IF they made a sitcom set in Buckingham Palace the scriptwriters would give a cameo role to Thomas Markle, the estranged father of the Duchess of Sussex. Last week he delivered a one-liner that even Frasier would have been proud of. “I’ve made mistakes”, old man Markle said, “but at least I’ve never dressed as a Nazi or played pool naked”. We need more of this treasonous insolence – it’s good for democracy.

When it comes to the monarchy almost every branch of the British media falls meekly into line. Even those you most trust to disrupt the throne kneel in its presence. Some use the royals as a branch of celebrity culture while others curtsy like craven commoners in the company of their sovereign. I can just about understand the breathless photo-shoots that equate the royals with the cast of Strictly Come Dancing – that’s commercial logic – it’s the insufferable deference that rips my ermine.

How can we live in a society where almost every branch of the media is so accepting of an unelected system? It is not a healthy state of affairs. But plough through any newspaper and it is virtually impossible to find any journalistic challenge to the existence of the monarchy.

It may remain a minority position but polls consistently show around one-in-five of the population are demonstrably against an unelected head of state and that figure is highly volatile, dependent on what question is asked. The more that polling is framed around the size of the royal family, the role of the so-called “minor royals”, or the future of the royal family were Prince Charles to assume the throne, then the antipathy grows substantially.

Our media is admittedly diverse. Not all newspaper titles approach the subject the same. Broadly, the red-tops report extensively on the young royals, in much the same way as they report on reality TV stars – aiding charity, plunging necklines and modern morality tales.

There was a brief wobble after the death of Princess Diana, when coldness emanating from the Palace could have chilled a bottle of Chateau d’Yquem, but as soon as new flesh comes on the scene, it’s business as usual.

The tabloids are largely disinterested in any critical analysis of hereditary accession and when they are critical of the parade of royals it is almost always the hangers-on. It is astonishing that newspapers who thrive on hiring opinionated columnists, and who publish click-bait, rarely reflect on the monarchy. We get climate change denial, ‘‘bring back hanging’’ and endless tub-thumping on immigration, but not a word on the ancient heraldry of the monarchy.

My point is not to argue for or against the monarchy, although I’d not lose any sleep if they flitted to a single-end on the island of Mustique. For me, the real issue is the widespread failure of print and broadcast media to make any reasonable case for republicanism.

Although it is still technically possible to be jailed for advocating that the monarchy be overthrown, such extremes are no longer necessary – the settled acceptance of royalty is a much more powerful ideological device. Queen Elizabeth has been on the throne for most of our lives and longevity has been her best friend.

I have witnessed the dissembling close-up as a career criminal with Channel 4, a broadcaster with a unique remit to innovate and take risks. Nothing much fazes Channel 4 – not female genital mutilation, transgender politics nor legalising heroin – but when it comes to the Royal Family a curious shyness overcomes its editorial decisions. In the minds of the number-crunchers “the Royals rate” and so their lives are revisited regularly in pursuit of the upmarket audience that exists for intelligent popular history.

Anxious not to be seen as craven, Channel 4 frequently plays its favourite magic trick – ‘‘secret history’’ or the ‘‘hidden stories’’ of the rich and famous. It allows the monarchy to take centre stage if only through the prism of an illegitimate child, a drunken ancestor or a depraved dynasty.

No one minds the odd film about Princess Margaret’s gin-soaked promiscuity or another rifle through Queen Victoria’s knickers drawer in search of Indian confidantes. Try to find a film about republicanism in the Channel 4 library and you will hunt in vain.

Despite nearly 100 republics existing across the world – in America, France, Portugal, Switzerland and India – the UK and its media courtiers still treat the idea as if it exists as extremism beyond the political mainstream.

Predictably, the BBC is nervous about giving airtime to republican views. This is particularly perverse given the corporation’s commitment to impartiality. Every hour of the day well-meaning producers twist themselves in ideological knots to bring balance to the airwaves – should cheese beanos be banned at school dinners, do Christmas trees go up too early and is racism rife in football? Nothing is too immediate or too inane. On most subjects, the BBC is relatively good at delivering diversity of opinion, but its reluctance to kick the constitutional tyres and give oxygen to political republicanism speaks volumes.

TO coin a football phrase, Buckingham Palace seems to have the BBC in its back pocket. Think about the next time the royal correspondent Jonny Dymond comes on air, or for old time’s sake if long-time palace reporter Nicholas Witchell, pops up.

Is there a balancing republican correspondent? Are you mad? Impartiality does not stretch to those kind of extremes.

The National:

Poor old Nicholas Witchell (above), loathed by the royal family and unduly disliked by supporters of Scottish independence. It’s the season of goodwill so I invite you to rethink this animus. Witchell has written a book on the Loch Ness monster so he is clearly an expert in bloated fantasies that are good for tourism, thus his expertise to comment on royalty.

Much as I would like to see a more diverse media that would discuss the merits and weaknesses of republicanism, it is a very long way off. Neither the Labour Party nor the SNP seems likely to raise a challenge to the monarchy any time soon.

Labour has a long and dishonourable relationship with unelected politics and, despite their working-class posturing, framed in the industrial past, it seems entirely comfortable with the House of Lords and with the rituals and regalia that prop up establishment Britain.

The SNP, for different reasons, have not had much to say about a Scottish republic either, sensing that a referendum on self-governance that aimed to depose the Queen as head of state would be a bitterly difficult one to win. They may be right when it comes to psephological strategy, but I’m not sure they are entirely right in the consistency of their values.

So let me leave you with some good cheer. As Christmas Day approaches you have a choice – either to watch the Queen’s Speech or avoid it. But whatever your choice rest assured it will not be followed by a balancing piece. We live in a constitutional monarchy, one that has subtly orchestrated democratic debate and restricted access to alternative views: that is the reality of our free media.

Personally, I will not be watching the Queen’s Speech. I’ve accepted an invitation to spend Christmas with Megan Markle’s dad and by mid-afternoon we plan to demolish a box of Duchy of Cornwall Bezants, sink a bottle of Crown Royal and call the in-laws a shower of Berkshire Hunts.

The final book in Stuart Cosgrove’s Soul Trilogy, ‘Harlem 69: the Future of Soul’, is published by Polygon