The National:

HARRY and Megan’s recent allegations about racism in the royal family have reignited debate on the future of the monarchy.

There is a predictable banality to this debate. It is almost a choreographed routine. The republican opens with "Monarchy is inherently classist and entrenches class divisions". The monarchist counters with "Ah, but look how much they do for charity; where would be without Honorary Royal Patrons?"

From there it inevitably degenerates into tediously trying to off-set the costs of the civil list against tax receipts from the tourist trade – as if fundamental constitutional questions could be settled by means of a spreadsheet.

The idea that the monarchy is in crisis is overblown, never doubt the longevity of a rich institution bent on self-preservation. Nevertheless, if we are going to have a debate about the future of the monarchy – and we probably should, especially in the context of wider constitutional change – then we should at least conduct it on sensible grounds. In that spirit, I would like to offer five reflections.

The National:

Firstly, heads of state are more than mere ornaments. The Westminster Model's separation of the "efficient" and the "dignified" elements, in the terms made famous by the Victorian commentator Walter Bagehot, remains a potent mechanism of democratic governance in many countries. It is useful to have someone to cut ribbons, greet diplomats, and attend garden parties, while the Government runs the country. It is also helpful for the person in charge of making difficult and sometimes unpopular policy decisions – who is inevitably partisan – not to have to double as the embodiment of national unity public authority. The person filling that ceremonial office need not be hereditary, of course, but they do need to be independent, non-partisan, and broadly respected.

Secondly, there is nothing intrinsically undemocratic about choosing to fill that figurehead role by hereditary succession. Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands are monarchies, but no one doubts their democratic credentials – they all routinely crowd the top spots in international democracy rankings. A democratic monarchy is one sustained by genuine public support, where the royals ultimately owe their positions to public choice, not to any pretended divine right.

It must also be so constrained by constitutional rules that the monarch acts only in accordance with ministerial advice, as a nominal figurehead and not as a policy-maker. In those narrowly defined circumstances where the monarch may be required to exercise a "reserve power" on their own authority, they should do so only in accordance with clear constitutional rules that are themselves democratically legitimate.

READ MORE: Mike Small: Does Harry and Meghan's Oprah interview mark the end of the monarchy?

Thirdly, we should remember that people are governed by symbols, not by reason alone. The Crown can be a potent symbol of authority, tradition, continuity and unity; it can embody values of duty, public service and moderation. Paradoxical though it might be, having such an anchor-point can strengthen democracy. The values might seem old fashioned, but they have stood the test of time, and in times of strain and flux, adhering to those values may be more important than ever.

Fourthly, the monarchy is not incompatible with the politics of the economic left. Indeed, it might even strengthen social and economic justice. Loyalty to the Crown can inspire an inclusive sense of mutual responsibility, transcending class, ethnic or regional differences. Strange as it might seem, an institution rooted in privilege may provide the reassurance and continuity, at a symbolic level, that allows redistributive policies and social spending on a practical level. It worked for Clement Atlee.

Fifthly, and most fundamentally, the monarchy is not incompatible with a republic. A monarchical republic, or "crowned republic", may seem oxymoronic. Yet it need not be. There is a long tradition of recognizing that parliamentary monarchies are republics in all but name. As Sir Ivor Jennings put it, the difference between a monarchy and a republic is "a gesture, like wearing a dinner jacket".

I long for a republic. It is long overdue. A true republic is a system of "public government", where the state is a public entity, belonging to the public, in which public office is a public trust to be used for public ends, and where citizens in public life must be faithful stewards of the public good, for which they are responsible to the public.

READ MORE: Harry and Meghan interview: How British newspapers responded to racism accusations

That need not be incompatible with a reformed, constitutionally circumscribed monarchy. The antithesis of republic is not monarchy, it is corruption. The enemy of republican values is not an overdressed old lady in a golden coach, it is the unaccountability of ministers syphoning off billions of taxpayers’ money into companies with close personal ties to the Conservative Party. We should aim our anger at the right targets. 

That all depends, of course, on the royal family behaving themselves. In a crowned republic royalty should not be immune from criticism or responsibility. They have to maintain the highest standards of public service, honour and integrity in their own conduct. For the most part, the Queen is seen as having upheld her part of the great social contract between Crown and people. Whether her heirs and successors will do likewise, or whether the republic will have to uncrown itself, remains to be seen.