“Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film stars.”

The choice between monarchy and republic is often presented too simplistically.

There are democratic monarchies and authoritarian monarchies. There are democratic republics and authoritarian republics.

The important comparison for the United Kingdom is therefore not between “monarchy” and “democracy”, but between a parliamentary constitutional monarchy and the various forms of republic which might replace it.

The Crown Society believes that the existing constitutional monarchy offers advantages which would be difficult to reproduce under an elected Head of State.

The Sovereign does not campaign for office, publish an electoral manifesto or represent a political party.

This enables the Head of State to meet governments of different political persuasions and represent the nation without having first defeated a substantial part of the electorate in an election.

An elected president can certainly act impartially once in office, and many do. 

The Crown Society's argument is not that republican Heads of State are incapable of impartiality. It is that hereditary succession removes the office itself from electoral competition.

Prime Ministers and governments change. The Crown provides continuity between administrations.

A Sovereign may accumulate decades of constitutional experience and maintain confidential relationships with successive Prime Ministers.

That institutional memory can be particularly valuable at moments of political change.

The Crown is woven into the history, law, armed forces, Parliament, honours system, quite often the religious Institutions and ceremonial life of the Nation.

A republic could undoubtedly create ceremonies and symbols of its own, but abolition of the Crown would involve considerably more than changing the occupant of a single office.

It would alter a network of constitutional language, institutions, allegiances and traditions which have developed over many centuries.

Whether that change would be desirable is a legitimate question upon which citizens may disagree.

Supporters of a republic commonly argue that the Head of State should be chosen directly or indirectly by democratic means and that no public office should pass by inheritance.

Those are serious constitutional arguments and should not be caricatured.

The Crown Society disagrees because it believes that the very absence of an electoral mandate can be advantageous for a Head of State whose role is to represent continuity rather than political programme.

Government should derive its democratic mandate from the electorate. The Society does not believe that the ceremonial and constitutional Headship of State also needs to be the prize in another political contest.

Modern British monarchy survives precisely because the Sovereign does not personally govern.

Political decisions are taken by ministers answerable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate. 

The Crown provides a permanent constitutional framework within which those temporary governments exercise authority.

Constitutional monarchy therefore separates two functions which a presidential system may combine: the political leadership of government and the symbolic Headship of State.

The Crown Society believes that this distinction is worth preserving.

The case for monarchy does not require the claim that every monarch is perfect, that every republic fails, or that all political problems would disappear under a Crown.

Its case is stronger when stated more modestly.

Constitutional monarchy offers Britain an impartial Head of State, orderly succession, institutional memory, historical continuity and a focus of public service which does not depend upon party-political victory.

It has proved capable of substantial adaptation while remaining recognisably the same institution.

That combination of continuity and change is why The Crown Society believes the Crown continues to serve the United Kingdom well.