IN his column in this newspaper and reflecting upon 2016, Philip Dunne MP, told us that the American people had spoken and we needed to respect the outcome.

So where does this leave us? The question arises because our esteemed MP and columnist omitted to mention that nearly three million more Americans voted for Hilary Clinton than for Donald Trump.

It was the vagaries of the Electoral College not the popular vote of the American people that has delivered ‘the Donald’ to the Presidency.

Not that we are in any position to point fingers at the American electoral system. It can throw up a perverse result like this but here in the UK our system as a matter of course delivers majority Governments with minority support.

In 2015 the Conservatives won an overall majority for five years with just 37 per cent of the votes cast and the support of less than one on four of those entitled to vote.

This is a strange concept of democracy but one in which both major parties (Labour and Conservative) collude as an example of the self-serving attitudes that so poison the standing of the political class.

The electoral system is just one of the issues that, in the coming years, our leaders will have to face which will show if they really ‘get’ what is going on and are prepared to do something about it before it’s too late.

Sadly, the inability of the Queen to attend the traditional Christmas and New Year Services at Sandringham, reportedly and hopefully because of nothing more than a heavy cold, reminds us of another issue that will regrettably and inevitably have to be faced in the coming years.

Only a declining minority of people in this country were even alive when the young Princess Elizabeth became Queen. It was a world that was almost unrecognisable from the one in which we live in today with very different attitudes.

It would be quite wrong to believe that a deep respect and admiration for a woman who has served for so long can be equated to a support and enthusiasm for the institution.

The Queen’s own story powerfully illustrates how attitudes have changed and the monarchy’s key proposition as a ‘model Christian family’ has long become unsustainable.

Born in 1926, the daughter of the Duke of York, the Queen was destined for the life of a minor Royal, probably living in the country surrounded by her beloved horses and dogs.

All this changed after it was deemed unacceptable for her uncle, a single man, to be king and married to a divorcee.

Not much had changed 20 years later when the Queen’s sister, the late Princess Margaret, at the time a single woman, was forced to choose between her royal status and her love for a divorced war hero, Peter Townsend – albeit the innocent party in a marriage breakdown.

How things have changed since. Three of the Queen’s four children have been divorced.

All being well, Prince Charles will to come to the throne not just as a divorce married to a divorced woman but as a man who, when married to the late Princess Diana and with two young boys, had an adulterous affair with the wife of a fellow army officer.

This is not to be censorious and there is joy that Prince Charles appears to have found domestic happiness in later life.

But it graphically illustrates how times and attitudes change.

When the Queen, the keystone that has held Monarchy together, is gone major change is inevitable. If it exists at all it will be very different probably much smaller and purely ceremonial.

This like the electoral system is an issue that has to be faced by Philip Dunne and his colleagues who must respect that change is inevitable.