Although the Prime Minister has all the power, the Royal Family is not by that fact politically neutral. The hope is that allegiance to a nonpolitical throne means that the power of politicians is not absolute and is the machinery of state rather than the state itself. But this is not true because the monarchy has no power to restrict politicians, and in fact ensures that they have power for which they are not accountable.

Recently, some parliamentarians (notably Denis Healey and Tristan Garel-Jones) have emphasized the importance of the Queen in national policy-making, going so far as to claim that she was a "counterbalance" who "restricted Mrs Thatcher's worst excesses" and promoted the people's views. Well, I'm sure my Mum could have done all that as well as any Queen. The best way to put forward popular views is to vote. Monarchs can't be expected to take on the role of acting on behalf of the people; for presidents, it's their job description.

Many people want an apolitical monarchy in preference to a president. There certainly seems to be no support for an executive president (which seems strange as British ideas were so important in the setting up of the political systems of France and the US). If you have a monarchy, then it is there by hereditary right, and the British public don't want to change this (according to recent polls; if you think 1 in 3 being republican is a tiny minority!). However, people are generally unhappy about the state of the monarchy, and want Charles to be passed over in the succession. They want Prince William to be the next king. They even vote for this on TV debates in their millions. So, they talk about having a monarchy, but in their actions they want to exercise their right to take a vote and dictate how it is run. In their actions they want a presidency.

Compare the recent history of the Presidency in France to the diversions supplied by the British monarchy. Compare an institution which hides power against an individual who answers to the people: The monarchy can lower nationale morale without the people being able to do something about it. The Royal Family are in danger of bankrupting their residual value as figureheads (including of the Church) because their image has been so sullied.

However, many might find a more "British" compromise appealing. Unfortunately there is a lack of ideas in this middle ground where change might really be accomplished.

So, consider a radical solution: a refreshing of the symbolic nature of monarchy, and a solution to the discontent associated with the degradation of this symbol. This solution has been used before in British history, when both political power and symbolic value were at stake in the form of the monarchy. How much easier should be a change now that only symbolic value is at stake!

Since the Royal family has been in frequent crisis from at least the Wars of the Roses (and please note that it was frequently and extremely unpopular prior to the mid nineteenth century) we have had to borrow other people's royal families. We have borrowed Scottish, Welsh, Dutch, and German families. Sometimes kidnapping them as teenagers by telling them that they were coming on a sixth form exchange visit. Why can't we borrow another one?

We could keep the institution of the monarchy, but change the occupants.

I think someone from an advanced and tolerant society would be a very positive symbol for the next millenium, so I favour establishing a new monarchy with personnel from the Swedish or the Dutch Royal Family.

This would make a vital and excellent change from the current royal family's manifestly disastrous and distasteful efforts to maintain their medieval set-up in the twentieth century. Consider the indignity of Diana who had to be examined to see if she was a virgin. And all the while, HRH The Prince of Wales was committing adultery with a married woman, with whom he broke his own marriage vows to a princess seemingly selected for her artlessness.

There are no longer any comparable Royal Families in Europe. The whole concept of Royal duty could collapse simply because the role models for the British Royals are a new leisured rich with whom they spend their time. Many blame the internal tensions of the Royal Family for divorce. Consider instead that the tension is simply due to being an anachronism. We can expect the Royals to divorce as frequently as the high-living media stars with whom they now mix in the absence of more similar nobility. (And even now, the way in which the Duchess of York is vilified sounds hollow for this reason). The arguments about the rights and the wrongs of the Royal Family might be a waste of breath: We can change the monarchy, or expect it to collapse not from outside pressures but from within.

So, let's prepare for something new.