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. I owe neither deference nor allegiance to a king who was imposed on me without my consent - or the consent of the British people The Royals play a huge role, and it isn't just London, it is Windsor, Scotland and throughout the country," Levin noted. "The British monarchy isn't just historically important, it remains so today."

The pessimists have long had the upper hand in the ongoing debate over whether to cut the umbilical cord that has linked Canada to the British Royal Family since the birth of this country. The obstacles between the start and end points have seemed too numerous or too insurmountable to even try. Everyone would understand that unless otherwise decided, this configuration would endure. The amendment must also provide that if adopted by the 10 provinces and Parliament, a constitutional conference will be held within three years with only one item on the agenda: the formula for replacing the Governor General as head of state. Thus, the text of the amendment will prohibit any other subject from being discussed at this conference. The tradition to take a different regnal name began when Queen Victoria – Elizabeth II’s great-great-grandmother – ascended the throne in 1837. Prior monarchs used their baptismal names as their regnal names. The Prince Regent, future King George IV, had prohibited Victoria’s uncle from using the royal names Charlotte, Elizabeth or Georgina when she was born. After Alexander I, her Russian Czar, she was named Alexandrina. Throughout her childhood she was called “Drina” and many people didn’t even know her “regnal name”. Elizabeth II could have been her name but she chose Victoria. 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." 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.RECOMMENDED: Here’s the full schedule for the King’s coronation Why are there anti-monarchy protests? 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. Monarchists speak with revulsion of who an elected president may be. The royal historian Robert Lacey, in a recent debate, asked in tones of horror, “President Lineker? President Street-Porter?” But, urges Graham Smith, CEO of the Republic pressure group, look around Europe at dignified presidents who understand their ceremonial duties and the political limits to their role, while acting as constitutional guarantors. Former politicians take on a presidency with as much independence as our Speakers in parliament. Look across the Irish Sea at Michael D Higgins, Mary McAleese or Mary Robinson and ponder why British voters are too wild or daft to be trusted to make equally sensible choices. Well, a lot of people believe the monarchy to be an outdated institution. Many argue that the royal family no longer has a place in our country, particularly during a cost of living crisis and rising inequality across the country. 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.

Second, in keeping with the idea of giving this amendment the greatest possible legitimacy through the popular vote, a national referendum should be held before the votes on the amendment take place in provincial legislatures and Parliament. If the public indicates it wants action, elected officials would, of course, be politically bound to accept their voters’ verdict.If there is one criticism I would make of Abolish the Monarchy, it is that it is at times too tame, too moderate. This is part of Republic’s strategy to widen its appeal, but it does a disservice to the genuine radicalism at the heart of the republican position. This is why Abolish the Monarchy does not quite fit into the great British pamphleteering tradition epitomised by Thomas Paine.

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. 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. 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. How Meghan and Harry get more flak is difficult to comprehend. Yet, I find how they’ve treated their respective families in public incredibly selfish and unkind.

One must therefore devise a road map that navigates each of these obstacles in a predictable and transparent way. Above all, the entire process must be based on the greatest possible legitimacy: the popular vote. Where do Canadians stand?

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. This is of course not a judgment of the individual human Queen Elizabeth II, who none of us other than a very limited circle of people have any potential to understand or to know." But over the years I have seen many sensible people of leftish persuasion scuttle off to the palace for a garden party or to accept a gong. They do it not for themselves, but for their mums. Wear a fascinator to get feudal, dears. (Although all men need is a suit.) Would an elected head of state be better? Yes, actually Russell Brand is known for speaking about his views. The Comedian spoke to thousands of demonstrators gathered in Parliament Square to protest against austerity and spending cuts in London, June 20, 2015. Mary Turner/Getty Also discussed on social media is what the death of Queen Elizabeth II means for the future of the Commonwealth of Nations, the political association of 56 states. Some on social media have suggested the organization should also be axed – while others have called for keeping the monarchy in place as a way to maintain the Commonwealth.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. 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 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.