Most people no longer see the monarchy as mystical, but as an institution that needs to be justified.Detraditionalisation does not mean the end of tradition. On the contrary, there are very strong grounds for maintaining historical continuities. We live in a society obsessed with the present, whose dominant culture is transient and whose collective memory seems to grow ever shorter. Perhaps more than ever we need connections to our past to root our sense of identity, to provide stability amid rapid social change. But traditions now must be rationally chosen and defended.And so it will have to be with the monarchy. The events of last week have disguised this because the Queen Mother was the last member of the Royal Family for whom any kind of traditionalist defence was plausible But it is difficult to see this happening again.

When the Queen dies, and the succession is at issue, a defence of the monarchy simply in terms of its continuing mystical existence will patently not wash. The monarchy will have to stand up for itself in full daylight.And when this happens, "modernisation" will be inescapable. But what does this mean? Contrary to media myth, it's not about bicycles It's about the constitution. The monarchy is an amalgam of two different things, and modernisation will involve separating them out On the one hand there is the family, the hereditary element On the other there is the job, the constitutional element It is the latter that holds the key to modernisation. Put simply, we have to define the job of head of state of the United Kingdom.Such a process has occurred in the other European countries that have retained constitutional monarchies The role of head of state has been limited and codified.

At present, the British monarch's role combines the ceremonial functions common in other democracies with a set of extremely unusual political powers and duties. The monarch dissolves Parliament, appoints and dismisses the Prime Minister, assents to legislation, signs treaties, declares war and appoints judges. In normal circumstances most of these powers are exercised under royal prerogative by the Prime Minister, but this is in itself an extraordinary constitutional structure. The British Prime Minister alone, acting under royal prerogative, can declare war without even a debate in Parliament (and has done so in recent years). When Mrs Thatcher banned trade unions at GCHQ, it was under prerogative powers.

Parliament itself technically exists only by virtue of the exercise of the royal prerogative. And so on.It is this monarchical basis to the British constitution that is the core issue for modernisation. The modern role of head of state needs to be separated from the historical powers of the monarch. In doing this the British constitution can be properly democratised. A written constitution, guaranteeing basic rights and freedoms, would make the British people citizens, not subjects.