Jonathan Freedland is asking the wrong question (Have Meghan and Harry moved the monarchy closer towards its end? If only, 12 March). Many British people are attached to the monarchy and would be sad to see it go. The real question is: why don’t we have a fully functional head of state like other countries? We are constantly told that the Queen must never be involved in politics, but that is in direct contradiction of her continuing duties such as signing all legislation (including the order to prorogue parliament) and delivering the Queen’s speech.
There is no need to abolish the monarchy; it should simply be redefined and limited to a ceremonial role. We could then elect a proper head of state to fulfil the political role that is lacking, which leaves all power unchecked in the hands of the prime minister. Of course, no PM wants to discuss such a move but why shouldn’t we? This solution can be seen in other countries that have royal families detached from political power. Incidentally, it would give the Queen the opportunity to retire.
Judy Mason
Shipston-on-Stour, Warwickshire
• Jonathan Freedland rightly points out that while the case for abolishing the monarchy is strong, it is often “lost in the arid wastelands of constitutional reform”. But the powerful argument in favour of abolition need not be as “boring” as he assumes.
Germany has a head of state, a president, who is elected by a federal convention. Last week, the current incumbent, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, condemned members of the Bundestag for receiving payment for brokering face mask procurement deals, describing it as “shabby and shameful” behaviour. Meanwhile, in the UK, being a friend of a member of the government or being a donor to the Tory party appear to be a fast track to being awarded a fat contract – and the head of state stays nothing, because (we are told) she isn’t allowed to. Yet we now know that the monarch – although she does not intervene to promote, defend or enhance democracy or probity in public life – is permitted to vet and influence any proposed legislation that may impinge on the monarchy’s interests. The British monarchy is therefore essentially self-serving.
Steinmeier has shown what the UK is missing by not having a head of state who is able to speak out on issues of national importance by virtue of the moral authority that comes with having been elected. That’s not boring.
David Head
Peterborough
• If Jonathan Freedland and others wish to elect our head of state, they must accept that whether we choose a politician or other person, we will sooner or later end up with someone like Jacques Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy, Richard Nixon or Donald Trump. We cannot claim to be more discerning than the French or the Americans. Not everyone will agree that that is an improvement.
Alasdair Darroch
Norwich
• Jonathan Freedland talks as if all republicans simply believe that Britons should be allowed to choose their head of state. But there is another principle: that a head of state should be allowed to choose this for themselves. Surely these days no one should be forced to be a head of state simply because their mother or father was also trapped in this role. Being generously remunerated is no substitute for freedom. Our royal family are only human – shouldn’t they have the same rights as the rest of us?
Helen Geake
Woolpit, Suffolk
