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. Meanwhile, King Charles III, the supposed defender of our constitution and our liberties, has been silent throughout it all. Is not the monarch, symbolically at least, supposed to be the ultimate guarantor of our freedom? You could also argue that the monarchy was maintained because of Queen Elizabeth II. The desire to abolish it now could only grow with her death. But, it was not immediately thought about what might happen if the monarchy were abolished.

Despite this increase in abolitionist attitude, a new YouGov poll that took place just after the queen's death saw a big spike in public affection for King Charles III.

'No Human Deserves More Privilege Because Of The Family They Were Born Into'

This jubilee would make a cheerful ending to all the royal folderol. What better time to return the sovereignty promised in Brexit to the people to whom it belongs. Elizabeth the Last should get a historic send-off, her golden coach and crown retired and her six palaces opened as fine museums. (No, tourism is no excuse for monarchy: Versailles gets many more visitors, and so does Legoland down the road from Windsor Castle). 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.

For a long time, it was possible to argue that the monarchy should be retained because abolition would involve major constitutional upheaval. But leaving the EU has already opened the door to “root and branch” reform of how Britain governs itself. Even Scottish independence and Irish unification are now realistic prospects—foreshadowing, perhaps, the breakup of the British state. In this context, abolishing the monarchy alongside other constitutional reforms can be seen to make a great deal of sense, especially if the UK is to fragment into two or more entities.

The idea that the monarchy can withstand this death, is potentially absurd. It's going to take a lot of engineering and a lot of consideration. See also: The Freethinker and early republicanism: the letter by a ‘librarian from Colchester’ that led to the formation of Republic Instead, I propose a second “I’m getting on board” question that mimics an existing constitutional amendment method – the 7/50 formula. It would go like this: If a majority of Canadians answer yes to the previous question in seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the country’s population, do you wish the legislature of your province to adopt the proposed constitutional amendment to provide Canada with a Canadian head of state? Yes/No. The existence of the royal bond is enshrined in the Constitution, so that must be changed. To do this, a constitutional amendment must be approved in each of the 10 provinces and by both the House of Commons and the Senate. To make matters worse, modern history tells us that if anyone tries to amend the Constitution for one reason, all of the many players will scramble to add their own proposals in other areas, leading inevitably to failure. Charles II was actually a unifier during the restoration," said Levin. "It is a fine name and it could provide a sense of continuity, but he has to be king for everyone. What was impressive about his mother, Queen Elizabeth II was that she was a monarch who people could relate to."