Three minutes read. 

According to the current presentation of the Queen’s Jubilee Celebrations by the BBC, you would think that there was nobody else created other than the Queen.

The four-day celebrations are estimated to cost 1.2bn and 3.66 bn with the tax contributing 28 million.  

This is a country in the middle of a cost of living crisis with approximately 2.17 billion people using food banks, that in 2020/21 spent approximately 44.6 billion pounds on arms.

                             ——————

In reality, she is a privileged female born by chance into a culture that is totally out of date.

The days of the Empire have gone with the British monarchy representing the last of its recent colonial history.   

If she remains on the throne until the summer of 2024, the Queen will become the longest-reigning European monarch of all time, eclipsing even the 72 years of the Sun King himself, Louis XIV of France.

Time to face change.

What should happen in the future to the constitutional monarchy is an entirely proper question for modern Britain to consider, especially now. 

There is nothing wrong with an outpouring of national affection for the Queen and a feel-good event for a country that has been noticeably deprived of fun recently but the old order is passing.

The British monarchy is on the threshold of a new phase after a long, stable – and feminized – period in its history. 

I believe this is the time that Britain needs to talk more – and talk more publicly and seriously – about what should come next.

Why?

Because of the role of the monarchy and its place within a democracy, the state, and the rule of law, are serious questions that should be embodying today’s values.

These could include the appropriate constitutional, political, and military roles of the monarch, including with other nations; the regulation, financing, and accountability of the monarchy; the size of the royal household maintained by the state.

The laws of succession and the appropriate ceremonies for the inauguration of the new monarch, including their religious dimension, the coronation, and the coronation oath.

The next coronation will be a tourist money-spinner for Britain. But it will also have immense constitutional meaning.

The oath that the new monarch swears embody issues of church and state that are especially problematic in a nation with an established church, and in which less than half of the public describe themselves as religious believers of any kind.

Should the whole institution be moved sole a tourist attraction?

Because behind the screen of the monarch a person is set apart from the nation.

Charles the next in line would become a benign figure, a symbol on whom everyone can project whatever they want him and Britain to stand for.

It’s too late to be analyzing all the mutually contradictory things the Queen has seemed fine with over her exceptionally long reign that isn’t going to help the country and would be very unfair on an elderly woman who has handled the frankly surreal circumstances of her existence with stoicism and dignity.

So the British monarchy could be on its “last legs” It is linked to the Queen and not the institution itself.

England is on the precipice of breaking up and the Queen can’t be in two places at once or ware several crowns.   

On her departure, the “The Firm” The Monarchy – its purpose, what it’s about, will be questioned and challenged in a way that it hasn’t been before.

As an Irishman, I say God save the Queen. After all, after 700 years of occupation, she had the balls to make a state visit to the Republic of Ireland from 17 to 20 May 2011.

It was the first visit by a reigning British monarch to the Republic of Ireland since the 1911 tour by Elizabeth’s grandfather King George V when the entire island of Ireland was still part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. 

Thomas Cromwell tried to crush the church and destroy all symbolic attachment to the Monarchy, he was beheaded. 

All human comments are appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.