Like many Australians I sat down to watch the funeral procession of Queen Elizabeth II last week.

As well as appreciating the way the English conduct such formal, traditional and expertly curated services, the pageantry did make me stop and think about how such an event would impact First Peoples.

The funeral was certainly moving in parts with genuine grief on display from the royal family, and the public who lined the streets to pay tribute to the world's longest-serving monarch.

Seventy years is an extraordinary amount of time to serve the public, no matter whether the person is appointed or elected or ascended to the throne.

The stoicism and restraint often described as a stiff upper lip was on display but there were understandable cracks in the façade when viewers witnessed tears from King Charles III and Prince Edward. It was genuine sorrow also evident on the faces of the youngest royals, the future King George, and his sister, Princess Charlotte, who, while deeply saddened, still had enough composure to remind her big brother of the rules of etiquette for such a formal occasion at her "Gan Gan's" state funeral.

However, the UK with the monarch as its anointed head of state has triumphed for hundreds of years, colonised most of the world and left a trail of dispossession in countries that they invaded to benefit the empire, later the Commonwealth. And my ancestors were part of it.

It was therefore interesting that the strangest take on Queen Elizabeth's passing and the role of the monarchy in modern-day Australia was found in the paper you are reading today.

In Wednesday's The Examiner editorial titled Monarchy's crucial role in our identity, the following was offered:

"In some respects the pageantry of the modern monarchy can actually be seen as a symbol of the triumph of the people over those who claim to have arbitrary powers."

Sorry, what? The pageantry of the modern monarchy is pomp and ceremony which fails to symbolise triumph against arbitrary power when the head of state is born to reign.

Nor does pageantry preach that a constitutional monarchy is power to the people.

Yes, it may be far more democratic than a communist ruler, but accession to the Commonwealth throne has nothing to do with commoners and everything to do with birthright.

Furthermore, to consider the modern monarchy you must also consider the monarchy of the past and what was done in the name of queens and kings.

By way of explanation, of the two-hundred-member countries of the United Nations, the English have invaded and set-up a military presence in 171 of them.

Of course, it can be argued that with colonisation, the 171 countries have also accepted progress through architecture, industry, a Westminster system of parliamentary government, technology, and the importance and stability of institution, yet it is sorrowfully viewed by those who were disposed and traumatised through unimaginable suffering, heartache, grief, loss, and death.

But for all the discussion about the role of a constitutional monarchy like Australia more than 17,000 kilometres from Buckingham Palace, most Australians appear unmoved by calls for a republic or even to conduct another vote on the matter.

"A constitutional monarchy and Westminster parliament is the best form of governance, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, just have a look at the US, we don't want a Donald Trump ..." are the style of comments and the common sentiment that fill social media platforms.

Change is difficult and if not well understood then it rarely occurs smoothly.

The 1999 Australian Republic Referendum attracting a 93 per cent voter turnout was lost 55 per cent to 45 per cent when the following statement was posed:

"To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament."

In 2014 the Scottish people voted against a far more basic question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" Again, the vote was lost 55-45.

Throughout Queen Elizabeth's funeral the words stability and constant were mentioned many times to describe the late monarch. And it is those qualities that will make any changes to our Constitution even more difficult. In good times and in bad the Queen has been the constant and now Commonwealth countries will turn to the King.

The level of stability often referred to and delivered by a constitutional monarchy is what we know, but for many it causes great pain. Do we ignore that pain and soldier on with a stiff upper lip or should we acknowledge our past and find a way to recognise those who feel nothing but sorrow?

Perhaps our first step should be to accept the need for voice as called for in the Uluru Statement from the Heart: "A Voice to Parliament is a body enshrined in the Constitution that would enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to provide advice to the Parliament on policies and projects that impact their lives."

It's the very least we should do and without any need for pageantry and modern spin.