Leading Article: Is the time right for a directly elected monarch?

THE TEMPERING of the hereditary principle by democracy has produced a curious constitutional hybrid. In Britain we now have elected hereditary peers. In Australia they have what is, in effect, an elected hereditary monarch. The outcome of the referendum on the other side of the world may have been decided by Australians' dislike of the particular republican model proposed, but its practical effect was to strengthen the position of their incumbent head of state with a democratic ballot.

It is heartening to see that the Prince of Wales has taken up the challenge. He is reportedly happy to have a referendum on the monarchy in this country, believing that "The Firm" would win any such vote comfortably. The Queen herself may have other ideas, so we make a modest proposal. When the time comes, and of course we trust it is a long, long way off, Prince Charles should put himself, as King-Designate, to the people in a referendum.

It would be a simple "Yes/No" choice, and if the people voted "No", the Royal Family would have to come up with someone else. They could "skip a generation" with William, go for the women's vote with Anne, or throw it wide open and draft Charles, Earl of Burford, Woolsack-jumping descendant of Charles II and Nell Gwyn.

It should be acknowledged that the willingness of Prince Charles to put himself to the test is braver than it looks. The widespread republican sentiment of the 1860s and 1870s, when an unpopular Queen Victoria hid herself from her people after the death of Prince Albert, is often forgotten. Equally, it is easy to forget just how fragile the monarchy seemed at the time of the abdication crisis in 1936, or in the days after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

Of course, The Independent is not in favour of the hereditary principle, but if it happens to coincide with the popular will, then who can argue with it?