I was born in a country whose values include free speech, tolerance, and respect for others’ views. Or so I thought. I thought our sophisticated media – bombarding us daily with images of talking dogs, celebs wearing outrageous clothes, alongside stories from around the world of political intrigue, horror and war – could allow a joke, and perhaps a debate, about one of our oldest institutions. I was mistaken.

Eight months ago I made some cracks about members of the royal family. This opened the floodgates. I was subjected to a media onslaught, and received hundreds of anonymous death threats on social media, and numerous emails and letters. I kept my head down for a while, and wrote a report on inequality in Kensington and Chelsea. The launch of this was similarly drowned out by a clearly orchestrated negative media campaign.

Want to avoid the royal wedding? Here's an alternative TV guide Read more

I have nothing at all against two rich, beautiful, young people, who are clearly very much in love, getting married. I wish them well. But I can see no justification whatever for taxpayers to fund any part of their wedding. You have to wonder if the couple truly wanted to be paraded around the streets in an open-topped carriage, at a cost to the taxpayer of £30m. One hair out of place, one unfortunate grimace or misplaced wave, will be pounced on by our voracious media.

You have to wonder if they felt pressurised to do this, when their earlier preference seemed to be to have a private family wedding. Weddings often bring family issues into the open; the intrusion of the media around the difficult situation that has arisen around the bride’s father must be very painful. Can’t we leave them alone?

I remember Diana, Princess of Wales, taking her young sons out at night, to visit rough sleepers. She wanted them to understand the flip side of their privilege. This week we have heard stories of Windsor’s streets being cleared of the homeless, while keen monarchists sleep out in their place to reserve a good viewing point for the royal parade. How far we have travelled away from the compassion shown by Diana.

When I am interviewed on this subject, many journalists will put down their pen, switch off the recorder or camera, and tell me they agree with me. They may say for example that they don’t see the point of the monarchy in the modern world; it is anti-democratic; it is non-constitutional; it is anti-egalitarian; why do we have to support them with our taxes? Then they walk away and write coruscating copy attacking the very views which they themselves share, because that is expected of them. This is why so many people in the public eye are afraid to speak out. They fear the furore that can follow.

The royal wedding fulfils a human need: that’s why so many of us are celebrating | Afua Hirsch Read more

They are also told they are in a minority. But YouGov recently carried out a survey on the degree of interest in the wedding. The result was an extraordinary 66% saying they were not interested. Windsor may well be packed, but in the rest of the country most will be having a normal day.

We should be free to have a public debate on the future of the monarchy, without receiving death threats. So I’m calling on the silent republicans to be bold and speak out. I want to discuss the constitution, parliamentary sovereignty, royal prerogatives, the power of veto, backdoor lobbying, preferential tax arrangements and the cost to the taxpayer. I am asking for a debate, not a revolution. Let us all be heard.

• Emma Dent Coad is Labour MP for Kensington