ALL of us experience the loss of a loved one at some point in our lives, and as we mark the death of Queen Elizabeth, we can empathise with the pain experienced by her family and loved ones. My thoughts are with them as they grieve.

I, like most people, never knew her, nor did I meet her, but by all accounts, she was as witty as she was dutiful in her 70-year reign. Watching rolling coverage of the outpouring of emotion currently on display in the streets of London, it is undeniable that she holds a special place in the hearts of those in mourning. I wish her, and those who knew her, nothing but peace.

None of the above changes the fact I personally think the entire concept of monarchy is ridiculous. The idea that there is a holy bloodline chosen by God to rule over others is a fanciful notion to an atheist like me. I would argue for a republic.

I have no issue with the Sovereign holding the title of Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, as I completely accept and respect the right of each faith to appoint its own leaders in whichever way deemed appropriate. I do, however, take issue with any religion being intertwined with the state. These blurred lines – between the person, the religion and the government – create both confusion and exceptionalism, which is arguably what we have in the UK.

READ MORE: 'Republicans are not having our voices heard by the media,' Proclaimers say

If a democracy is defined by its ability to elect its leaders and the ability of those leaders to affect change, then the UK is by no means the global bastion of democracy with our unelected Head of State, unelected House of Lords, and the need for our elected MPs to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown. Every parliamentary day still begins with a Church of England prayer to Her Majesty before broadcasting begins.

Millions of pounds of public money are handed over to the Royal Family every year via the Sovereign Grant and The Privy Purse. I accept the historical value of an institution which can be traced back a thousand years, but as long as that institution plays a formal role in our democracy, it cannot complain when it faces criticism. Particularly when we consider how that publicly-funded privilege has been exercised at times. Last year, The Guardian revealed multiple instances whereby the monarch sought to influence legislation.

From a successful exemption from 1968 road safety laws on private royal estate to just last year when royal lawyers secured an exemption from the green energy bill in the Scottish Parliament. I, and many others, do not believe any individual should have that kind of access, whether that be a party donor having a hotline to ministers for a Covid contract or the royal family influencing laws.

The public by no means fund the royal family alone. Private investments result in what must be lucrative personal wealth. This can be assumed, given the Treasury confirmed that no public money was used in Prince Andrew’s estimated £12 million settlement in a civil sexual assault case. Not many families could personally rustle up that amount of money. I mention this because I firmly believe that the state should financially support families in need, but arguably the royal family does not fit that criteria.

We currently face the worst cost of living crisis for a generation, with both poverty and inequality increasing. This Conservative government’s response to the damage they have inflicted over the last 12 years is to reject the idea of taxing the profits/greed of energy companies making obscene profits.

READ MORE: Anger over Prince Andrew's Scottish title amid Counsellor of State backlash

Instead, the already suffering public will just need to bear the burden of that debt. We’ve seen reports that they plan to scrap the caps on bankers’ bonuses because, out of all the people in the UK, seemingly, bankers are the ones who could do with more money right now.

You could be forgiven for missing that news amongst the constant rolling coverage of the royal family over the last nine days. No matter how seemingly ceremonial their role in Government may be, they are afforded this attention and respect due to that very role in Government. Therefore, it rightly makes a lot of people deeply concerned to see people being arrested for protesting that part of Government.

The Establishment cannot have it both ways. I am uncomfortable that our constitutional set-up forces a mourning family into the spotlight at an incredibly painful time. Imagine your loved one died, and for the next 10 days, you were paraded around the country in fancy dress, being forced to talk to strangers about it. It feels cruel and unnecessary to do that to a person, but I accept it is part of our current Government structure.

Ultimately, in a democracy, we must be able to criticise that Government structure however it presents itself.