Charles III should be the last monarch – it’s time Britain had an elected head of state

The Queen was the monarchy, the monarchy was the Queen. Whatever the truth of her life, mythology and deference have shaped how people view this archaic institution. 

Her death leaves the monarchy in trouble, with the uninspiring Charles and William carrying the flame, while Andrew and Harry – for very different reasons – pour fuel on embers of discontent.

But it isn’t just about one family, this is an institution well past its time, one that sets itself against the principles most of us think are important, values such as democracy, equality and the rule of law. 

It is, by its very nature, undemocratic. 

Recent events make it more urgent than ever that we have an open, honest and grown-up debate about the future of the monarchy and its democratic alternatives.

Rather than notions of fair play, the monarchy perpetuates notions of nepotism, feudal concepts of bloodlines and elitism. 

It isn’t just about our beliefs or our sense of fairness – there are practical issues at stake. 

Charles is an advert for the failures of hereditary power, whether it’s his temperament or his hypocrisy on the environment, flying by helicopter to Cambridge to lecture scientists on the need for the rest of us to cut our carbon emissions.

The palace itself is not fit for purpose, falling well short of the standards in public life against which we measure other institutions, such as spending vast amounts of public money on private residences, something MPs lost their jobs for during the expenses scandal. 

The royal household is famously secretive, fighting disclosure of then Prince Charles’s lobbying of ministers and the Queen’s attempt to change laws to avoid details of her true wealth becoming public. 

Those so-called ‘black spider memos,’ named for Charles’ handwriting, showed him sharing his views on everything from Iraq to farming with senior ministers – highlighting the myth of the impartial monarchy, yet leaving us with no means of removing him or choosing a suitable successor.

Historians have compared the royals unfavourably to the CIA and MI5 for its obsession with keeping records locked away from prying eyes. 

Britain’s royals have successfully campaigned for further exclusion from the Freedom of Information Act, meaning journalists and members of the public can’t find out details from the royal family they can get from other public bodies. 

Our research suggests that the monarchy sets us back at least £345m a year, enough to fund 13,000 new nurses or teachers – but which pays for just a handful of royals.

That includes costs met by local councils and police forces around the country, and the enormous security bill for protecting 15 members of the royal family and more than 20 palatial homes around the UK.  

Major events, including the new King’s accession tour and the state funeral only add to those mountainous costs at a time when schools and hospitals are struggling.

The huge and poorly reported cost is thanks to systematic misuse of public funds for royal expenses, particularly on homes and travel. 

This includes the millions spent on refurbishing William and Kate’s mansion at Kensington Palace and £4.5m to fix up Clarence House for Charles when he moved in 20 years ago, and the routine use of helicopters to fly between their various homes, charged to the taxpayer for no discernible public benefit.

If that support was on the wane at the end of the Queen’s reign, Charles is not the man to turn that around

Unlike the scandalous MPs’ expenses abuses exposed 13 years ago, there is little chance for accountability when Charles or William spend our money on their private lifestyles. 

And that accountability cannot be delivered under the current system, because it is a rigid institution founded on bloodlines.

The cost of living crisis and the increasingly obvious chasm between the struggles of ordinary people and the taxpayer-funded luxury of the royals is just one reason opinion polls have been shifting. 

The new King Charles will also avoid inheritance tax on his mother’s vast estate, estimated to be worth in excess of £650m. 

There is absolutely no moral justification for this tax avoidance, and the new monarch could voluntarily pay his due, but doesn’t. 

There are those who try to dismiss this cost by arguing the monarchy surrenders the revenue of the Crown Estate, or that they bring in tourism revenue. Neither argument is sustainable. 

The Crown Estate is state property, not the property of the Windsor family. 

As for tourism, that claim has been debunked time and again. 

Even if we believe the highest figure put forward for royal tourism – £500m – that is less than 0.3% of the UK’s tourism industry.

Beyond the litany of failings of the royal household – the secrecy, lack of accountability and misuse of public funds – there are more substantial constitutional issues at stake. 

Royalists will claim that the monarchy provides stability, an independent and impartial head of state and that it guards our democracy against would-be tyrants. 

These claims are complete nonsense, as the monarch has surrendered all power to the prime minister.  

We saw during the Johnson government how the Queen was unwilling and unable to act independently of the government, no matter how much some people may have wanted her to intervene over issues like Brexit or Johnson’s clinging to power.

Why not look at Ireland, Iceland, Germany, the Baltic states, Finland and elsewhere: parliamentary republics with prime ministers running their governments, but with elected presidents to preside as figureheads and guardians of their written constitutions.

We often hear people mock the notion of democracy by claiming the British people will only elect a washed up politician or celebrity, these countries elect some inspiring and incredible heads of state such as Michael D Higgins and Mary McAleese of Ireland, Vigdís Finnbogadóttir of Iceland (the first woman in the world to be elected head of state), Joachim Gauck of Germany or Tarja Halonen of Finland.

A parliamentary republic is a simple choice for Britain – and it needn’t be a huge upheaval.

We simply take what we already have, two houses of parliament, prime minister and constitutional head of state, and we make it democratic. 

A fully elected parliament, an elected head of state and a constitution we can all be proud of. 

A YouGov poll commissioned by Republic in May showed that the last four years support for the monarchy has fallen sharply, from 75% to 60%, while support for abolition is up from one in five to one in four, 

Despite an inevitable recent bounce in the polls following ten days of fawning coverage, the wider trend is clear. 

Among people under 35 support is collapsing, fewer than half of Scots want the institution to continue, and across the UK the mood is changing. 

If that support was on the wane at the end of the Queen’s reign, Charles is not the man to turn that around.

One of these days we will make history and take that step to a renewed constitution that will promote our proudest values and live up to the highest standards in the world.

Love of royalty is becoming a minority interest, even if a large majority see the Queen as having done a good job. 

While Charles will inherit the throne, he won’t necessarily automatically inherit the deference and respect enjoyed by his mother. 

The monarchy is fundamentally unable to modernise, it is set on foundations of feudal elitism, which means it will only drift further from modern British values and continue to lose support.

 It’s time for a serious, open and informed debate about the royal family’s future and the democratic alternative. 

I know which side I’ll be on.

Do you have a story you’d like to share? Get in touch by emailing jess.austin@metro.co.uk. 

Share your views in the comments below.

MORE : Kanye West compares split from Kim Kardashian to death of the Queen: ‘London, I know how you feel’

MORE : Anti-monarchy protesters hold demonstrations on day of Queen’s funeral

MORE : Ofcom launches investigation into Sky News after Chris Kaba protests were confused for mourners for the Queen