Giving jobs and national awards to the family—it's day-to-day routine for the royals. How have big celebrations—like Meghan and Harry's wedding last year—affected support for the republican cause in the U.K.?

Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse. We do Freedom of Information requests and investigate these issues and try and dig out the truth of what's actually going on, to try and challenge a lot of the spin. Finally, and much due to the ignorance of the British people with respect to what is supposed to be a British Constitution (in formal written form), the monarch is supposed to be the guardian of this same constitution, and yet, as a monarch, but also as the Head of State, refuses to become involved in politics – at least publicly and on the side of the citizens! A truer form of democracy does not accept the moral compromises regularly exhibited by the various members of the British royal family, and certainly would not tolerate the extent of the inequality and interference in British laws that are a known consequence of maintaining the present form of monarchy. The obvious problem with the moralistic approach is that any society, let alone one of sixty-five million people, will harbour a vast diversity of values, as is borne out by recent polls of public attitudes to the monarchy itself. Perhaps unwittingly, Smith concedes as much. He says that the attitudes of the royal family to race are contrary to the nation’s sense of fairness and equity. At the same time, however, he refers to the outpouring of public support for the courtier Lady Susan Hussey when she was accused of racism. This event will present an opportunity for you to hear more about what Republic is doing, how you can be involved and what happens next.

Season 2 starts on February 11.

In the U.S., people complain about President Donald Trump being nepotistic and so on. But this is standard stuff for the royals. It's just the way it works. The thing is we've gotten used to it—we hide our corruption in plain sight. Abolish the Monarchy: Why we should and how we will does exactly what it says on the tin: delivers an invigorating polemic on why the British monarchy can and should be done away with. It covers the same topic as The Enchanted Glass: Britain and its Monarchy but with an utterly different tone and style. While Nairn's book is dense, academic, and fatalistic (still great though), Smith's is accessible, journalistic, and optimistic. I think it oversimplifies a bit for effect, especially when discussing constitutional reform, but is nonetheless a very good read. Only 11% of the population are ‘very interested’ in the jubilee according to YouGov, and only 14% are planning to do anything to mark the event. 54% are not interested.” Smith is an advocate of a parliamentary republic. I am in favour of a republic, but I am not entirely convinced by his arguments for keeping the Westminster system of democracy. While he does admit that the Union may not survive long enough to see a republic, he does appear to, ultimately, want our current political and economic system to stay mostly the same, but with the royal cyphers filed off.

He pointed towards a recent YouGov poll which showed almost two thirds of Brits (64%) did not care about the coronation, with only 9% saying they cared ‘a great deal’. 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 Smith insists there is no need to worry about the UK getting its own President Trump. Republic is in favour of an elected President who still has few powers – like the King now – but can intervene more effectively when required.

Customer reviews

In the U.S., people complain about President Donald Trump being nepotistic and so on. But this is standard stuff for the royals. individuals that comprise the monarchy, receives. In this respect, Smith considers the support given by The questionable behaviour of the royals is not new. But what is new is a public less tolerant and more critical of that behaviour and the family's loss of their trump card, the Queen. The Queen was their heat shield, able to deflect even the most serious questions and accusations, unable to do wrong in the eyes of much of the media and political class and, if she did, not someone many dared to criticise publicly. With Charles on the throne, that first line of defence is gone, in her place a man few would hesitate to criticise if they felt it was warranted. [...] Beyond that, two other men will continue to remind people - for very different reasons - what's wrong with the royals. Prince Harry, seemingly on the run from his own family, and Andrew on the run from serious allegations of sexual assault. As daylight gets through, behind the curtains of deference and secrecy, we increasingly see an institution that is ripe for challenge and criticism.