We need to have a very awkward conversation about the monarchy

Timing can sometimes account for a lot. In the aftermath of the Queen’s death, the group Republic, which wants to abolish the monarchy, said: “We are saddened to hear the news of the Queen’s death and we wish to express our condolences to the royal family.”

It added: “There will be plenty of time to debate the monarchy’s future. For now, we must respect the family’s personal loss and allow them and others to mourn.”

The group was correct to be quiet and respectful in the aftermath of the death of someone who reigned for 70 years. The news was a deep jolt to the country. Many of us have felt either personal – or a more general – unsettling sadness.

Her death marks the end of an era, as well as the passage of time – and ultimately underscores that no thing, and no person, lasts forever.

Yet amid the days of pomp and pageantry of a state funeral, it is essential we find time to talk about the very future of the monarchy itself: whether Britain wants one, and whether it is fair to send Charles – now King Charles III – on such a path.

The time for such a conversation is right now.

Over the weekend, it emerged that people had been arrested – one in Scotland and one in Oxfordshire for holding up signs calling for an end to the monarchy.

Symon Hill, 45, told The Independent he called out, “who elected him?” when Charles III was officially proclaimed King.

Some will say they want to keep the monarchy and insist it provides a largely apolitical, national glue. Others might be open to discuss the issue of an elected head of state, but feel it not the right time, or is somehow disrespectful. But Britain can do several things at once.

It can pay tribute to someone who dedicated their life to the nation, while also holding a conversation as to whether it wants her replaced by her 73-year-old son, simply by dint of being from the same family.

Indeed, the death of Elizabeth, has provided a rare freedom for us to hold such a conversation – and to question the wisdom of simply carrying on as before, with Charles in her place. The arguments in favour of scrapping the monarchy are many.

Republic argues that it wants to see the monarchy abolished and the Queen replaced with an elected, democratic head of state. It has condemned police action against anti-monarchy protesters over the last few days, and announced upcoming protests. Spokesperson Graham Smith said: “We will be writing to police forces around the country, raising these concerns. We intend to organise protests at the coronation and will expect those protests to be allowed to go ahead peacefully.”

Polls show about 25 per cent of Britons would favour an elected head of state, with 61 per cent who prefer an unelected monarchy. Among those aged 18–24 age group, a plurality of 41 per cent are supportive of getting rid of the monarchy, with 31 per cent in favour of keeping it.

It is critical to talk about this now because Britain is experiencing a rare moment of national introspection, perhaps one similar to the outpouring of emotion and questions following the death of Diana, when people lined up in tears to leave flowers outside Kensington Palace.

For a small number of people still alive, it may echo the moment when the Queen was crowned in 1953, following the death of her father, George VI, the year before.

Back then, the young 25-year-old looked like a breath of fresh air, someone who appeared ready to fire some life into the institution. Charles looked anything but that when he appeared to address the nation for the first time as King, vowing to serve with “loyalty, respect and love”.

“As the Queen herself did with such unswerving devotion, I too now solemnly pledge myself, throughout the remaining time God grants me, to uphold the constitutional principles at the heart of our nation,” he added. Yet we all know where this dedication to the institution of monarchy has got us.

Many of those praising the Queen for her years of service make reference to the point that she never complained – and did so selflessly. Inherent in that respect is that it was a job very few would wish to do. Why now inflict it on Charles or William?

We also know of the outdated, tradition-bound culture of the palace, that 40 years ago stopped Charles from marrying the woman he loved – Camilla – because she was deemed by the palace not to be appropriate.

It may be the case that we have collective amnesia, but have we forgotten what lead to Charles’s marriage to Diana – a relationship that ultimately ended in tragedy, with accusations of mental cruelty levelled at the palace by her family?

They were in essence the same things that were voiced by Harry and Meghan when they appeared with Oprah Winfrey, to explain why they wanted to find a life outside the palace.

The media certainly has a role to play in seemingly forgetting this very recent history, or failing to mention other various scandals, such as Prince Andrew’s alleged sexual assault of a minor – something he denied but which the Queen helped settle out of court. But this is not about the individuals. We may think well of Charles and can still have admired Queen Elizabeth. The point is that the institution is anti-democratic, outdated and has surely served its purpose.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

If those in favour of keeping a monarchy are so certain of their case, then let’s put it to the vote. At least then, the impossible-to-prove argument that “a majority of the population supports them” would have factual basis. Such a vote would strengthen the monarchy. Such conversations are already being held in some of the 14 nations where the Queen was also the head of state. In Australia, Green member of parliament Adam Bandt reopened a long debate by calling on the country to cut its formal ties with the UK.

At least six Caribbean countries, among them Antigua and Barbuda, Jamaica and Belize, have suggested they wish to remove the British monarch as head of state. If they are having such conversations, we should be holding our own. Britons are going to have lots to think about in the coming days, amid the 10-day period of mourning. It is a deeply worrying sign that people are arrested for holding up signs. So much for our love of free speech.

The conversation should not be pushed aside, or swept to the margins. We should be talking about it openly: whether we support a monarchy, or wish to demand a fairer, more democratic way of choosing our head of state. It is in everyone’s interest that we talk about it now.