This only adds urgency to the need for wider political reform, beyond the limited tinkering proposed by proponents of electoral reform or an elected upper house.

The British Monarchy appears so invincible and unassailable that it’s defenders are getting complacent. And Harry and Meghan continue to show that monarchy isn't just bad for Britain, it's bad for the royals too. Beyond that, two other men will continue to remind people - for very different reasons - what's wrong with the royals. Graham Smith makes very clear the type of British presidency he wants is one that is strictly defined in terms of powers and responsibilities, not a massive Executive/Imperial presidency like in France or the USA, never mind Russia.I've never found Graham Smith particularly likeable, but I decided to neatly set aside my personal feelings and political convictions to read his much hyped release. The result is a very timely work, though it is doubtful how relevant this book will remain outside of this year, let alone the coming decades. My only wish is that the author will produce a cheat sheet of all the stats and arguments summarised and ready to either draw on - when doing demonstrations or in discussions on the streets - or, better still, commit to memory. 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. Apparently he is guardian of our constitution - but we're also told he wouldn't dream of interfering in politics.

As some of the largest land and business owners in the country, those interests are considerable so consequently is their interests in our lawmaking process. The operations of government under the monarchy are supposedly no less offensive to public morals than the transgressions of individual kings and queens. When The Enchanted Glass: Britain and its Monarchy was published 35 years ago and until very recently, the British monarchy seemed pretty unassailable. The Crown, a source of real power, protected from serious scrutiny by the monarchy, a family and institution steeped in mythology and itself guarded by deference, is key to the failures of Britain's constitution.

With accurate statistics, primary source material and interviews where he and his team have faced up to the relevant authorities and gleaned the truth out of them, Smith demonstrates how all the classic excuses for keeping the monarchy are not just mistaken - they're plain wrong. It has been long enough that monarchists and the democracy-averse refuse to engage with polemics that challenge their beliefs in hereditary rule and concentration of power in an secretive, corrupt, inbred and embarrassing bloodline. It helped me to properly understand the tax position of the Duchy of Cornwall and help me debate with others on this matter.

He says that the attitudes of the royal family to race are contrary to the nation’s sense of fairness and equity. Constitutional reformers who demand an elected upper house, or electoral reform, are often missing one of the main fault lines in our political system: founded on monarchy, we are still governed using the outdated toolkit of a monarchy, regardless of whether or not it is the King himself who wields power. There is no engagement with the writings of the German historian Ernst Kantorowicz, who exposed the sophistication of monarchical conceptions of the state. He also ignores the many benefits and advantages that the monarchy brings to the UK, such as its role in promoting national unity, cultural heritage, tourism and diplomacy. But in most cases too, they accused him of offering no alternative - again showing they hadn't read the book - but also showing his outline for the future isn't a weakness at all.Erudite Graham Smith shows what fools our rotten constitution makes of us, with a monarch as emblem of a country beset by nepotism, backhanders, chumocracy and inherited privilege.

But it isn't that any of them did anything bad, per se - although Smith points out that at times they definitely did - it is that there is no moral, economic, political or even historical reason why we need to keep this corrupt institution in place.

Charles, even before Diana's death, was clearly a selfish fool and his father was already infamous for his foul faux pas. This is a book that is bound to upset and anger monarchists, but at the same time, I think there are valid republican criticisms of it to be made.