Compulsory nationalism is an unattractive social condition and in Britain we have a long and proud history of resisting such absurdly evangelical behaviour.

We do not routinely sing a National Anthem at sporting events. Portraits of Charles III will not overlook classrooms and workspaces. Our children are never forced to pledge their allegiance while flags are raised each morning in schools. No one is compelled to cheer anything.

So, I found it concerning that many vocal campaigners for free speech felt comfortable suspending this key principle of our democracy.

The florid commentators who regularly denounce the sensitivities of ‘wokeism’ themselves turned into fragile snowflakes, melting upon hearing ‘untimely’ criticism of monarchy and hereditary privilege.

And those who decry cancel culture, flipping, insisting on the cancellation of all comment not enthusiastically conforming to their Hogarthian caricature of 18th century forelock-tugging feudalism.

And the Cambrian News suggesting the death of Queen Elizabeth II ‘ought to be a time of reflection and thoughtfulness’ then declaring that any debate during a period of national mourning was not only ‘callous’ in timing, but also ‘disrespectful, insensitive, and inappropriate’.

From our core there suddenly emerged a touch of the North Korean, of a Midwich Cuckoos mentality in the terrified hand wringing over when shops should open and close.

Businesses, celebrities and establishments solely focused on not adopting the damning posture of not mourning well enough. Bear Grylls forced to apologise after being judged as ‘looking too cheery’.

In Britain we enjoy a robust society in which we decide for ourselves how we feel and what we think. The idea that this contrary group of nations ‘ought’ to react to any situation one way or another would normally be considered anathematic.

We are strong enough to absorb dissent and as such, the nature of our response is individual and nobody’s business but our own.

And the opportunity for thoughtfulness should never shut down dialogue but encourage conversations to be open and nuanced.

In the case of the death of a monarch there can be appreciative reflections on the person alongside critical analysis of the institution. For however sad the loss of a valued individual, the replacement of our Head of State is primarily a constitutional affair; a rapid series of institutional re-enforcing events.

The swirl of high politics crashing around 12 days of national mourning would not have been missed by anyone witnessing the ceremonies, rituals and parades.

So, if I wave a flag, that is up to me. If I raise a protest placard, equally so. I can even do both! We can choose to ignore or challenge any points expressed, but to argue for the entirety of British society to button its lip, to be single voiced in response, is not only completely delusional but also entirely anti-British.

So, it is wrong to rebuke those unmoved by the moment, those offended by the expense, and those irritated by such an anachronistic and perhaps irrelevant institution.

Whatever our personal feelings, those who question the role of monarchy have every right to be stirred into immediate debate.

And on this side of the border, those daring to raise questions about our new Prince of Wales presented an important point at a fitting time. I shall not rehearse an unnecessary history lesson, but if the proclamation of a new Welsh Prince was not the perfect opportunity to question the role, then when is?

Asserting constitutional debates were not appropriate, to find such conversations callous or disrespectful is to confuse the honouring of the person with a separate political discussion and not, as suggested, the other way around.

• Twitter: @iriesblog