Some of our greatest poets never got the Laureateship. Either they didn't manage to outlive the previous Laureate, they were seen as being too radical or their greatness wasn't recognised in the appropriate places.

Poets like Byron and Shelley managed to produce some of Britain's greatest works without any kind of official endorsement. Many of the names on the list of Laureates, meanwhile, are obscure - outside of academia, their work hasn't survived in the public consciousness. Perhaps politicians and royalty aren't the best judge of true greatness.

When you have an obligation to write, it's more difficult to get inspired. Furthermore, the Laureate is expected to write about some fairly dull or objectionable events, like the weddings of minor royals. In the circumstances its easy to see why some of them get writer's block.

Andrew Motion, the last Laureate, said the position was terrible for his writing.

Can poets really write truthfully if they're being paid to write for the state? One could argue that accepting the Laureateship is an agreement to compromise one's artistic integrity.

The list of previous Laureates shows a lot of 'safe' choices, and no doubt many of the obvious hell-raisers were filtered out. Still, even the most diplomatic of poets might one day be confronted with a situation s/he didn't agree with, and then what?