But of course she's not impartial, she's silent. That's quite a different thing. Impartiality only matters if the office or organisation in question has some authority or a serious role to play and is expected to take decisions and speak on important issues. In such cases that impartiality must be accountable and transparent. We must be able to prove that it exists in reality as well as in rhetoric. Take the BBC, the police and courts and the Civil Service as examples. They cannot take sides in politics and they must be sufficiently accountable and transparent to demonstrate that they don't.

The Queen is neither accountable nor transparent. She remains silent and keeps her views to herself, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that suggests she is deeply conservative - and that's hardly surprising.

You complain that we might choose a president whose political views we don't know, but that's what we have with the Queen.

The choice isn't between a monarch and a president - it's between an effective democratic constitution and what we currently have, a ramshackle constitution based on the Crown which leaves power in the hands of a few politicians - unchecked and virtually unlimited.

We're really not particularly interested in how hard the Windsors work, but it's demonstrably true that they do not work hard. Even if they did that is no argument for the monarchy. This is about a genuinely democratic constitution for Britain, not a beauty contest. (And if you really care how hard they work, next time you look at the Court Circular do some sums - most of those 'engagements' last little more than an hour and add up to considerably less working hours than those worked by ordinary hard working people. On top of that they have no responsibility and will never be held to account for their performance).

Hi Richard

You seem to not understand the British political system or our constitution one bit.

You asked if we really want Blair or Brown to have executive power and then suggest we have some degree of democracy because of the monarch. This is, of course, complete nonsense.

Brown already has executive power - all of it. The monarch does absolutely nothing other than what's she's told by the PM.

That's a big part of the problem. The monarch can do absolutely nothing to change or limit that power. She is constitutionally pointless for most of the time. The PM and monarch are in a cosy relationship in which the PM gives the monarchy political support and the monarch gives the PM all the power he wants. No monarch has the political power to rein in a PM and has not tried to do so for decades.

You clearly don't like the idea of politicians having too much power, you complain about how the present government has done so much to destroy our democracy. If you have such concerns then why do you support the current system?

Put simply, if you are against politicians having too much un-checked power then the only reasonable conclusion is to support a republican constitution.

The election of the president is just one feature of a republican constitution. The office would be largely ceremonial but could hold certain reserve powers, allowing the president to have a role as guardian of the constitution (for example, if parliament were to pass a bill that was unconstitutional the president could refuse to give it assent and so it would have to go to a constitutional court - or a referendum would have to change the constitution - before it could become law.) The president could use these limited powers because she would be accountable for them. Get it wrong and she's out of office.

With the monarchy there is no such limitation on the power of parliament or government, and there is no person who can act as a check on the powers of the PM.

To rather casually describe republicanism as 'twaddle' when you've clearly not read the website and clearly have very little understanding of the British political system is a bit rich.

To paraphrase you: wake up and see why and how the politicians can get away with whatever they choose - it's because they can. That's because of our constitution, which is based on the Crown. There's only one solution - a republican constitution based on popular sovereignty.

Hi Josh

What a depressing view of Britain you have. Do you really think that the only thing we're "good at" is having a profoundly undemocratic constitution and an unelected, unaccountable woman as head of state?

As for the comments from the president and the subsequent media hype, this was a mixture of polite diplomacy and palace PR. Obama didn't look at all nervous about meeting the Queen - why would he?

In fact the meeting showed the stark contrast between the intelligent, accomplished, charismatic, inspirational and hard working Obamas and the dull, ill-educated, work-shy, uninspiring, low-achieving Windsors.

It is the British people who make this country a great place to live. The Queen has added nothing to that. Her only role has been to protect and perpetuate what is worst about this country, deference, sycophancy, snobbery and an unwillingness to take responsibility for our own political affairs by creating a genuinely democratic constitution.

Hi Guy

No, an opinion poll is not a 'killer argument'. No opinion poll is an argument for anything, it is simply a measure of where opinion was at the time the poll was conducted.

We do address the issue of public opinion on the site, on the Public Opinion page.

Political parties spend millions to achieve 18% support yet we get it at a time when the debate really isn't being taken up by the mainstream media (other than in a fairly superficial way) and before we have reached the level of campaigning done by parties such as the Greens or the Lib Dems. So we're doing ok.

I'm not particularly surprised by the result. Support for the monarchy fluctuates around the 80% mark, but it isn't all it seems to be.

When pollsters ask people questions about keeping or changing anything, there is a significant weighted advantage for the status quo. If people don't have strong feelings or they don't know enough about the subject they'll almost always favour the "don't change" option.

Of that 76% a large number don't have strong feelings on the matter.

To quote from the website:

The truth is that we don't know exactly how popular a republican constitution would be until we put it to the British people after a period of full and open debate.

An opinion poll is not a substitute for a referendum or an election.

Being popular and being right are not the same thing.

Republicans are opposed to the monarchy on principle - its popularity, or lack of it, is irrelevant to the fundamental principles which guide our campaign.

Holding a minority view and campaigning to popularise that view through peaceful means is the very essence of democracy. Democracy is rule by the people - not simply rule by the majority - and democratic ideals underpin our campaign.

Well I'm flattered you're thinking of me but do you really think this is an argument for the monarchy?

What did you expect Obama to say? This is basic diplomacy: 'be nice and flatter your hosts'. Nothing more. Do you really think Obama thinks the monarchy is actually a good idea? Do you really think he respects the principles that the monarchy is founded on? Unlikely.

Well Roger, it won't surprise you to know that I think you're mistaken about the nature of our monarchical system.

Firstly, let's leave constitutional theory aside for a moment and look at the practice. In what practical way does the monarch represent the people in Parliament? Virtually all executive power has now been handed by the monarch to the cabinet, which is controlled by the prime minister. 'Sovereignty' lies in parliament through the convention of the "Crown in parliament". And who controls parliament? That's right - the prime minister.

You say that "History has taught us that when absolute power passes into the hands of a single group or an individual (either Parliament or Monarch) we the people suffer." That's exactly what's happened! The Prime Minister now has the powers of a monarch - we have an 'elected dictatorship' in Lord Hailsham's famous phrase. While we advocate a German or Irish model of republic, even the US President doesn't enjoy the powers that Gordon Brown currently does.

In what way does this system "make sure that over-zealous politicians do not over-step the mark, which they are constantly prone to do"? If they're constantly prone to do it, then surely it's not working. You even give a very pertinent example of this: "The Queen should have refused to give Royal Assent to this Act thus protecting the people and our sovereignty. She failed to do..." You suggest that had we petitioned the Queen she may have refused to give the bill Royal Assent - you seem to be confusing the Queen with a democratically accountable politician.

You say that the monarchy is not about individuals. But that's exactly what it's about. The constitutional role of the monarch cannot be separated from the individual who has that role, and indeed their family. The monarchy is about conception, birth, marriage and death - the most personal events in anyone's life. Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is spent boosting the public profile of individual royals, and we are constantly told how 'popular' they are. If it really wasn't about individuals, why would this be relevant?

Finally, Zimbabwe is not a republic. Many countries may call themselves republics but, unless they are fully-functioning democracies with constitutions based on popular sovereignty, they do not deserve the name.

Hi Chris

I'm afraid we disagree from the outset. You say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", but republicans believe it is broke. Fundamentally and irreparably broke. (We explain why on our Monarchy Doesn't Work page.) We believe the answer is to start again with a new republican constitution, where power comes from the people and where the power of politicians is limited by constitutional safeguards.

Perhaps if you had read our site more carefully, you'd realise that we don't blame problems with the economy, crime or our education system on the monarchy. That would be to commit the 'cum hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy. Similarly, we will not let monarchists claim that anything they like about Britain is down to the monarchy.

You seem to be deeply concerned with the extensive powers of Gordon Brown (or 'SuperGordon' as you call him). So are we. He (and any Prime Minister) gets these powers from our monarchical system - he is essentially 'King Gordon'. We go into more detail on this point in our 'British Constitution' article.

You say that the "only real Heads of State of any quality will be from the royal family" but don't offer any evidence for this. In fact, all the evidence points to the opposite conclusion. The current royal family are out of touch, divisive, gaffe-prone, frequently offensive and entirely unaccountable. They are poor at representing Britain abroad and routinely abuse the privileges they have. With Charles we have a King-in-waiting who wants to be actively involved in politics, suggesting he doesn't even understand what the monarch's constitutional role is.

You seem to suggest that because lots of people are fascinated by the Queen and the royals we should have a monarchy. We believe that our system of government should be based on popular sovereignty, responsibility and aspiration, not morbid curiosity. Such a system has no place for hereditary power.

As for the Commonwealth, most countries in the Commonwealth are republics. When we become a republic, the Commonwealth can continue as a treaty organisation. And even with the monarchy in place there is no assumption among Commonwealth heads of government that Charles will succeed his mother as the head of the organisation - that position is not hereditary.

Finally, you make the groundless claim that the monarchy is "our way of stopping dictatorship, preserving our values and keeping a watch on our unreliable politicians." Quite the opposite, in fact. Our monarchical system gives too much unaccountable power to politicians. Why do you think that so many politicians support the monarchy?

As we say elsewhere on the site, "Ultimately stability and unity are the products of a healthy democracy and prosperous society. They have little to do with feudal institutions or heads of state."

How eloquent. In fact these women are excellent adverts for our campaign. Not everyone will agree with their politics, but they are all highly educated and accomplished individuals with a strong commitment to social justice and democracy. They're also all very good at stringing more than one sentence together and making eloquent arguments for what they believe.

Well, Peter, I really don't know where to start.

Before I go on though, you're in a very, very small minority if you really think the monarch should actually have power. Our campaign is principally against a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute one.

The "people are stupid" argument is so patently absurd that I'm wondering if I need to really spell it out. But let's try. Firstly, democracy is based on the principle of popular sovereignty. 'We the people' have the right to govern ourselves regardless of whatever judgement you or anyone else might make about our ability to do so. Secondly, what makes you think a monarch is any less stupid? Evidence suggests they are in fact none too bright.

But in terms of effective decision making and government, groups have been shown to be better than individuals. Individuals might be stupid, but groups of individuals are demonstrably better equipped to make good decisions. "The Wisdom of Crowds" by James Surowiecki makes this point very well, by citing examples whereby collective development of ideas produces better results than decisions made by individual diktat.

Democracy is far from perfect. No serious person is suggesting there is any kind of perfect system of government out there. It's impossible given the size and complexity of modern society. However, as I have said, it is demonstrably the case that groups make better decisions than individuals and democracies produce better results that dictators, and the better the democracy the stronger the society.

Your point about going to war is not backed up by any evidence. Democracies do not generally go to war with each other. Before democracy began to flourish in Europe the continent was perpetually at war for most of the preceding thousand years - wars led by kings, and generally started by kings, over such trivial matters as what bit of land they could call theirs or whether certain people were following one version of the Christian faith or another. It was the power of democracy that brought peace to Europe.

It is true that many people in this country don't understand how the British constitution works. That's not really down to their stupidity though, it's because our constitution is so complex and so messy. That in itself makes it less than democratic. If we had a clear written constitution we would all be able to understand how it works, who has what power, where they got their power from and how they can be removed from office.

Your suggestion that a monarch wouldn't make stupid decisions because they wouldn't be accountable to the electorate is to completely misunderstand one of the key strengths of democracy: accountability. If a person is entirely unaccountable for their actions they will do as they please. Without consequences for their actions they can take whatever decision they like, regardless of how stupid that decision might be. In a democracy bad decisions are met with bad consequences for the decision maker.

Everything you said certainly is wrong and I don't see why you would still support the monarchy if your own argument for it is false. I'm also British and a patriot. It's because I believe our country is a great place, and deserves the very best of everything, that I believe we should have the very best democracy possible. I'm sorry you have such a depressing view of Britain and our future that you feel the need to cling onto some worthless remnant of our past while insulting what's really great about our country - the people who have made it such a wonderful place to live.

On your side note, re-branding happens all the time. It's not going to be an extra cost of becoming a republic. There's no need to change everything overnight just because we're a republic. The Royal Mail can take its time changing its letterhead, it really doesn't matter. And as they often invest in changing their branding anyway, no-one will notice any additional cost (and yes, even the armed forces spend money on re-branding).

Hi David.

Well thanks a lot! All I can say really is that if that's what you think of the monarchy then you can pay for it.

I think you've done us a great favour in making clear just how we're seen by those abroad. Quite a few monarchists bizarrely claim that people from other countries are envious of our monarchy, but in fact they look at it with a patronising bemusement. Rather than taking us seriously as a modern and contemporary society we are patted on the head and told how quaint our country is.

Elliott, what makes you think our system of government has been around since 1066? Britain has changed many, many times over the past thousand years. Indeed, 'Britain' didn't even exist in 1066. Since then we've had Magna Carta (did they say "why change something that has lasted two hundred years?"), the English republic, the formation of the United Kingdom, the so-called 'Glorious Revolution', the Act of Settlement and numerous other changes and developments.

Our monarchy is a very modern variation on what was once the seat of government. Besides, even if it had been around since 1066, the monarchy must be judged on its own merits and in comparison with alternatives that are on offer, not simply on whether it's been around a long time.

Your point about stable countries confuses cause with effect. Countries aren't stable because they have a monarchy. They have a monarchy because they are stable. In other words, they've never had the sort of upheaval that has caused the monarchy to be overthrown. Most countries in the world were once ruled by monarchs and now aren't. That means that for most countries monarchy failed, badly.

Regardless of what you might think about the current government, the biggest problem is that, like previous governments, it is not sufficiently accountable. It is the political system in which the government operates that is the problem, and that system is based on the Crown. See the page on the British constitution for more on that.

The cost of immigration is really quite irrelevant to this campaign. We don't need to abandon one issue just because you feel another one needs to be dealt with.

As for your comment about backing from a majority - we've never said we have majority backing. That's why we're campaigning, to persuade a majority of our case.

Hi Lewis

This is one of those un-original arguments that monarchists often think is really clever: democracy is the rule of the majority, majority favours monarchy, therefore the monarchy is democratic. It's complete nonsense of course. Democracy is about the rule of the people, all the people, not the tyranny of majority opinion.

It is a fundamental principle of democracy that minority rights and opinion are also respected and protected. And why not? Most people are in a minority on something. All the main political parties are in a minority. The lifeblood of democracy is recognising that opinions change and people can be persuaded to support different ideas. From that flows debate and progress.

To suggest that our argument is 'thin' because opinion polls currently show a majority against us is supremely ridiculous. Our argument is not based on what is currently popular. Arguing for something simply because it's popular is of course pointless, but it is also intellectually vacuous. We campaign for a republic because we believe it is best for Britain and best for our democracy. We believe we have a strong case and that, with the right opportunities and resources, we can persuade the British people that what we say is right. By definition we won't win this until a majority agree with us, and when that is the case your point will evaporate.

You might also want to consider other political reforms in the past, such as the protection of minority rights, universal suffrage or the abolition of slavery. Each of these began as minority opinions. Campaigners and reformers did the work of persuading people of their case for change. Those campaigns succeeded and now each of those issues is widely supported by a majority.

So to suggest we should keep quiet or that we are 'wrong' because we are currently in the minority is to completely misunderstand the nature of democracy and the British tradition of political progress.

Well, we agree on two out of three, I like marmite and bacon sandwiches too. And I'm English. But that's hardly the point.

No one has said that you should feel oppressed by the monarchy. It is however the case that the monarchy allows the government to rule us with virtually unlimited and largely unaccountable power.

To say "We have a democracy, we have an elected ruling party who make all the decisions" is to contradict yourself. In a democracy no one should be making 'all' the decisions. In a democracy power is limited and shared among different bodies, government, parliament, the judiciary and, of course, the people.

I'll quote from our own website to answer this point more throughly:

As for being part of our culture and history - the monarchy will always be part of our history, nothing can change that. But history must be made as well as celebrated. We are talking about making history and changing the future for the next generation of citizens. That process of change, that process of challenging power and making Britain more democratic, that is a far more valuable part of our culture than one family living in a big house.

Hi Henry

I'm very sorry you've lost your job, and Britain becoming a republic is not a solution to our current economic problems.

Our campaign for a republican constitution is about changing the way we govern ourselves, it's not about changing the current policies of the current government. Of course it is important that the country deals with the economy, but we mustn't allow the politicians to use the economy to distract us from other vital issues of democracy and accountability.

This campaign pre-dates the current economic downturn, and it will continue beyond the economic recovery we all hope is not too far away.

To answer your question directly, living in a republic will make our government and parliament more accountable. It will give the people more control over the way we govern ourselves. This will ensure that those in power are more focussed on the needs of the many and not on the needs of the few.

I hope this will mean a more responsible and considered approach to economic management and to the need to protect jobs. What it will certainly do is ensure politicians are held to account for their actions - and it will limit their power to take actions without proper checks and balances in the first place.

In short a republican constitution will promote more effective and better quality government, regardless of who is in power.

Hi Simon

Thanks for the congratulations.

You won't be surprised to hear that I disagree with your assertion that the monarchy 'works'.

I guess to make such a judgement we need to decide by what criteria we are deciding if it works or not. The monarchy isn't just some decoration, it is the heart of the British constitution. It also provides us with a head of state, an important position that shouldn't be left to chance.

Our constitution is deeply flawed and deeply democratic. It needs radical change and that change will always be resisted while the monarchy is in place, providing a cloak of deference that protects the status quo.

I suspect that you, like many monarchists, do not make much distinction between support for the monarchy and respect or support for the current monarch. I'm less than convinced that she's done a "good job" as many people claim, but regardless of that it is inevitable that she won't be Queen forever. Is inheritance really the best way to choose her successor? Are you really sure that we can't find a better way, a way that 'works' better for Britain?

Hi Charles

You're partly correct in what you say about citizenship, we are legally 'citizens'. However, it is questionable whether this really means anything in this country. Power still resides at the top, there is no culture of citizenship, the government still has arbitrary and unlimited power over us. Ours is not a constitution based on the notion of citizenship or even democracy, it is based on the Crown. The quote which is sometimes on the header of our website is simply reflecting the republican view that, while the law calls us citizens, we do not believe that our constitution respects us as such.

We are well aware of our history, but there is nothing 'republican' about our monarchy. Republicanism is about the people being sovereign - it is not about elections of monarchs.

It is a fallacy to suggest that our head of state is democratically chosen. Charles will be our next head of state unless he dies before his mother. Even if parliament had the courage to choose to debate an alternative, William for example, it would remain a choice between two Windsors.

More importantly though, the choosing of monarchs is only a part of the republican case. It is the Crown that is the bigger problem, rather than the monarch. Have a look at the pages on liberty and the British constitution for more on that.

You are displaying your own ignorance of the law if you think EU law is supreme, but you're also missing a fairly substantial point in the argument. Firstly, EU law only has supremacy in certain areas and only for as long as the British parliament accepts it - which means it isn't really supreme at all, it just means that it over-rides domestic law while we continue to agree that it does. Ultimately the British parliament and the Crown remain sovereign.

We rarely use the word subjects, but you are jumping to conclusions to suit your own argument by suggesting we believe the monarch herself is supreme or sovereign. It is the Crown which is sovereign and, as we have explained, the Crown is in parliament. There is no principle of the law being sovereign.

What you are failing to understand is that there are no legal restraints on the British parliament. We are subject to treaties and EU law only so long as we wish to be. There is no power above the parliament which can force it to do anything.

Your rather juvenile attempts to mock our claims about sovereignty and the unlimited power of government are rather hollow.

Our site and our campaign are supported by eminent academics and lawyers who I suspect have a much better grasp on our legal and political history than you do. Some of them have collaborated in preparing this new site and I can assure you that our arguments are based on a clearer understanding of our constitution than you have demonstrated.

Hi Kess

Well clearly you are talking from a very different perspective to most monarchists in Britain. I'm not sure which country you are from, but it's not one I recognise.

You say 'monarchies work', but by what criteria do you judge them to 'work'. Most countries 'work' in one sense or another, and Britain 'works' very well in terms of being a prosperous and free place to live. We are certainly experiencing some problems at the moment, and of course our constitution is deeply flawed, but civil society gets on just fine most of the time.

You quote a line saying: "democracy is based on the premise--flawed premise--that a majority of the people know what is best for everyone." That's not the case.

Democracy is based on the premise that, whether we know what's best or not, 'we the people' have a right to govern ourselves. It's not for any one person to tell the people that they're getting it wrong and so have lost that right to self-rule.

Your views on liberty are not backed by experience. The most liberal places in the world are democracies, the least liberal are dictatorships. Monarchy, in the sense you talk about, is just another term for dictatorship.

Finally, democracy is not the same as "mob rule". It is the rule of the people - that means all the people. As it is based on the notion of equality and the right of every person to rule themselves the tyranny of the majority is no more acceptable than the tyranny of one.

I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that I disagree with what you've said in your email. Firstly it is very odd to suggest that the monarchy has been around for over a thousand years, yet republicanism is something dreamt up in my lifetime. Republicanism has been around a lot longer than a thousand years and our current monarchical system is only a few hundred years old.

This has nothing to do with destroying heritage, so your comments about St Pauls and the Tower of London are entirely misplaced (in fact the Tower of London has prospered as a tourist attraction since the royals stopped using it, something I'm sure would happen with Buckingham Palace too). This issue also has very little to do with cost, although it is true that our monarchy is considerably more expensive than comparable elected heads of state and is very wasteful of public money.

This issue is entirely about democracy and the health of our political system.

You complain about today's politicians and imply, therefore, that there is something wrong with our political system. We entirely agree. Our democracy is deeply flawed. It is not based on popular sovereignty but on the sovereignty of the Crown. This gives our government virtual total power between elections. Our head of state is constitutionally pointless most of the time, except on the few occassions when she can play a role in choosing a Prime Minsiter, something she is not democratically qualified to do.

It is quite incorrect to suggest that the continuity of a single family (which is not as continuous as it appears) brings stability to a country. Stability is achieved by solid democratic institutions and a sound and prosperous society and economy. As we've seen in Europe and Asia, monarchies are no guarantee of stability or democracy.

You say the monarchy "gives us a chance to have a voice that is different as it isn't driven solely by political votes", but that is not what constitutional monarchy is about. The monarch is expected to remain silent on political issues. However, if she were to speak out and to then find that her views are seriously at odds with the majority of the people, we have no clear mechanism for replacing her.

Republicanism is not about destroying anything, it is about building a better and more democratic Britain, one which really puts you and I - the people - in charge. We criticise the royals not because we are personally opposed to them, but because monarchists use them to defend the institution and we need to challenge the notion that the institution breeds good heads of state.

Thanks for your comments James. Clearly we don't think contesting the monarchy is "ridiculous". We think it's one of the biggest political issues facing the British people.

You say that they "bring a huge amount to this country and pay for themselves", yet this is demonstrably not true - have a look at our article on Tourism for the full story.

As we point out elsewhere on this site, democratic republicanism is as much a part of British history as kings and queens.