Alys Davies
Live reporter

Thanks for following our coverage of the monarchy debate.

The panellists clashed over a number of topics, ranging from how relevant the monarchy is to different generations, to the wealth of King Charles and his future as head of state in Commonwealth nations.

A memorable line from Polly Toynbee concerning the monarchy's future stands out, in which she said: "the likelihood of three white men" ruling until the end of this century was "depressing" - referring to the line of succession from King Charles, to Prince William, to Prince George.

Another that sticks out, this time from Charles Moore was: "It's very interesting to me what we call our country and what it's called is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And that's very significant because if it wasn't a kingdom, it wouldn't be united."

With that, we are bringing our coverage to an end.

The page was brought to you by Nathan Williams, Gabriela Pomeroy, Laura Gozzi, Aoife Walsh and myself.

We're bringing our coverage of the monarchy debate to a close shortly. Here is a little flavour of what the panellists were discussing.

Polly Toynbee thinks the monarchy should go, and describes it as a symbol of inherited wealth in a society that is becoming less equal.

Billy Bragg thinks we should keep the monarchy, but wants to end its constitutional role. He is hoping to see a written constitution one day, with the people made sovereign. He also says Buckingham Palace should become a museum.

Prof Jason Arday questions how connected people still feel to the monarchy, and notes the changing attitudes of young people. He says there is an opportunity to redistribute the wealth of the monarchy, especially in the context of today's cost of living crisis.

Charles Moore disagrees, suggesting the benefit of redistributing money from the monarchy would be trivial in the context of public spending. He says the monarchy is a guarantee of legitimacy, and suggests the UK wouldn't be united if it was not a kingdom.

Juliet Samuel says the monarchy does change, but slowly over time. She believes the rituals and dramas of the monarchy contribute to a sense of a collective identity.

Asked who he thinks could have a shot at replacing the monarch, Billy Bragg says a certain TV presenter and former footballer would be an ideal candidate.

Prof Jason Arday argued that the monarchy's wealth could be redistributed - particularly at a time when many people are facing "unprecedented suffering".

Charles Moore said that the four nations of the United Kingdom are united by the Crown.

Take a look back at Polly Toynbee and Charles Moore arguing over whether children should be brought up with the idea that a monarchy exists and what the affects of this are on democracy.

The panellists are now asked to give their final thoughts on the matter of the monarchy.

Charles Moore says there isn't massive rage against the monarchy in the Commonwealth but that could change.

Juliet Samuels is asked whether in 50 years' time we will still have a monarchy? She says yes: the demise of the monarchy has been long predicted but never happened. "People apply a business-like logic to something that defies logic but is instinctive and intuitive... and that can't be easily abolished or dismantled."

Juliet Arday says it is difficult to imagine the monarchy gone in 50 years and that there is a deep affinity for the monarchy. But we should think about what a different type of institution could look like. "I think we need to think about how we repurpose monarchy for 21st century Britain," he says.

Polly Toynbee says she thinks the end of the monarchy will happen - but "maybe not in my lifetime." It's dropped in popularity massively, she says. "The likelihood of three white men" ruling until the end of the century is "depressing", she says.

Billy Bragg says he would keep them in those jobs. "We accepted the Queen because she was always there," he says, but "we know too much about Charles and William", and in a political climate that is "increasingly driven by culture wars in papers like the Daily Telegraph" the anger will "ultimately bring down the monarchy" or destroy its popularity.

"What happens when you decide Charles is too woke for his own good," Bragg jokingly asks Moore, who is a Telegraph columnist.

And the debate ends there.

Billy Bragg says if there's a time to have this debate it's now, during the succession.

"The fact we haven't had this debate for 70 years is for the obvious reason," he adds.

He says the new Australian prime minister has a department to explore the idea of Australia becoming a republic.

Bragg says there's a possibility that within King Charles' reign, some of those countries could decide to become a republic in some form.

"It's not just about how we feel about this whole thing, it's about how the other 15 nations feel," he says.

He asks if that would diminish the idea of what the monarchy.

Bragg says the legacy of the monarchy is also about invasion and slavery and exploitation. He asks if, in a nation that is "reluctant" to address those issues, whether the monarchy is divisive.

For Prof Jason Arday the issue is that at the moment there are "unprecedented levels" of suffering.

He says that there is an opportunity to redistribute the monarchy's wealth. There is a huge opportunity for all resource to be redistributed to those who are greatly in need, he adds.

Charles Moore argues the amount of money is "tiny" and the material benefit would be "trivial".

Arday says it wouldn't be trivial to those living on breadline.

​Moore says no, because the proportion of public spending is so small. In any case, he says that places like France - which abolished the monarchy - ended up with a character like the president who "lives in great grandeur" but isn't a very unifying figure. ​

But Toynbee says that in countries like Ireland, presidents have a different but equally as dignified role, showing that a king isn't required. What is wrong with a system like Ireland's, Moore is asked. ​

Moore says he doesn't disagree but the question isn't what the UK would do if it could start over but how it would change its situation now. He says nothing is wrong with the Irish system, but monarchy is very popular in the UK. Abolishing it would lead to "arguing like hell".

Toynbee says public servants such as Commons speakers, who are elected and respected, would be "great".

Juliet Samuel is asked if the enormous wealth of the monarchy matters.

She says you could wind up the monarchy and fold its assets into the state, but we would be left with the same fiscal situation - except an institution many have "huge affection" for would be gone.

She is then asked about the monarchy's cost to the taxpayer compared with our neighbours in Europe.

Charles Moore says the tourist revenue attracted by the monarchy exceeds what is paid out by the state.

Polly Toynbee disagrees, and says Legoland near Windsor makes much more, as does Versailles.

Polly Toynbee is asked whether she thinks the monarchy as people do good - through the charities they endorse, for instance.

"It's hard to look at the soap opera and see a special moral value about them," she says. Although the Queen and her funeral were powerful because for us she encompassed most of our lives, that's just to do with the longevity, Toynbee argues.

She agrees that the Prince's Trust is a very good charity, but "as with all of the super-rich who talk about philanthropy as an excuse for their wealth, it is always a fraction. The poor give a much higher proportion of their income in charity than the rich do - so I'm always a bit dubious about it being an excuse for wealth."

Billy Bragg is asked what he would keep and what he would do away with.

He suggests that Buckingham Palace could be a museum.

"You could go to Buckingham Palace and pay 20 quid and wave and have your photograph taken," he says, as the audience laughs.

He says he's a progressive patriot, and his patriotism is based in values, not symbols.

Bragg says he recognises that there are many people whose sense of identity is based in institutions and there has to be a space for them in society too.

He says he would like to see the people's sovereign written into the constitution.

Asked about the fact that support for the monarchy is low among certain age and ethnic groups, Juliet Samuel says that according to surveys this is not the case. Prof Jason Arday, however, says that the difference is in the "sense of deference" that young people feel towards the monarchy.

"But there is a collective sense that there is something uniquely different about the monarchy in its pomp and ceremony - and the late Queen's funeral is an example of that," Arday says, citing the "collective sense of grief" that people felt as they marked a momentous historical event.

But Charles Moore disagrees. He says the feeling about the monarchy is repeated in different generations: "Because there is something that is archetypal about monarchy, it's something children really get. You can't explain to a four-year-old what an economist or a business is, but you can explain what a king or queen is."

Polly Toynbee says that bringing up children with the idea that they are ruled by a monarch is "very damaging and makes democracy harder to embed."

Democracies and monarchies are not against each other, Moore argues, pointing out they coexist right now in the UK, Canada, Sweden and so on.

Prof Jason Arday is asked if the country would lose something it could never regain if it lost the monarchy.

He says the symbolism of the monarchy is the envy of the world, but questions how connected people still feel to the monarchy.

The Queen represented a sense of continuity and that's what people buy into, he says.

He says Britain has "sought to ostracise and demonise certain sects of society", leaving some on the peripheral of that sense of identity.

Juliet Samuel says that one of the strengths of monarchy is it does change - but it does so slowly. One of its strengths is that it has raised monarchs who "seem to take seriously" their role also in how they reflect social change around us.

"There is the non-logical, non-practical experience of what it means to be a nation and have a collective identity" and this is done through the monarchy, including its rituals and dramas. "It's an institution that dates back more than 1,000 years - this is a rare and precious inheritance."

It comes with all the "irrational foibles and symbols" that are part of our history, Samuel says.

Without a king or queen, "it would become nothing more than a pantomime" to re-enact these rituals without that institution.

Polly Toynbee is speaking now.

She says it's a symbol of "inherited wealth" in a country that is becoming more, not less equal and where social mobility is going backwards.

"This is what we are celebrating," she says.

She says we are anointing a man who has £1.8bn (according to a recent Guardian investigation, external into his wealth) and the Crown doesn't seem to be a symbol of anything we are venerating.

She feels the crown is too weak and an elected president would be better fit to protect the constitution, like they do countries such as Ireland.

She adds that if anything was to happen to Charles as a young boy, we would now be appointing Prince Andrew.

Charles Moore says that he doesn't agree with Bragg in terms of the role of the Crown in the constitution and says that he thinks it's very important that Parliament consists of the Lords, the Commons and the Crown.

He says that the King's oath will reflect this: that the monarchy rules by consent. He will swear that he will rule according to the statutes, laws and customs of parliament.

"Monarchy is a guarantee of legitimacy," he says.

"What we call our country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. ​I think if it wasn't a kingdom it wouldn't be united," Moore says. There are times it might not feel that united, but "you wait til you don't have a monarchy," Moore says.

Now we're hearing from Billy Bragg.

He says the monarchy in its present form, in his view, is similar to celebrity, but that celebrity status is important to have in head of state.

He says he disagress with the constitutional aspect of the monarchy, and he would like to see the end of the Crown in Parliament.

Instead, he says the UK should have the people sovereign in Parliament so that when decisions are taken they are made on the public's behalf.

Prof Jason Arday kicks things off by saying that our society doesn't need a monarchy in this day and age.

He points out that the monarchy now has a chance to rebrand and repurpose and that in the current situation, with a cost-of-living crisis, a monarchy is "not justifiable". People are struggling with everyday expenses and the taxpayer shouldn't be asked to sustain a monarchy despite its "magic and mystique".

Rather than a complete abolishing of the monarchy, it is time to repurpose and rebrand the institution, Arday says.

Tonight's host, Mishal Husain, starts by asking Prof Jason Arday: "Does our society need a monarchy?"