I have always felt this way about the monarchy. Even as a little kid I couldn't quite get what's the purpose of having an institution that seems so archaic and only furthers the divide between the ultra-rich, the ultra-privileged and us, the 'commoners.' Or rather the 'subjects.' Here’s everything we know about the anti-monarchy protests – and whether or not it would actually be possible to abolish the royal family. As someone who believes the monarchy is an outdated concept that compromises our democratic right and signifies colonialism, I am suddenly being turned into the bad guy for deciding not to celebrate that aspect of the Queen’s life. 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 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 monarch still has powers including Royal Assent, the Royal Prerogative, the power to dissolve parliament, the power to declare war, and more—although the current monarch may not use this power there is nothing to stop a future monarch from abusing these powers (and if we were to take away these powers: why have a monarchy in the first place?) therefore these powers should be transferred away from an undemocratic and unaccountable institution to the democratically elected parliament. A national debate about republicanism needs to happen and I would hope that a referendum will take place where both sides can put their arguments to the people. 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 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." My response is that it is a perfectly legitimate time to question the future of the monarchy," Kennedy continued. "Republican/anti-royalist sentiments have existed for a very long time, but they wax and wane. Now they are simply waxing a bit more. One reason is that Charles III is not the warm and fuzzy person that his mother Queen Elizabeth II was." 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?

9. Live, laugh, love x

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. 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. 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."

Yes, actually, although yes, it’s also great that the Queen can get on a horse at 93. At least she isn’t a menace on the roads. 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. However, groups representing the views of Britain’s republicans say that now is not the time to be cowed into suppressing their beliefs. But in the past few years, something inside of me has shifted and since last September and the death of Queen Elizabeth II, whose 70 years of duty I have a great respect for, I find a growing sense of anger that to have a monarchy in 2023 is just plain wrong.

7. God think how far away the toilets would be in Buckingham Palace spoons

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. 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. RECOMMENDED: Here’s the full schedule for the King’s coronation Why are there anti-monarchy protests? 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."