@SantaClawsServiette
Empirically, constitutional monarchy is a good system. And I've never seen any evidence that trying to set up wholly new systems is likely to turn out better.
I think people often get caught up in objecting to it as elitist when in reality the real danger is from another quarter entirely, corporate capitalism. The monarchy is all tied up in ways that make it difficult to influence politics and create an ideal that it exists to serve, whereas modern capitalism is every bit as much about asserting power and privileged, but with no constraints on their power and with an explicit expectation that it be self-serving. It has far more influence on politics and economics, often in quite sneaky ways. And it's no more merit based than any aristocracy - it's robber barons unrestrained, as opposed to robber barons, tamed.
This is a very interesting argument,
@SantaClawsServiette: a welcome and refreshing one on a thread full of shortcuts to thinking like 'they bring in tourist revenue!' and 'Do you really want President Blair?'
Corporate capitalism and neoliberalism are entrenched ideologies, partly courtesy of the likes of Thatcher, Reagan and Blair. The deregulation of the banks in the 80s cemented the power of the financial sector to the nth degree (for that we can thank Clinton, who started this and then we and other nations followed). The fiscal, corporate greed this led to is directly responsible for the likes of the Barings Bank collapse and the taxpayer bailout of Northern Rock. Incredible, isn't it, that people can fuck up on such a monumental scale, and whilst granted Nick Leeson served time for his shenanigans NR were richly rewarded for their mercenariness and incompetence.
This shit is what should be making people seethe, rather than worrying about what Harry (who sensibly left) and Meghan (who unlike the Windsors can boast a few active braincells) are up to.
Where we differ is that I see the whole of the elite political system (and that includes the Windsors) as the veins through which the blood of this corruption flows; aided by a partisan and powerful media. You can't separate the two. I'm not buying that the Windsors don't have undue influence. For one thing, read between the lines for more than five minutes and you'll clearly see the extent to which they are obviously in bed with the media. The unelected Head of State has a meeting with the elected PM each week, the contents of which we are not allowed to know. We're not allowed access to their finances. There are strings being pulled behind the scenes, or shenanigans like Andrew's would have come to light years ago.
Ousting the Windsors and the antediluvian House of Lords won't change such entrenched corruption overnight. The Lord Cashcrofts of this world will still be with us. But it would send something more resembling the right kind of social message. And it could, potentially, be the beginning of what's likely - as is the British way - to be a long, slow process of change.
That's how a system more properly resembling democracy would benefit the citizens of this country.