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."

The monarchy has been abolished once before, under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell. In 1649, King Charles I was tried for high treason, convicted, and executed. This marked the end of the English Civil War, which then resulted in parliament overthrowing the monarchy and initiating a period of an English republic, known as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. After 11 years, in 1660, a limited monarchy was reinstated, but moderated by an independent parliament. 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.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. I s the Metropolitan Police a republican fifth column? Since it hauled the author of this book off to the cells hours before Charles III’s coronation, in full sight of the world’s media, the campaign group he heads, Republic, has almost doubled its membership. When the police clapped him in handcuffs, Graham Smith was preparing to perform that most fearful of treasons: shuffle around Trafalgar Square waving a placard bearing the words ‘Not my king’. Smith’s sixteen hours in police custody has generated more publicity for his organisation than the eighteen years he’s toiled away campaigning to replace the monarch with an elected head of state. However, groups representing the views of Britain’s republicans say that now is not the time to be cowed into suppressing their beliefs.

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. 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." 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. Only saddos like me, the sort of people who tell small children Santa isn’t real, moan about the monarchy as well as the Lords now. (Admittedly, the Lords often has better discussions than anything that goes on in the Commons – but then so do most sixth forms.) We all know how the argument goes: you don’t like hereditary privilege? Well, do you think an elected head of state would be better?Moreover, since the Meech Lake Accord was negotiated behind closed doors in 1990, several provinces have passed legislation requiring provincial referenda to ratify significant changes to the Constitution. In addition, since the 1995 Quebec referendum, each region of the country – Quebec, Ontario, the Atlantic provinces and the Western provinces – has been given by Parliament a veto over any change to the Constitution. 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. 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 The best and most recent data come from an Angus Reid Institute poll released in April. Majorities everywhere oppose “recognizing Charles as King of Canada,” ranging from 53 per cent opposed in Ontario to 59 per cent or more opposed everywhere else. As for swearing an oath to King Charles “at some official ceremonies,” the lowest number is 57 per cent against.