Not wishing ill on anyone, but I do wonder if the country might not be better off, were some terrible stroke of fate to cause the line of succession to take a side-step.
I would not prefer Harry or Andrew - and frankly wouldn't wish it on any of the kids till they reach adulthood.
We have in past skipped over 50 +people with Hannovians and we did side step Edward VIII and got the much better George VI. So not against it but not sure who you have your eye on as a stand out candidate.
It is the downside to monarchy we have were succesion is set - it wasn't always as clear cut - but act of succsion could be change by Parliment - they don't have to go down direct line they could do anything with it really - it's already been recently modified to stop prioritizing boys/men.
That why I'd want to know what the new system would be - there are downsides to this one - and upsides so is any new system would have to be better because there will be a price for the change.
If look at the deomocatic index:
Top ten are Norway, New Zealand, Sweeden, Iceland, Switzerland, Finland,Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands and Luxembourg.
Norway is constitutional democracy with a consitional monarchy. UK is at 17th in world still considered a full democratic system . USA is at 28th - consider a flawed democracy even France has now slipped into being veiwed as a flawed democracy by the Enconomicts group.
So Ireland, Iceland, Switzwrland and Finland all republics would be worth a look - absolutely not the USA system and probably not France as we don't want something worse than current UK. The rest of the top ten have constitional monacharies or with Luxembourg a Grand Duke but similar set up. I don't want changes that would make us less democratic and that's clearly a risk.
Much as it's a daft system to still have in 2025 it's still a stable one that many of the most democratic governments in the world still have - so if we do want to get rid of UK Monarchy I'd want a better reason that I don't like it or it's not fair.
Plus I'd want to know why we'd spend time and money doing it now when there a huge backpile of issues in UK that could do with attention and money. If we spend money in courts working how who owns what and poltcial energy fighting on what we put in to replace current sytsem - that time and money not spent on education, health, infrastructure/housing or defence all of which kind of feel more important to most voters.
If republican were serious they'd put forwards actual plans and explain to voters why it's a better system - why it was worth the cost. Instead they just moan about RF - who aren't great but are mostly irrelvant or could be contained better by politicians who don't have to keep granting them or crown exemptions - they could say no and likely would have public on side.