What is the future for the monarchy?

TO some, she was a cosseted relic of the past, whose principal achievement seems to have been to prop up sales of the otherwise obscure drink, Dubonnet. To others, she was the nation's favourite grandmother, representing all that was admirable about a long-gone era.

Despite these contradictory views, there is little doubt that the Queen Mother was the Royal Family's greatest asset. While the nine-hour queues to view the coffin may have taken many observers by surprise, they demonstrate the depth of feeling at her passing, whether through affection, respect, or simply a sense of history.

But now the official mourning is over and the last Empress has been laid beside her beloved husband, there are those who see her passing as a chance to re-appraise the role of the monarchy and its place in a 21st Century democracy. The well of sympathy for the royals in the wake of her death was evident in an opinion poll published yesterday, which found only 12 per cent support for abolishing the monarchy.

And the dignified way the Royal Family handled the Queen Mother's death and funeral will have bolstered their standing, particularly when set against the more shambolic response to Diana's death five years ago. This time, they seem to have been in step with the public mood, instead of being dragged, kicking and screaming, behind it.

But this tide of emotion should not disguise the long-term trend of public attitudes, which have steadily favoured moving towards a republic. An equivalent opinion poll last year found 34 per cent wanted to get rid of the Royal Family, a record high.

And once the tide of feeling starts to subside, the loss of the Queen Mother may accelerate the feeling that the Royal Family's days, at least in their present form, are numbered, according to Ian Ward, professor of law at Newcastle University's law school.

'It is a severe loss in that sense, because there aren't many of that type of royal, someone who is revered and respected, and it is unlikely we will get another figure who will occupy the same kind of position," he says. "I don't think people feel at one with a 101-year-old, but there is an element of respect, as we feel for our own grandmothers.

"We are more inclined to be critical of the younger royalty, and, in crude numbers, it is one more of that type of old-fashioned monarch who has died, while the future of the younger royals seems more fluid. A huge amount now depends on the younger generation."

The departure of the Queen Mother from the stage, and suggestions that Prince Charles may start to play a larger role in public life, could provide an opportunity for the Royal Family to re-examine its own place in society. The Queen Mother was also seen as an impediment in the way of Prince Charles marrying Camilla Parker-Bowles, an event which may have been brought closer by his grandmother's death.

This, in turn, will require some sort of reappraisal of the monarch's role as head of the Church of England, and its strictures against marrying divorcees, and again a chance to consider whether the monarchy can adapt to become more in step with the mood of the times.

"Other monarchies in Europe are much younger and seem comfortable with that, but our monarchy doesn't seem comfortable in the role of 20 and 30-somethings," says Professor Ward. "Our monarchy seems to want to project itself as something different, and it may be that they will not adapt very well to the style of continental monarchies.

"It might also be something they shouldn't do for a while, but you would think that, in due course, it may be seen as a better option. One problem is that the younger royals seem to be much happier courting controversy than previous royals, and less capable of keeping the lid on their activities."

But changing social attitudes may dictate that the Royal Family has little choice but to change if it is to continue, according to Dr Bill Lancaster, director of the Centre for Northern Studies at Northumbria University.

"The perceptions of the Royal Family have changed quite significantly over the last few decades," he says. "We're a much less deferential society, and we don't accept the status and position of the Royal Family as willingly as we used to.

"We're a very different society to how we were in the mid-20th Century. Then, the majority of men would at one point have been in the armed services, and would have sworn loyalty to the monarch, but now only a tiny minority are in this position. Also, the media has become much more intrusive into the affairs of the Royal Family. The polls show we have become much more republican from the mid-1960s - there have been some slips but you can detect a steady decline in support and a lack of interest in the Royal Family."

This greater knowledge of the workings of the monarchy has taken away some of the mystique surrounding the institution, a process accelerated by the Squidgygate and Camillagate tapes. As the deference has faded, so the disenchantment has become bolder, along with a realisation that royals are no different from us, with all the same frailties.

"The Royal Family has to realise that deference has gone and it has to reinvent itself," says Dr Lancaster. "We're no longer an imperial state and the royals have to work out how they connect with British society. If we're no longer a deferential society, then what is the point of the monarchy? What does it do? Are they going to pursue the Scandinavian model and get their bicycles out and go for picnics in the forest.

"The other pattern is the Monte Carlo pattern, where they set themselves up as playboys. You can do that in a small country full of playboys, but not in a post-industrial society. It seems to me that they're still not adequately addressing the question."

While it may be the younger generation of royals which could be expected to be more in tune with modern society, Dr Lancaster suggests that the royals have somewhat shot themselves in the foot, as it were, by their continuing love for field sports such as fox hunting, hardly the people's pastime.

"Prince William could have become a new royal icon, but they stuck him on a horse and sent him out killing foxes, when the opinion polls show the age group most opposed to that is his own. They are alienating his own generation.

"Prince Charles is genuinely trying to sort out what the monarchy is about but he still has the albatrosses of polo and country pursuits."

Of course, the end of the monarchy has apparently been nigh for the last 140 years or more. From Queen Victoria's seclusion after her husband's death, to outrage over the treatment of Diana after her death, there have always been pundits keen to write off an institution which has survived for more than 1,000 years. But survival does not mean it will be pain-free.

"I don't think they're too far away from facing some kind of crisis over the next ten years," says Dr Lancaster. "But while the Scandinavian model works in Scandinavia, how does that relate to 21st Century Britain. It is going to be a difficult exercise, but at the moment we haven't seen many signs that things might change."

But while a clear picture of the monarchy's future might take some time to emerge, the first test is less than two months away. Earlier this year, it seemed that the Queen's Golden Jubilee celebrations might fall a little flat, with little apparent enthusiasm for the sort of street parties and festivities which marked her Silver Jubilee. Following the Queen Mother's death, there have already been reports of a renewed interest in marking the family's now most senior member.

"It will be interesting to see what sort of celebrations take place in the region for the Golden Jubilee," says Dr Lancaster. "Measure th ose against the last one to get an idea of how the tide is flowing."