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. Anti-monarchist campaign group Republic said in a press release issued on September 8: "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 loss of a mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother." George Aylett, 26, from Leeds, UK Newsweek 'Instead Of Giving King Charles III The Throne, It Should Have Been Democratic' In other words, King Charles I saw the end of the monarchy and the creation of the decade-long Commonwealth under Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell, until the restoration under King Charles II. While the UK won't likely face another civil war, instead it could be social media that ignites the flames that could see this Charles as the final monarch. 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."

I think we will become a republic, but when this will happen, I'm not sure. Undoubtedly it will be a long and painful process. I think when current baby boomers and Gen X generations pass, those outdated ideas of allegiance to the monarchy will too, and it will bring more fresh perspectives willing to challenge the notion of 'divine right to rule' and the monarchy's sordid history.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. 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. This question alone exposes us to getting negative answers from one or two provinces. It is obviously politically impossible to use the Canadian average to impose the decision because that would give fiercely anti-monarchist Quebec far too strong a voice, which would irrevocably pollute the whole referendum debate.

Kennedy stated that states don’t keep membership unless they have some benefits. It will continue to exist for as long as there is interest. Elizabeth II might have been its most prominent supporter but it doesn’t affect its institutional purpose. 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? Aware of supporters electing to self-censor and hearing reports of others admitting they are too petrified to air their views for fear of being cancelled, the main republican campaign group is actively pushing calls to abolish the monarchy.I find it bizarre that some people from the colonized commonwealth countries do not want to become a republic and like the queen. A lot of places across the Commonwealth suffered a great deal, even in the last century and even during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. In countries like Canada or Australia, indigenous children continued to be stolen and forced to go through 'residential school' systems until the 1990s. This centralisation of power, and the powerlessness of our head of state in the face of it, is one of Smith’s favourite themes. Without an elected head of state and a written constitution, we are left at the mercy of parliamentary sovereignty—which in practice means the supremacy of the government. There is almost nothing stopping the Prime Minister of the day from legislating for whatever they wish, so long as they have an unassailable parliamentary majority. And this is not even to mention the sweeping powers, not subject to any sort of democratic process, afforded to the Prime Minister by the royal prerogative and the Privy Council. 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 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. People blur the line between her as a person who did a lot of amazing things and her as a queen, and that’s where they get defensive,” she said.

I feel like, since The Queen's death, we have entered a place in which I think people in the UK and across the Commonwealth feel a lot more comfortable having conversations about the relevancy and the purpose and the current status of the monarchy, in their lives and the society that they live in,” he tells me. I ask him if he thinks that Meghan and Harry have acted as a catalyst for this?

The king would give up Buckingham Palace — but he wouldn't have to give up all of his royal residences 

In other words: King Charles I witnessed the fall of monarchy, and created the 10 year-long Commonwealth, under Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell. This Commonwealth was then restored under King Charles II. The UK will not likely be in another civil war. However, social media could ignite the fires and make Charles the last monarch. Additionally, recent figures suggest there is less public support for the monarchy than in previous years, particularly among young people. Just under 40% ofUK citizens between the ages of 18 and 24 would prefer an elected head of state rather than a monarch, according to an April 2023 YouGov poll of 4,592 adults for the BBC's "Panorama." But the unseriousness goes beyond superficialities. Smith believes that monarchy’s failings are so self-evident that it is unnecessary to treat it seriously as a system of government. One could be forgiven, after reading this book, for thinking that no greater intellects than Alan Titchmarsh and Stephen Fry have turned their minds to the subject. There is no reference to Thomas Hobbes or Edmund Burke, let alone other, less famous, theorists of monarchy. There is no engagement with the writings of the German historian Ernst Kantorowicz, who exposed the sophistication of monarchical conceptions of the state. To this day, many of these ideas underlie the operations of the British monarchy – too often called ‘constitutional’, notwithstanding the absence of anything resembling a constitution. The saturation point for many, he envisaged, would be the middle of this week and although he anticipated overt republican and anti-monarchy sentiment to decline around the Queen’s funeral, he expected a resurgence soon after, when many predict the UK will enter a different era of debate over the future of its royal family.

Dr. Dane Kennedy is an Elmer Louis Kayser Professor Emeritus in History and International Affairs at George Washington University. “You get the same type of response that you receive about gun control after a mass shooting,” Kennedy said. Canadians may be divided on whether to cast off the royal moorings, but they have a clear idea of the method to use to decide the issue: a national referendum. Last September, 58 per cent of respondents told IPSOS they wanted Justin Trudeau to organize such a consultation. Obviously, the wish is stronger in Quebec (73 per cent), but one finds a majority everywhere except in the Prairies (where the figure is between 45 and 49 per cent.)This idea of Britain’s parliamentary democracy as the blueprint the world has taken to its heart, of Britain as one of the oldest, most stable democracies in the world, is founded on a bargain that has suited the interests of both the royals and the political classes alike. The reality is somewhat different: a parliament that has stumbled from one reform to the next, begrudgingly moving on the issue of suffrage while slowly centralizing power in the hands of the House of Commons, and then concentrating power further into Downing Street. Simply put, who has power and why in Britain, is a matter of historical contingency. We could do a lot better.’