In 1701, Parliament had a problem. The incumbent monarch, William IIIKing of England, Scotland and Ireland from 1689 to 1702. He was invited to become king by Parliament, which wanted to depose its reigning Catholic monarch James II. , was ageing. He had no children of his own, and his sole Protestant heir, his daughter-in-law AnneQueen from 1702 to 1714. She was the first monarch of Great Britain after the union of England and Scotland was achieved in 1707., had recently lost her only child. 

Anne was in ill health herself. Once she died, according to the legitimate line of succession, a Catholic must ascend to the throne of England. The last time this had happened, it had caused a civil warA war between people from the same country.  in Scotland and Ireland.

So Parliament took a momentous decision. Under the Act of SettlementA law passed in 1701 that excluded all Catholics and spouses of Catholics from the throne. Catholics are still ineligible for the succession, but their spouses are no longer disqualified., it altered the line of succession. Other than Anne, all the direct descendants of the hated Charles I were pre-emptively deposed. And in doing so, Parliament effectively declared that it alone had the right to decide who sat on the throne.

Fast forward to 2022. Tomorrow, Britain celebrates the platinum jubilee of another ailing monarch, loved by her people, but cursed with an unfortunate line of successors.

Her legitimate heir, Prince Charles, lacks his mother's universal appeal. Last year, a poll found just 25% of Britons wanted Prince Charles to succeed the Queen. Enthroning another King Charles might seem like tempting fate.

But other prospective successors are tarnished as well. His son, Prince William, once seemed to have some of Elizabeth's magic. But his recent trip to the Caribbean was a disaster, drawing allegations of racial condescension and imperialism.

And whoever takes the crown will be dogged by the constant problem of Prince Andrew, who is desperate for a return to public life even after he was forced to settle in a sexual abuse lawsuit brought by Virginia GiuffreA campaigner who offers support to victims of sex trafficking. She has accused Prince Andrew of sexually abusing her. Andrew eventually settled out of court..

However, Parliament has the power to change the succession. So if no person currently in line for the throne will do - why choose a person at all?

After all, say some, the role of the head of state is largely ceremonial. They give speeches at the opening of Parliament and at Christmas. They occasionally visit the CommonwealthOfficially called the Commonwealth of Nations, it was set up in 1926. There are 54 members in all.. These tasks could be carried out just as well, they argue, by an AI.

An AI might also be better at the unspoken roles of the monarchy. The monarch, according to political theorists, provides a politically neutral power that balances the other parts of the constitution. They are a source of advice for the prime minister. And they are a rallying point for national pride.

The Royal AI would always be a serene, dispassionate presence. It would not overstep the bounds of its role and get involved in political causes.

It could be programmed with vast historical knowledge, to offer the prime minister the best possible advice, and to teach the British people about their own history.

What is more, an AI cannot have a social class or a race. It would do away with the legacy of elitism, snobbery and colonialism that plagues the monarchy.

But others are not so sure. They argue we are still not sure we can contain the power of AI. It would be risky to put it on the very seat of power without first verifying its loyalty to humanity.

Yes: Human beings are fallible. The role of the monarch requires near-infallibility if one is to avoid scandals and accusations of political interference. An AI would be perfect for the job.

No: The monarchy inspires loyalty and devotion because it is human and we can relate to it, even (and perhaps especially) when it makes mistakes. You cannot rally the nation around a glorified calculator.

Or... The time might not be ripe for an AI head of state. AI is still too primitive and people are suspicious of it. But in time, it will become intelligent enough to fulfil this and perhaps other roles.