A genuine question for royalists.

Definitely against any unelected power in any sort of sense.

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?

The fact that the prime minister is not the head of state keeps his or her ego in check. What lengths would Boris Johnson or Tony Blair have gone to in order to get themselves into that role if it was up for grabs?

@surreygirly I get all that but it should be part of our HISTORY not our future. Times have changed.

Why do you think ‘it’s the finest system of government ever devised?’

I'm not a royalist nor a republican and wouldn't say that at all but I'm happy enough with the current system.

It will a huge upheaval to get rid - according to consitutional experts I've seen not be easy to do as there a space for a head of state and it's not always as clear who owns what - so it would take time money and poltcial capital for what exactly what the next step look like.

We've just had brexit with no clear end goal and that's cost us economcially and brought no obvious benefits yet. Looking round the globe constitutional mochanies seem a fairly stable system compared to many other type of government.

This country has been a republic - after brutal civial war - and we ended up with a Lord Protector who disbanded parliment - so had less control over him that previous King we'd just got rid of and tried to pass position on to his eldest son.

France went from kings to mass killing, civial war to French emperors brief flirt with a king with The Bourbon Restoration to modern government - hardly plain sailing involving huge debts and lots of death.

We've spent centuries stripping power from our Monarchs they have some still but image we'll continue on current path of dimishing their importance and using them where we can. At some point family might want not to do it any more and it woudl be mcuh easier to get rid at that point.

If you want to sell me on a republic now tell me exactly what you want instead and how much it's going to cost and what the benefits are to me and the rest of us voters.

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???

@snowlaser I doubt Andrew would have changed his ways.

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

But we can’t change the individuals.

that’s the entire issue. We have no recourse against them. Remember when the queen failed to step in when boris illegally suspended parliament?

It isn't a genuine question though, is it? You have just dismissed everyone who has attempted to answer it.

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

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?

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

The King has no power and limited influence. He is more of a figurehead to glad hand foreign dignitaries and boost tourism, which he does well.

Meanwhile his son and his grandson are being educated from birth to do that job. No doubt when their times come they will be ready to do a fine job too.

I can't see how an elected head of state would do a better job, and if we had one we would still have the cost of keeping up Windsor Castle as a national monument and paying for the presidents bodyguards etc.

The two examples in the OP (Trump and Johnson) are elected officials and only in power for a set amount of time. It’s a risk with any elected official - they can say one thing to get into power and then completely turn the tables once they’re in (**looks sternly in the direction of Keir and co).

For me the British RF don’t really have that much power. The King signs off on bills but he’s never going to go against the will of his PM and other elected officials.

I quite enjoy all the pomp and ceremony that goes with royalty but also like the clear moves to stripping it back to the bare minimum and clearing out all the ‘hangers on’. More needs to be done on this - for example I don’t see why Harry and Meghan should keep their Sussex titles when they do nothing to represent the county and are able to use these titles to make a commercial living. Monarchy is effectively an ‘accident of birth’, comes with great privilege and therefore those lucky enough to have bestowed titles, shouldn’t be allowed to personally profit.

I wouldn’t describe myself as a monarchist but for reasons I couldn’t articulate, had a real lump in my throat when the Queen died. I realise now it’s because I think she genuinely loved and wanted to serve her country and she was a continuous presence for most people’s lives. I suspect there’s no one quite like her now.

Not to me.
Have there been lots of peaceful revolutions, it is easy to build a community or a home in a society that keeps drastically changing.

Interested by people who need someone around for "stability" and "consistency". I can't imagine describing myself like that as it's very infantilising, no?

I prefer the royal family to some bullshit political appointment.