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." 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. One wrote that Charles III was “really unusual” and that he chose the title. It is ironic, and/or fitting, since Charles II, like Charles I and a philanderer, is like Charles II. 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.” I have always felt this way about the monarchy because I have been a republican since I started to engage with politics less than a decade ago, for the aforementioned reasons.

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. Anyone who has an understanding of British history will know that his two named predecessors weren't the most successful or beloved," said Kennedy. "One can question whether it was the most appropriate name, but to most of the British public it probably doesn't matter." 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. The obvious problem with the moralistic approach is that any society, let alone one of sixty-five million people, will harbour a vast diversity of values, as is borne out by recent polls of public attitudes to the monarchy itself. Perhaps unwittingly, Smith concedes as much. He says that the attitudes of the royal family to race are contrary to the nation’s sense of fairness and equity. At the same time, however, he refers to the outpouring of public support for the courtier Lady Susan Hussey when she was accused of racism. Social media makes it harder than ever to censor people's experiences, and as this develops, more and more voices will be heard. To become a republic we not only require an uprising from the people, but dissent from public figures and people in positions of power.Which takes us to the ‘how we will’ part of abolishing the monarchy. It will be achieved, says Smith, by forcing the public to come to its senses about the chasm between its own values and those of the crown, perhaps by giving everyone a copy of this book. Eventually, the government will be unable to ignore public clamour for a referendum on the monarchy’s continuation. Then, the crown will simply be voted out of existence. Smith is hazy on the itinerary, but that doesn’t stop him looking forward to a time when the ‘champions of our most cherished shared values’ appear in place of the king on stamps, and the likes of Carol Ann Duffy are put to work writing a republican constitution. If you were hoping that the fall of the Windsors would at least mean no more tampon metaphors, think again. For People Who Devour Books While the overall results showed support for the monarchy, with 58% of all people polled preferringthe institution to an elected head of state, the support among Gen Z remained significantly lower, with just 32% of people aged between 18 and 24 saying they support the monarchy, according to YouGov. British comedian, actor, and writer Russell Brand has been critical of the monarchy in the past, and in a 14-minute video posted to his YouTube channel on September 9, he described the queen as: "A constant presence, in this constancy we find a certain stability. But if we examine it, it's also a symbol of our inability to bring about real change.

Indeed many question why we are even having a coronation, given that most other European countries have long since abolished them, the last one in Spain was in 1555 and Denmark, Sweden and Norway have all deemed them archaic and unnecessary since 1906.) 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. Their official statement goes on to say: "As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties, The Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognizes success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service."See also: The Freethinker and early republicanism: the letter by a ‘librarian from Colchester’ that led to the formation of Republic 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. If the outpour of grief—or public polling—in the aftermath of Queen Elizabeth II’s death is anything to go by, it is clear that Britain is still largely a nation of royalists. But as anti-monarchy sentiment attracts more attention, and as some protesters even get arrested for voicing such views, it’s worth revisiting what role the monarchy plays in Britain’s constitutional system and just how complicated it would be to abolish the institution. Unwilling to make the case for republicanism on its own merits, Smith builds his argument on the apparent shortcomings of monarchy itself. Both in principle and in practice, he states repeatedly, monarchy contravenes the ‘values’ of the British people: it is undemocratic, expensive and impractical; it enthrones privilege, nepotism and inequality. He offers up a familiar list of royal peccadilloes – King Charles’s petulance, Prince Andrew’s promiscuity, Prince William’s indolence – and slays sacred cows along the way: Queen Elizabeth II was a tax evader; her mother was a racist; their Tudor and Stuart precursors were slave traders. Would Britain be soulless? Would it be (to caricature the monarchist position) just another boring country? The answer to both questions is no. We would still have our history and our culture, and we would have finally fulfilled the promise of our long and honourable democratic tradition.