I SHALL of course be exercising my full democratic rights on May 5 when I will vote in Wycombe in the council elections and the AV referendum.

However, wouldn’t it be nice to kill three birds with one stone and have a third vote at the same time?

If I had my way, I would organise a vote on who will assume the throne when our Queen leaves this mortal coil.

That idea will no doubt horrify royalists who so belove the principle of hereditary monarchy and who will say presidential-style elections will destroy our heritage. Perhaps, but the fact our monarchy has survived longer than most in this modern Western world is due in no short measure to the brilliance of the Queen.

Her uncle, Edward VIII, almost ruined the tradition single-handedly but the Queen and her parents steered it back on course, and our Royal Family is now the envy of the world.

However, I dread to think what would happen the next time a useless or power-obsessed sovereign takes over. The modern-day public has no stomach for another Henry VIII or Stephen of Blois and we’d become a republic overnight which would be a tragedy.

So how about having public elections every ten years or so to keep them on their toes? They wouldn’t be allowed to canvass votes and it would be kept within the existing first family. Candidates would be judged on their record as a serving royal.

And it would mean the public could vote for either Charles or William. But before you say families shouldn’t fight each other at the polls, I will retort: if it was good enough for the Milibands, it’s good enough for me.