We need to talk about succession

The Queen is going to die. Soon, or soonish.   

To many that may seem like a ghoulish thing to say. The current monarch is much-beloved and for the vast majority of the UK and Commonwealth population, the only head of state we have ever known. Anyone not yet drawing a state pension will never have lived under a different reign. 

But the Queen is 95 and has recently been forced to step back from her duties for a while, following a night spent in hospital. It is not that unlikely that she will not make it to receive a telegram from herself.

Those of us who do not believe in a hereditary head of state are being told that talking about what happens next — i.e. the immediate accession of Prince Charles to the throne — is thoughtless while the Queen still lives. I have no doubt it will be considered even more insensitive — tasteless, even — to do so as and when she does die. 

But it is not we who are to blame for this insensitivity — it is the system. We should not be swayed by sentiment when discussing the role of head of state — and it is only our antiquated and objectively ridiculous system that even makes this an issue.

In the TV show Succession , the drama comes from the competition to replace the head of the family business. In the UK and Commonwealth, we get no such luxury or even the entertainment of watching the jostling. Charles will be King by birthright and with that, all the power it confers (ceremonially or otherwise) goes to him automatically. As soon as the Queen takes her last breath, her son becomes our head of state and those who are citizens of the countries he will lead currently have no say in the matter.

If we are not offered a better way of making a positive and more democratic choice, then we cannot help but point out the ridiculous inequity and inevitable (and unpopular) consequences of relying on the longevity of a single, frail and extremely elderly woman, or on the sentiment that will inevitably surround her death to move to benign acceptance of the status quo under the reign of the less popular Charles. 

There has been talk for years about how the monarchy should skip a generation when it comes to Charles, conferring the monarchy straight on to William who is seen as significantly more sympathetic than Charles. “The firm” may even choose to make this happen (they have an incredibly well developed sense of survival, after all). But here’s the point: even if this idea were universally popular, none of us would get the slightest say in it. The choices, such as they are, are made for us behind the scenes.

This is antithetical to democracy and no amount of sensitivity around a frail old lady or those who will be in mourning when she dies stops this from being the case.

If those who believe in the UK and Commonwealth retaining a constitutional rather than purely ceremonial monarchy want us to protect sensitivities around the death of the Queen, they have to give us a choice about whether to have a new monarch when the old one is gone. This should not pass from one person to another, however suitable or otherwise, in a heartbeat (or lack thereof).

The Government should pass legislation now that would put a pause on the succession for an appropriate period of national mourning and then allow for a reasonable period of discussion as to what comes next, once it is less disrespectful to the memory of the Queen and the feelings of those who will have a genuine sense of loss at her departure.

We should establish a proper citizens’ commission,  much as they did in Ireland to examine controversial topics such as abortion, to look deeply and properly at what the UK and the Commonwealth need from their head of state. This should have representation from ordinary citizens from all over the Commonwealth as well as every part of the UK. It should be presented with arguments and evidence from all sides about how a constitutional monarchy works and where it doesn’t. What countries have chosen to move away from this model, which have actively readopted it and why. There may be a better way that no one has yet conceived, we may choose as a nation to accept the status quo or we may adopt a different well-established model.

There are good arguments against an elected head of state, a role that would become politicised and partisan. But equally there are good arguments against the lack of oversight or choice we have now. The point is that, as a democracy, we deserve a chance to have this discussion properly and with consequences.