Picture a thoroughly modern monarch

TYING her headscarf under her chin, the rather refined-looking but otherwise unremarkable old lady hitches up her skirt and balances precariously on the saddle of her bicycle, before pedalling out of the imposing wrought-iron gates. After a quick dash round the supermarket - Waitrose, naturally - she pedals back in time to put the tea on.

Not quite the image of the Queen we're used to seeing, but this may be the future of the monarchy.

Calls to modernise our monarchy - perhaps along the lines of the bicycling versions in the Netherlands and Scandinavia - are nothing new, given periodic weight by the damage wrought to the institution by a succession of Royal crises and scandals.

But yesterday these moves towards a new-style Royal Family were given added impetus with the publication of a Fabian Society report. The Future of the Monarchy, the result of a year-long inquiry by a ten-member commission, argues that only by changing the way it works can the monarchy continue to enjoy public support.

Perhaps most controversial among its recommendations is that the Queen should be allowed to retire, rather than being required to carry on until death.

Abdication may be seen as a dirty word at Buckingham Palace, but it has been used to relieve an ageing monarch in other royal families, most notably in Holland, where Queen Wilhelmina abdicated in 1948 in favour of her daughter Juliana, who in turn abdicated in favour of her daughter Beatrix in 1980.

The memory of the chaos caused by the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936, the only British sovereign to voluntarily give up the throne, has informed the Queen's apparent determination not to step down. But this does not mean the Royal Family is averse to any change. Indeed, the initial response from Buckingham Palace to yesterday's report was to wait for public reaction to its proposals before deciding whether to move, and in what direction.

And some of the commission's recommendations seem to be no more than ending anachronisms rooted in tradition and with little place in a modern society. The prohibition on anyone who marries a Roman Catholic from succeeding to the throne and the principle of male primogeniture, which gives sons priority in the succession over daughters, are hard to defend.

But, while some of these anomalies can safely be excised, taking away too much of the gloss would undermine the reason for having the monarchy in the first place, according to Dr Martin Farr, history lecturer at Newcastle University.

"I can't personally see the attraction of a monarchy unless it has all the pomp and ceremony of a monarchy, otherwise it seems even more absurd to have the privileges that accompany it," he says.

"The idea of having a bicycling monarchy, such as the Belgians have, would look a little weird given the tradition and the history that our monarchy has, although I think the public would be more than happy to have a monarchy which is slightly more modern."

He says ending male primogeniture, and the Queen's exemption from paying inheritance tax, would probably be considered as overdue reforms in many quarters, particularly following the Queen's decision voluntarily to pay income tax in 1993, a move seen as revolutionary at the time, but now widely accepted.

Attitudes towards the monarchy often split along generational lines, with the older generation instinctively more positive, while the younger generation tends to see it in quite a different light.

"Younger people recognise the absurdity of having a Royal Flight, for instance, and the Royal Train, which has only just been reprieved. Older people think things that undermine the monarchy, undermine the country, but younger people are more apathetic," Dr Farr says. "Introducing inheritance tax or removing sexist practices may make it less objectionable, but there is no real, strong republican sense in the country."

Despite this, he says the Royal Family should take note of the report, and take up some of the recommendations.

"The most important thing people want in their lives is stability, and the monarchy is a symbol of stability and continuity. It is a reminder of when Britain was stronger and it suggests there is something which is uniquely British, and one of the traditional elements of British life is that people are instinctively deferential.

"But there are some parts of tradition that are clearly anomalous and unacceptable. The issue of gay priests is another example of something which simply seems unfair, and similarly it seems unreasonable that when other people are paying inheritance tax, the Royal Family are not," he says.

But while the Queen herself may be the biggest obstacle to change - her opposition is said to be the principal reason why Charles does not marry Camilla - she is also one of the Royal Family's biggest assets, along with her most prominent grandson.

Dr Farr suggests that although the Queen herself would be reluctant to abdicate, it would be generally accepted by the public, particularly as she is seen to have devoted herself so selflessly to her role.

"What strikes me about the Queen is the extraordinary absence of errors, compared with her husband and eldest son. For 50 years, the monarchy has existed in the person of the Queen, who has not put a foot wrong.

"I'm sure the wish of some monarchists is that the Queen will simply pass the throne to William. If Charles takes over, there could be difficulties, because he is perceived to have certain flaws, but William could rejuvenate the monarchy. He is like his mother: he is potentially an international star, he has the charisma and the appeal, and he will have the profile, to be a national asset in the way Diana was."

Although these are undoubtedly challenging times for the monarchy - often criticised for being out of step, it has seen public support waning - the lack of any significant republican movement means their fate is not so much adapt or die, as adapt or be ignored.

"The future of the monarchy is secure while it is the hands of the Queen, someone who is both competent and sensitive, but they are making little increments of change and they will outlast me," Dr Farr says.

"I think people recognise that many of the strengths we have as a nation are in the fact that things evolve, and the Royal Family fit into that. They are something we like to see, like a big tree at the bottom of the road. We just like to know that it's there."

The report's recommendations

* The monarch should be allowed to retire, instead of carrying on until death

* The Royal Marriages Act, which forbids members of the Royal Family in line of succession from marrying without the monarch's consent, should be repealed

* The ban on non-Anglicans, or anyone who marries a Catholic, from succeeding to the throne, should end

* Male primogeniture, which gives males preference in the line of succession to females, should be scrapped

* The monarch should no longer be head of the Church of England

* The Royal Family should pay tax on their private income and wealth, including inheritance tax

* Royal land, buildings and art should be opened to the public wherever possible

* Ownership of the Crown Estate and Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall should pass to the nation

* Royal prerogative powers, including appointing senior public figures and declaring war, should be put on a statutory basis, with Parliament deciding who should exercise them

* The State Opening of Parliament should take place at the start of a new Parliament, instead of every year, and the Queen should give a speech of her own, instead of one written by the Government