Page 7 | A genuine question for royalists.

Tutorpuzzle · 2025-10-31T11:45:20+00:00

I am a republican. I believe that absolute power can only end in disaster. Trump appears to want absolute power. Boris Johnson tried it (proroguing of parliament, amongst other things.) Please can you tell me why you think (ignoring the Windsors self-destructive present tendencies), having a head of state who is in position only by accident of birth is a good thing?

GreenCandleWax · 31/10/2025 14:42

The first two sentences of your post, OP describe some confusion. A president head of state has a lot of power. A monarch in our case at least in a democracy does not have political power but does have huge influence. One reason they need to be above reproach - not guaranteed in their family as we have seen recently, but the chances are better in a hereditary monarchy with a high reputation, than they would be with an elected head of state with who-knows-what skeletons in their closet that could bring reputatonal ruin to them and disrepute to public life. At least the inheriting members of a monarchy will have been brought up and trained for the roles, and are more likely to be good symbolic figureheads. Trump - I rest my case.

snowlaser · 31/10/2025 14:35

FuckRealityBringMeABook · 31/10/2025 13:24

Lol that Andrew would have been a paragon of virtue had he been first in line to the throne

Show quote history

I didn't say that at all. I'm saying though that he would have basically either had to toe the line more or be thrown out. It's because he wasn't in line for the throne that he was basically ignored until all the recent rumours blew up. He might have "done a Harry" and said he wanted nothing to do with the whole thing, but for sure his life would have been much more controlled for him.

Dontlletmedownbruce · 31/10/2025 14:23

surreygirly · 31/10/2025 12:58

It is my heritage
It is in part what makes me English
It makes us different to everyone else
The Queen joined the forces during WW2 when many others bottled out
Philip was naval commander praised for his decisions that prevented successful bombing of British ships during the invasion of Italy
As a mate of mine who is a republican Aussie said he was glued to royal funerals and coronation and said correctly no nation on the planet could have done the Queens of Phil's funeral the way it was done or the Coronation
It is the result of over 1000 years of incredible history
It brought in millions £ in terms of tourism and TV rights
The world watched
That will do for me

As a non British person, (who theoretically could hate the royals for what their predecessors did to my predecessors) i fully agree with this post. I think people underestimate the tourist attraction these individuals bring. First thing i did on my first visit was go to Buckingham Palace. The family may be privileged but they are working all the time, most of them anyway, and they are 'on' all the time. They have few personal liberties and are constantly under scrutiny. It's an incredibly difficult life, one I would hate. They should be given some respect.

Also Britain is very quick in general to erase it's own history and heritage, mostly because it's pretty awful and shameful, but there is much to be proud of too and I think its a nation in danger of eroding its culture. Its hard to be a proud Brit these days because of racial and historical connotations but people in Britian now need something to unite them and be proud of, they are a self critical race which is good in many ways because they are self aware but it shouldn't be all negative. No one should be raised with a sense of shame. I think to take away the royal family would be the final nail in the coffin of British culture and ultimately would have a negative impact on the average good citizen.

Ablondiebutagoody · 31/10/2025 14:04

Tutorpuzzle · 31/10/2025 12:44

Couldn’t agree more. But why do we need a head of state in addition to an elected pm? I know, I know, ‘just look at America’ . But Trump can be voted out! And has been voted out already.

Show quote history

I think that as a not overtly political representative of the British people, yes we need someone other than the pm.

Thepeopleversuswork · 31/10/2025 14:02

I’m very torn on this and always have been. I like the idea of having a constitutional monarchy because I think its important to have a source of constitutional authority which is independent of politics and which cannot be swayed or manipulated by a particular individual or political group.

But I also think the idea of inherited power and wealth is profoundly undemocratic and serves to reinforce inequalities in our society. The idea that people who have vast wealth through the accident of their birth are help up as aspirational to us unsettles me and I find the whole culture around the Royal Family and the adulation they inspire nauseating. I think they entrench some of the worst aspects of the class system in this country. The whole horrendous English upper class system would be significantly weaker if the monarchy didn’t exist.

I wouldn’t get rid of them now and I have a fair amount of respect for Charles (and his mother). But if we were starting our constitutional system from scratch I wouldn’t create them.

ExpressCheckout · 31/10/2025 14:01

LolWhotzit · 31/10/2025 12:55

The Royal family are awful self serving people surrounded by people who kowtow to them. They have actively got legislation changed to suit their needs. Read THIS article from the Guardian. The details how The Queen got environmental Laws charged in her her personal interest. It’s got nothing to do with the ‘history’ of the U.K. and everything to do with greediness. Also are you aware The Queen (and future sovereigns) managed to get herself exempted from paying inheritance tax. This only happened in 1993. Info here Unsurprisingly John Major, the then prime minister, ended up being knighted. How is that in anyone’s interests but the monarchy. The exemptions the royal family have for environmental laws, or health and safety laws or employment laws could be reversed by the current King but he also doesn’t care and only wants what is best for himself.

I was writing a big ger to your post but have now got AI to help but with lots of my imput! So here is the AI reply.

That is a classic, rose-tinted view that willfully ignores the privileges the monarchy actively retains at the expense of accountability.
It's not a harmless symbol; it's an arrangement sustained by specific legal and political carve-outs:
• Immunity from the Law: The Sovereign remains immune from criminal and civil prosecution (Sovereign Immunity).
• Environmental Blind Spots: No other private landowner is granted the immunity the monarch holds—over 30 laws reportedly prevent police or environmental inspectors from entering private royal estates (like Balmoral and Sandringham) to investigate wildlife or pollution offences without the King's explicit permission.
• Freedom from Scrutiny: The Royal Household successfully lobbied for exemptions from key sections of the Freedom of Information Act and historically from Anti-Discrimination and Equal Pay laws, making them a legally protected, opaque employer.
• The Mutual Benefit Society: The idea that politicians are "public servants" who simply respect history is laughable when they are perpetually rewarded for their deference. The constant cycle of politicians being elevated to Lords, Knights, and Dames by the Crown creates a self-serving establishment that ensures the monarchy's privileges are never truly challenged.
The "compromise" is a cozy deal between the establishment and the Crown, not a benefit for the average citizen

sorry for the part AI response but I’m typing on a phone and AI is easier. The sentiments are mine.

The Royal family are self serving and out of touch. There is no place for them in modern society. It doesn’t mean we can’t appreciate the history of the Royal family.

I’ve no idea what ‘having a higher global status’ means?

Show quote history

Bless. The monarchy didn’t loot the nation, they just inherited a few castles and a lifetime of being publicly admonished by people who think reading one Guardian article makes them constitutional experts.

Enjoy your day

Wishfulthinkingonmypart · 31/10/2025 13:57

KoiTetra · 31/10/2025 12:19

My view on why I prefer monarchy over republic:

I do not trust anyone who chooses to put themselves forward for a position with that much power and prestige - Those born into the role with no choice are in my view more likely to put the nation before self interest.
The royal family contribute economically to the UK. It is hard to find exact figures but the majority of studies agree that the royal family are net contributors to the UK economy via tourism etc. Yes people would still come to see palaces etc without them but not on the same scale, you will never convince me that there will be as much interest in a historic relic as there is in a working palace.
I do not trust the British public to vote for anyone decent. Look at our history of MP's and PM's they are shocking, the general public are shocking at picking leaders.
As Trump has shown an elected leader with enough support and desire can override checks and balances and take more and more power. How would republicans (who as a generalisation tend to be left wing / left leaning) feel if Farage was voted in as President and begun to dismantle the checks put in to limit his power?
I agree with your statement absolute power results in disaster, this is why our current system works. The King has very little real power.

I agree with this. Would also echo other pp’s, I like the continuity of the RF.

I believe there are studies which show constitutional monarchies tend to function well as democracies

Happy to say the current lot, as individuals, are a bit of a let down, but in the end they are humans who grew up thinking they’re special… ultimately it’s not about them as individuals.

thedramaQueen · 31/10/2025 13:53

For me the the whole concept of having Royal family goes against the idea of a meritocracy. If we want to have a society that really is a meritocracy we can't have a Royal Family in my opinion.

I don't think there is a perfect society anywhere in the world but we certainly could do better.

hairbearbunches · 31/10/2025 13:52

@JamesClyman IMO a constitutional monarchy is the finest system of government ever devised (an opinion the Netherlands, Spain and the Scandinavian countries, among others, seem to share).

Would that we remotely took a leaf out of the countries books you mention and did what their royals do. Those countries have a royal list that numbers of handful of paid for royals and most of them do ordinary jobs, not swan around cutting ribbon, gorging on the public teat.

Artesia · 31/10/2025 13:50

Tutorpuzzle · 31/10/2025 13:44

That’s the best roll back I’ve seen in a while @Artesia 🤣.

Really not. Democracy in theory- great. Democracy in practice- terrifying.

Cleikumstovies · 31/10/2025 13:44

The soft power exerted by KC with the recent Trump visit is promulgated. We do not know how much Queen Elizabeth used it in her long reign. Reasonable to assume it was used.

Original poster

Tutorpuzzle · 31/10/2025 13:44

That’s the best roll back I’ve seen in a while @Artesia 🤣.

OP posts:

LlynTegid · 31/10/2025 13:42

I like the separation of the ceremonial from the political, value the soft power, and think it does bring some tourism.

I would prefer the theoretical powers of the monarchy to be formally removed though.

Artesia · 31/10/2025 13:42

Tutorpuzzle · 31/10/2025 13:37

‘Democracy is terrifying’ ; what a terrifying view to hold, you are a dictator’s dream @Artesia

Oh give over. Am not advocating for North Korean style leadership. But democracy is only
great in theory. In practice it leads to populist, short termist decision making. How can the most difficult issues be tackled if those in charge always have one eye on the next election. See NHS reform. While it's still the least worst option, it's not perfect by any stretch.

Cleikumstovies · 31/10/2025 13:42

LolWhotzit · 31/10/2025 13:05

Blimey, I can’t believe people are still looking up to The Queen - when her final act was protecting a sex abuse suit.
She used her tax-free private wealth to help Andrew buy silence from Virginia Giuffre. That was her decision and shows the type of person she was. Is anyone on Mumsnet going to justify that???

VG, who was by the time the financial offer was made to her, was already very rich in her own right. She could have declined and demanded her day on court. She did not. She took the money, albeit allegedly giving some of it way to good causes.

DickDewey · 31/10/2025 13:41

JoyintheMorning · 31/10/2025 12:07

I like the idea of continuity that the Royal family gives us especially as we have had different waves of incomers. Vikings, Normans who took over entirely as well as other immigrants such as Huguenots fleeing Catholic France.

Almost all executive power has been taken from out Royal Family and absorbed by Govt.
Many Republics have a President with few exec powers. eg. Ireland and Germany. That seems to work well for them.
Executives like Trump and Macron may not be the best system. USA had a bit of trouble with Nixon as well.

I never understand the ‘continuity’ comment.

Monarchies are not functional, they’re symbolic. Continuity lies with elected governments - institutions not individuals.

Europeans republics are equally (if not more) stable as the UK, as well as being democratic. Stability does not lie with an unelected figurehead.

TheNinkyNonkyIsATardis · 31/10/2025 13:39

I wouldn't call myself a royalist, but as a historian, if say that there's immense value in immediate transfer of power.

Human societies aren't exactly great at choosing, so there's something in the idea of a gilded cage for those ordained to rule and hold that power backstop.

Transitions of power are usually the most dangerous time to be an ordinary person, and they're not even quick.

Original poster

Tutorpuzzle · 31/10/2025 13:37

‘Democracy is terrifying’ ; what a terrifying view to hold, you are a dictator’s dream @Artesia

OP posts:

Artesia · 31/10/2025 13:32

FuckRealityBringMeABook · 31/10/2025 13:22

President Putin is better than King Putin. You could have someone like Putin on the throne for sixty years.

Show quote history

It's not as if the Russian people
can vote him out now though. And in any event democracy is terrifying- most people are idiots who follow the latest soundbites and their own self interest.

Original poster

Tutorpuzzle · 31/10/2025 13:25

FuckRealityBringMeABook · 31/10/2025 13:24

Lol that Andrew would have been a paragon of virtue had he been first in line to the throne

Show quote history

🤣🤣🤣

OP posts:

frumpy84 · 31/10/2025 13:25

JamesClyman · 31/10/2025 11:57

They are not Head of State by an "accident of birth". They are Head of State because Parliament says so. Go and google the "Act of Settlement".

Then, as a republican, explain to me how anyone is one whit better off by having the Head of State elected in some way. Either it would be from a bunch of second rate politicians, which is generally the way in most republics, or directly voted for by the electorate and given real powers that no UK sovereign has exercised since the Middle Ages?

IMO a constitutional monarchy is the finest system of government ever devised (an opinion the Netherlands, Spain and the Scandinavian countries, among others, seem to share).

The individuals may need to change (we got rid of the Stuarts, and Edward VIII after all), but I cannot see any system, anywhere - with the possible exception of the Irish Republic - that is any better.

Edited

yes but the king is king because he happened to emerge out of elizabeth

FuckRealityBringMeABook · 31/10/2025 13:24

snowlaser · 31/10/2025 12:56

Only if Charles had died before having children, in which case Andrews whole life would have played out differently as heir to the throne. It wouldn't simply be that life was exactly as today but with Andrew as King...every day of his life from the day Charles died to today would have been completely different

Show quote history

Lol that Andrew would have been a paragon of virtue had he been first in line to the throne

FuckRealityBringMeABook · 31/10/2025 13:22

Vaxtable · 31/10/2025 13:18

First post nails it

why do you think a republic would be any better? Trump? Nixon? Kennedy? Macron? Putin? Do you really want a President like any of them?

President Putin is better than King Putin. You could have someone like Putin on the throne for sixty years.

Original poster

Tutorpuzzle · 31/10/2025 13:21

Oh @Vaxtable , I’m not sure Putin is democratically elected! But all the others have, or will be, voted out ant some point And their families haven’t been in power since the nineteenth century!

OP posts:

FuckRealityBringMeABook · 31/10/2025 13:20

Shegotanology · 31/10/2025 12:53

Imagine if Charles had died, Andrew would now be King. It's crazy that power is handed down this way.

If Charles and Di were unable to conceive, which is a pretty common occurrence, we[d be looking at King Andrew in probably about 5 years from now.