Like most members of the British public I have a strong conviction that with power and influence must come accountability. That is the principle of democracies all over the world and is the principle which started becoming entrenched in the English psyche as far back as Magna Carta, in 1215.
It is because of this very principle that ever since the reign of Queen Anne, in the early 18th century, no monarch has refused to grant a Bill of Parliament Royal Assent and no monarch since William IV, in the early 19th century, has dismissed a government.
Instead, monarchs today simply have the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn and it is left up to the government of the day, lead by the prime minister, to decide how to act upon that advice.
We have, one could say, reached equilibrium between democratic expedience and British history and culture. And it appears to be a consensus that most British people are content with. Indeed, an ICM poll conducted in April discovered that 67% of people believe the monarchy is relevant to modern British life, including 57% of 16-24s.
This equilibrium, though, is dependent upon the calibre of leadership derived from democracy being greater than that as would have been derived from a hereditary system. This, of course, is because free and fair elections - the staple of democracy - have long been thought to allow those best placed to lead to rise to the top. It is what allowed Winston Churchill to lead us through World War II as well as what allowed Clement Atlee to reconfigure post-war Britain.
But while I still wholeheartedly and passionately believe in democracy and the meritocracy inherent to it, I also believe the way David Cameron is currently leading his Government, and our country, is beginning to upset the equilibrium I refer to.
This is because the competence with which we would expect him, as Prime Minister, to be leading the Government - supposedly ensured by the rigour of democratic selection - has been somewhat absent since he came to power in May of last year.
I travel a well worn road by listing David Cameron's mistakes and misdemeanours, but I will list some of them, nonetheless. They include: the forests sale debacle, backtracking on a pledge to spend more in real terms on the NHS, the U-turn on anonymity for rape defendants, the catastrophe of the NHS Bill, the breaking of a promise to secure Sure Start Centres, the cutting of DLA, his U-turn on prison sentences, student visas and, more recently, his huge error in judgment in taking on Andy Coulson as his communications chief.
And it appears that the British people are beginning to get tired of Cameron's inability to chart a steady path. According to a YouGov poll, published on the 24th July, Ed Miliband, for the first time, was rated as more popular than the Prime Minister.
This difficulty David Cameron is suffering from is not entirely surprising, though. He has, to date, enjoyed a seamless path through the establishment - going to the best schools, Oxford University, then a short stint in public relations, widely alleged to have been facilitated by the Palace, before ending up with the safe seat of Witney.
The Prime Minister has, therefore, little to no experience of both majority British society and the workings of government. In essence, his splendid isolation fits the stereotype which would lead one to call him King David, accept our actual and current monarch, Elizabeth II, has, in contrast, much experience and much knowledge of government.
In addition, Elizabeth II very probably has much more knowledge of majority British society, as a result of her regular public engagements. Indeed, she is said to undertake more public engagements per year than there are days in the year. Contrast this with David Cameron's record and he is found to be wanting. Instead, he is a member of the 'Chipping Norton Set', hob-knobbing with the rich and powerful of rural Oxfordshire, including Rebekah Brooks.
Consequently, would not a Prime Minister Elizabeth II do a better job than a Prime Minister Cameron? Through countless meetings with prime ministers and countless encounters with the British people, over 59 years, she will surely understand the special place the NHS inhabits in people's hearts. She will surely understand our passion for the shared outdoors and she will surely understand the inherent British belief in fair play, which means a welfare state that supports those that cannot support themselves. In addition, after living through numerous political scandals, she would also surely understand the huge risks involved with bringing a former newspaper editor, with a question mark over his name, into the centre of government.
A Prime Minister Elizabeth II would also, I bet, understand that a government wishing to effectively dismantle the NHS would run up against sustained public resistance. She would, in essence, understand the difference between what is technically possible to do and what is expedient to do.
Not for one second, though, do I suggest we return to a monarchy with one iota of political power. That would destroy every advancement we have made for the best part of 1000 years, but the fact a prime minister's background and experience can be compared to a monarch's is both surprising and worrying. In fact, it borders on one reasonably being able to say the British democratic system has developed a crack or two.
Contrary to the tone of this blog I do not dislike David Cameron, personally. I imagine he would be a good laugh to have a pint with, but running government and supping on a pint of Bishop's Finger are two entirely different things.
Also, my criticism of David Cameron does not derive from 'class warfare', which is the rebuttal many Tories use when confronted with criticism of his background and experience. My premise is that Cameron's inexperience and privileged background risks the danger of upsetting Britain's democratic equilibrium between plurality and plutocracy, resulting in questioning of our democracy's health.
To rectify this he needs to demonstrate that, as prime minister, he can affect change that the majority of British people want. This means being able to understand the changes the majority of British people want. Considering his record to date, I will not be holding my breath.