Readers chime in: What does Andrew's arrest mean for the royals? 👑

Last week, the Andrew formerly known as prince was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, after documents released by the US Department of Justice appeared to show him forwarding sensitive government information to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. 

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has consistently denied all wrongdoing. But the news of his arrest – the first of a member of the British royal family in more than 350 years – prompted us to use our weekly poll to ask openDemocracy readers whether this marks the end of the British Crown?

Some 69% of respondents responded yes, saying it is time to become a modern republic. But 31% felt the monarchy is a British institution that has weathered scandals before and can do so again. Here's a selection of some emails we received with your comments on the subject. 

As ever, to have your say in our weekly poll, sign up to our weekly newsletter here.

- openDemocracy

Re: Weekly Poll: Does Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's arrest mark the end of the British Crown?

It's been shocking, however not surprising, that it's taken so long for Andrew and others to be held accountable and questioned formally about their potential involvement in alleged human trafficking. How many of us 'commoners' would have gotten away with that? I wouldn't want to get rid of the royal family and I feel the younger royals do get the mood of the country, but it really needs a significant reduction and modernisation! I completely understand why Harry moved away and is focusing on his and his family's health and well-being. It's been a toxic, undercover, entitled institution (world) for many, many years. Things really need to change for the monarchy to survive. –Nikki Dodes

The monarchy represents a concentration of wealth and power, nepotism, inequality and unfairness – a privileged position held not on the grounds of effort, ability or qualification. It represents people having no choice, say or influence – 'the king is dead, long live the king' – the opposite of meritocracy. This person retains so much wealth, privilege, power and influence, all opaquely hidden, private, corrupt, growing yearly, untaxed and invisible – and when they kick the bucket, hey presto, it all goes to who? To the heir. Why? Because they're the heir. And that person then represents us: their head on the coins, their initials on the postboxes, their portrait in the council offices. They greet visiting elected heads of sensible countries, feed them at their gaff with their servants, and have a stage on which to opine about world problems and their solutions. That's it. Are we idiots or what? Who came up with this and/or allowed it to carry on? –Jomish

Will you help defend democracy?

• Keep openDemocracy free to read for everyone
• Provide our team with the support they need to work safely in a dangerous world
• Deliver the reporting that matters to you – and that reaches as many people as possible

The charitable work that royal members do is very worthwhile. It would be senseless to prevent it. As in every class, there are the good and the bad. Of paramount importance is that the good outweighs the bad. When the scales dip in the wrong direction, then it is time for serious action. The 'bad apples' need to be removed from prominent positions until they can abide by the rules of decency. Royalty consists of human beings, and we (the majority of human beings) must make it clear that certain practices are unacceptable. What is needed in the world today is right thought, right words and right action by all. –Gill

Antonio Gramsci said: "An old world is dying; a new world is being born; now is the time of monsters." Indeed, we have been living in a 'time of monsters' since Margaret Thatcher. The entire system is broken. Even our present 'government', which was elected on a 'landslide', received only 33.7% of the votes cast and has become almost dictatorial. Why do we require glamour and glitter to represent us in trade talks or head delegations? Kings and queens may look pretty. Lords and ladies are no better. We are a hierarchical society based on inherited privilege. And the system supporting this, so-called democracy, fails to represent us. Perhaps not even the 33.7%? Andrew Battenburg is merely a symptom of a sick system that needs a radical overhaul. –Dr. Paul Kamill

Certainly, we should keep the monarchy, especially now that the king has backed the rule of law and says that the law must take its course. Moreover, the monarch plays a very useful role in our democracy. The monarch is one person with whom the prime minister may have a private, confidential discussion. This can be a great help to both. And the King and senior members of the royal family do not just sit around. They all take part in ceremonial duties, from opening a school to great state occasions. Certainly, we profit from the work. –Alisoun Gardner-Medwin

MORE FROM OPENDEMOCRACY