It's important to recognize that although there are people and organizations that want to see an end to the monarchy, the majority of people are in no way celebrating the death of the Queen. Also, despite this growing anger about the institution, I am fond of King Charles, I think he’s done a great job since his mother died in September and (controversially) I am also a fan of Camilla, who I believe has been put through the wringer over the years. Yes, they live in palaces and have unbridled privilege, power and wealth, but they also do not have the basic human right of freedom. And whatsmore, unlike celebrities, it is not their choice to lead these lives, it’s their birthright. Certainly, Smith is right that demanding a British Republic is not to advocate a replay of the French Revolution, and that we already have most of the pieces in place to create a democratic parliamentary republic. But there is something revolutionary about the spirit of republicanism. As he points out, republicanism is essentially the demand for a true liberal democracy: ‘[republicanism is about] more than replacing one head of state with another—it’s about rebalancing power between government, Parliament, and people. … The challenge is to take what we have and make it democratic, top to bottom.’ Republicans should not be so coy about the radicalism of this project. I think the monarchy should be abolished because the whole idea of hereditary monarchy is an outdated anachronism that is not fit for the 21 st century. The whole premise of the Monarchy is that bloodline is more important than the democratic will of the people, I believe that instead of giving Charles the 'god-given right' to become Britain's head of state that, instead, the people should decide who the Head of State should be through a democratic process. People in Britain are 'subjects' rather than citizens and the country will never be truly egalitarian if this dated institution continues to exist.

And this brings me to perhaps the most affecting reason I have abandoned my affection for the monarchy: the sheer cruelty of it to those unfortunate enough to have been born into it. Kennedy said, “My answer is that it’s a legitimate moment to ask the future monarchy.”“Republican/anti-royalist sentiments have existed for a very long time, but they wax and wane. These sentiments are now waxing slightly more. Charles III, his mother Queen Elizabeth II wasn’t as warm and fuzzy as he was. To make things more interesting, within the Prairies and Atlantic provinces, premiers have made a commitment to exercise that veto if any single province in the region opposes the change. On top of all that, the Australian experience teaches us that even if a majority of citizens want to break with the monarchy, they do not all agree on what to replace it with, which can lead to a default victory for the status quo. No president would be perfect, but they would be accountable, and they would represent us in a way no monarch ever could. Personally, I would prefer a head of state who could effectively enforce a written constitution and bravely lead the way in defending liberal values. Think of Václav Havel and Mary Robinson, two presidents who proudly supported Salman Rushdie in the 1990s while our own head of state, the great champion of our vaunted liberties, was silent. Our monarchs seem to have spent more time secretly lobbying for tax exemptions than standing up for liberty.More surprising still, given that he leads a group called Republic, Smith appears to have little familiarity with the 2,500-year-old tradition of republican thought. Where are Plato, Machiavelli and Rousseau? Where are the Levellers, the Radical Whigs and the Founding Fathers? Thomas Paine does get a mention, though one is left with the suspicion that Smith’s acquaintance with him comes via The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations rather than Rights of Man, since he is invoked merely to make the point that the appearance of something being correct doesn’t make it so.

Charles III" does seem like a bad choice, in part because as some on social media have pointed out Charles I of England was defeated by the Parliamentarian Forces in the English Civil War, and was later executed. His son Charles II of England was restored to the throne, but is more commonly remembered for his rampant womanizing, having fathered at least a dozen illegitimate children; while there is also the Jacobite connection to the "Young Pretender" Charles Edward Stuart, who had claimed the title "Charles III."

21. Meet me at Boxpark Westminster, 9pm x

The only way the monarchy could actually be abolished is through an act of parliament, which would probably re quire a public referendum. The legislation would also have to be signed by the sovereign. Greece and Bulgaria are both examples of where this has happened. Of course, the other (extremely unlikely) option would be an all-out revolution. But what if we had both? What if we also had a written constitution, a fully democratic parliament, and an elected head of state—that is, what if we had a secular democratic parliamentary republic? See also: The Freethinker and early republicanism: the letter by a ‘librarian from Colchester’ that led to the formation of Republic

Smith believes admiration for the Queen has largely repressed republicanism, with the issue likely to be imbued with renewed energy. “The Queen was the monarchy for most people and has been all our lives. Charles will not inherit that level of deference and respect, and this really does change the whole dynamic,” he said. Also, if you hate the royal family so much, why keep your titles? But there’s no escaping the fact that James Holt has got a valid point. As coverage of the Queen’s death continues to dominate broadcast schedules, Smith anticipated ambivalence would become the overriding response for millions during the days ahead. “There is an appetite for a lot of this, but there will be a point where people feel it’s going too far or going on for too long. There’s going be a lot of people switching over to Netflix and other streaming channels.” It could be argued too that the monarchy continued because of Queen Elizabeth II, and that sentiment to abolish it could grow louder now with her passing. However, what wasn't as immediately considered is what could be lost if the monarchy is abolished.I grew up and became politicised, thought about democracy, and everything changed. I assumed everyone else would think the way I did. Surely anyone with firing synapses would feel that no advanced society could be ruled by people of no discernible talent, intelligence or life experience? The idea that an accident of birth determines the head of state and church – and the public then has to fund this genetic lottery? Madness.