You hardly need to think back to recall the extraordinary outpouring of grief after the death of the Queen. Her funeral was watched by many millions throughout the world, and the moment seemed to unite our fractious nation for a moment. The public are being invited to view her resting place in Windsor Castle, but at the moment that is all people, in respect of a fitting memorial, have to remember her by, and in a happy, appreciative way as a historical figure. It seems wrong.

There’s been some chatter on social media about Sadiq Khan’s refusal to erect a statue of Elizabeth II on the famously “empty” fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square. I don’t know what Khan’s motives are, but I doubt he is “anti-British” as his critics suggest. It’s been used in recent years to display modern art and currently features quite a nice and thought-provoking statue of Malawian Baptist preacher and pan-Africanist John Chilembwe. Nothing wrong with that.

It occurs to me that a figure as globally loved and respected as the Queen deserves rather better than the fourth plinth. It’s not a particularly prominent spot, in fact, and unsuitable as a site for the kind of standalone monument that her life and service as head of state demand.

It would be wrong to have her on a par with the other three tenants around Admiral Nelson — a couple of obscure Victorian generals — and it seems disrespectful to her memory for her to be awarded the same status as George IV (1820-30); who, as a dissolute Prince Regent and monarch was everything Elizabeth II wasn’t. The fourth plinth was originally intended for William IV, the “sailor king” 1830-37 — and a fairly undistinguished man he was too.

No, it’s not a compliment to be bunged on the fourth plinth — and instead, in my view, Elizabeth II should surely be granted her own space. It should be as imposing and dignified as the gilt Victoria Memorial outside Buckingham Palace, unveiled in 1911 and finished in 1924. On its centenary, it might be rather fitting to find a space at the other end of the Mall for the Elizabeth Memorial. Or at the end of Whitehall.

That might entail shifting Charles — the diminutive equestrian statue of Charles I, that is. I’m sure a public appeal for subscriptions would be able to find something suitable, and the nation’s artists and sculptors invited to submit their designs — which could be out to a public vote, or a vote of the subscribers (with some safeguards against any “Boaty McBoatface” larking about. Maybe a thing that reflects the Commonwealth prominently, her foreign diplomacy, and her loves — horses, dogs, the countryside).

It need not be in London — Windsor, Sandringham or Balmoral would all be contenders. It wouldn’t seem fitting for it to be a bombastic imperial sort of affair, but still with some grace, elegance, style and a sense of humour — a tough brief, rather like the one she took on as Head of the Nation in 1952.

I’m not a fanatical monarchist, but, as I say it seems a shame that the Queen can’t be commemorated on a permanent basis for her “fans” but also as a continuing national symbol of her values: which included tolerance, a belief in diversity, faith and of course a compassionate, inclusive Christianity.

Anyway, I hope that the new Culture Secretary, Michelle Donelan, will take up the idea, and Mayor Khan will support it. The government really does need a popular project to pursue, and they should, just so long as they don’t weaponise it into some sort of awful Brexity culture war thingie. The Queen would not approve of that.