Unwilling to make the case for republicanism on its own merits, Smith builds his argument on the apparent shortcomings of monarchy itself. Both in principle and in practice, he states repeatedly, monarchy contravenes the ‘values’ of the British people: it is undemocratic, expensive and impractical; it enthrones privilege, nepotism and inequality. He offers up a familiar list of royal peccadilloes – King Charles’s petulance, Prince Andrew’s promiscuity, Prince William’s indolence – and slays sacred cows along the way: Queen Elizabeth II was a tax evader; her mother was a racist; their Tudor and Stuart precursors were slave traders. When a practice violates our society’s foundational moral principles, it ought to be abolished no matter how attached to it we have become. the monarchy is less staunchly supported than many think, and there are more than enough political mechanisms and resources for the establishment of a republic to come in the near future However, there are some obvious ways one might try to respond. One could object on economic grounds. There is room to argue that monarchies could potentially produce economic benefits. Royals may serve as a tourist attraction or, if internationally popular, might raise the profile and favorability of the nation, thus increasing the desirability of its products and culture. So perhaps monarchies are justified because they are on the whole beneficial. I believe that sacred monarchy infantilises us, as if Gandalf and Frodo were characters in our national life. I believe in the truism that the larger your dreamworld – and monarchy is a dreamworld – the smaller, sadder and more brittle is your real world. I think this is reflected in our politics, which are not imaginative, or functional, or even particularly reactive.

And that’s the problem. The royals are a class act. The monarchy establishes inherited privilege at the heart of government and embeds patronage at the centre of power. It enshrines the idea that it’s not what you know, do or think that will get you on in life but who you are.

Duchy Law Appeal

Far from being truer patriots than republicans, monarchists seem to have so little faith in our country that they dare not look beyond one family for a figurehead to embody us. Do they embody us? Are they patriots? Why not send their children to state schools? Why not have their children in NHS hospitals? Why ask for exemptions from laws? Why not pay inheritance tax? I refuse the idea that monarchy, with its magic, protects our democracy: if it does, it isn’t doing a very good job of it. I refuse its insistence it is apolitical because it seeks to preserve its power: that is a political position.

A YouGov poll carried out around two weeks before the crowning on 6 May found that more than half of respondents did not believe the government should fund the coronation, compared to around a third who did. Now let’s turn to our peculiarly British constitutional monarchy. What is its organising principle? We have no state ideology. And we aren’t a nation-state either – Britain loosely claims four home nations, but the term “British” can encompass Indians, Ghanaians, Singaporeans. People like myself tend to favour that term because it means we don’t have to be English.The removal of the crown from the constitution and an elected second house are minimum requirements for a modern and mature democracy.

So in the United Kingdom we appear to have a head of state who recognises Muslims as integral to Europe when, across the rest of Europe, states are making it clear that Muslims are indeed “a thing apart”, with bans on Islamic clothing, on minarets, and prime ministers who call Muslims “invaders” (these examples all taken from republics). Unlike Smith, I don’t predict or want the demise of the Crown in the foreseeable future. I do, however, think our political landscape is richer for protest movements like his – police, take note – and that our constitutional monarchy is potentially stronger when it’s tuned into its most vociferous opponents.Juliet Samuels is asked whether in 50 years' time we will still have a monarchy? She says yes: the demise of the monarchy has been long predicted but never happened. "People apply a business-like logic to something that defies logic but is instinctive and intuitive... and that can't be easily abolished or dismantled." Rather than the monarchy defending the constitution and, by implication, the British people, it has been the responsbility of subjects to defend the monarch not from injustice or tyranny, but from embarrassment. In the UK, embarrassment is, it seems, a central principle of our constitution. Perhaps what is most encouraging about this book is Smith's arguments against the contention that most people want the monarchy to continue. The figures have come down over recent years so that even royalists admit it is close to half the country wanting to be rid of the institution. Their argument is the old classic 'now is not the time' when it comes to demands for a referendum. Wait until the consensus is much greater and don't make a fuss now, they argue, ignoring the fact that much of the change in opinion has come through the efforts of people like Graham Smith, campaigning for years. Smith counters this argument brilliantly in essence showing that there is a great difference between being actively in favour of something and passively being ok with it continuing. This is the crux of the matter: it is likely that those who truly want to keep the monarchy are actually now in the minority. So here is Prince Andrew, essentially dethroned. His sin was not his inhumanity, but giving an interview about his inhumanity. Remember that when you start defending his mother. Meanwhile, Meghan has been treated as a villain for combining princessiness with stardom and being biracial. To live in a country with a monarch is to have an individual person and family deemed your social superiors, a group to whom you are expected to show deference, despite your moral equality. This is not a relationship you choose, but rather, one that is thrust upon you. Further, the deference we are said to owe to, and the higher status of, monarchs is not earned. Rather, it is something that they are claimed to deserve simply by virtue of who their parents are, who in turn owe their elevated status to their lineage. Finally, beyond merely commanding deference, monarchs are born into a life of luxury; they live in castles, they travel the world meeting foreign dignitaries, and their deaths may grind a country to a halt as part of a period of mourning.