It’s tricky being a monarchist and a democrat. How can you justify a part of our Government which relies entirely on the accident and sequence of birth?

The only excuse I can offer is that it’s better than the alternative. Just imagine ‘President Blair’ or ‘President Archer’ – need I say more?

Our Queen has presided for more than half a century with grace, honour and integrity, despite her own accession being a composite accident of birth.

We can also take comfort that our monarchy has been progressively relieved of any real constitutional power and, despite still nominally appointing Prime Ministers and some bishops, in practice only exercises that token power on the direction of elected officials. But, in the pursuit of ever-greater democratic influence, perhaps the time is right to consider how we could modernise the way we acquire our Head of State, while not quite throwing the baby out with the regal bath-water.

At some time, our present Queen will cease to rule and we currently anticipate her eldest son, Charles, succeeding her by right. But why should it be so undemocratic? The Queen delivered four potential heirs to the throne; Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward. Their sequence of birth and gender shouldn’t play any part in deciding their suitability for the Head of State position, rather we should be given the choice.

So maybe, when Elizabeth II steps off the throne, her offspring should become ‘candidates’ for the post. Then we could have a democratic election to decide which one we prefer. I don’t know who would win, but I’d like to have the choice.

Imagine what the impact of such an election would have on future successions? If we elected Charles to succeed his mother, then on his demise we’d expect the choice between William and Harry.

I know that, if I were a potential candidate for the ‘top job’, it would have a profound effect on the way I lived my life in advance of that. I’d be sure to avoid the type of negative behavioural publicity which so many ‘spare heirs’ have acquired over the years, as that would be bound to limit my chances in the eventual ballot.

As we abandon historic discriminations, it is inevitable that those ancient rules against daughters succeeding ahead of sons, and also selectively disadvantaging one group of religious followers, will be changed. But let’s also find a way to embrace our citizens’ input to the appointment process, while keenly avoiding the downsides which have given the world the disastrous Presidents Bush and Mugabe, among others.

Of course, this new process would then evolve over time and, in a generation or two, may even have become a sort of ‘Regal X-Factor’, where populist sentiment succeeds over rational judgement. Think of the fun that would be when we crowned our new ‘King Boris’!