For nearly three-quarters of a century, Queen Elizabeth II sat on high as Britain’s monarch. With her death, however, new political momentum is building that casts fresh doubts about the future of the British Crown. Several former British colonies, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Jamaica, have debated severing ties, while Republican campaigners in Britain now see opportunity to reassess what it means to have a monarchy without offending a popular queen. King Charles III is far less beloved. And after 1,200 years, the throne to which he has ascended is more uncertain now than at any time in recent memory. The question of the monarchy’s relevance, as such, has reemerged in the public spotlight. Those who argue in favor of it say constitutional monarchies serve a moderating force in national politics, support minority interests, and provide continuity in leadership. It is human nature, they say, to have a single leader at the helm, no matter how ceremonial. Those against it point to the legacy of Britain’s checkered colonial past, claims of corruption and misuse of taxpayer funds, and persistent scandal. Against that backdrop, we debate the longevity of the British monarchy.