Should the monarchy end with this queen?

[ivykaty44]

YABU Charles will be the next king, we can’t pick and choose and the system should go on

YANBU the monarchy should end and we get to vote on a president in future

Apart from the fact that you can’t be that committed to republicanism if you only want it once the nice old lady we have now has passed on

I guess we could have a revolution and chop of her head instead, or just make her redundant, but when would be a good time to end a monarchy that has ruled for 350 years

Yanbu OP, bin the RF asap.

I don't want a boring wee man like your president. It's as simple as that

Out of all the weird and emotional excuses for keeping the monarchy seen on mn over the months, this is the one that finally explains it to me.

Brits appear to be a bunch of drama-addicted sleb worshippers. Heaven forbid those in authority should just... get on with the job. Scandal and intrigue is far more beneficial to long-term stability.

The revenue they bring into the country never gets mentioned

It gets mentioned every single time on these threads but no-one claiming it has ever provided provable figures.

The money that the Windsors (actually Saxe-Coburg-Gotha - they’re not a particularly English family) supposedly bring in is actually not about them - it’s about buildings and art works (which they charge very handsomely for).

France we’re sensible and got rid of the monarchy and aristocracy - they still get as many tourists as they want. Tourists don’t meet the Windsors or their hangers on.

I have never yet met a republican who can explain to me how anybody's life would be improved in any way by having an elected head of state. I don't believe there would be a saving of money either. Heads of state however they get the job cost money. M le President costs the French a fortune, and as for the cost of POTUS - makes HM look cheap.

For some of us it's honestly not about the money, DerAlteMann
We appreciate that having an elected head of state could be more expensive - though it doesn't have to be - but sometimes the principle matters more

I have never yet met a republican who can explain to me how anybody's life would be improved in any way by having an elected head of state

Because we will all be equal.

Also, it's fairer if you can choose a head of state rather than any old random who happens to be born into it, there's some merit involved.

@DerAlteMann There would be a huge money saving and money making abilities - one residence only. All other residences open to tourists. No money or support for multiple family members.

And people would get to elect their own head of state based on merit. I mean do you believe in democracy? What do people get out of electing their politicians?? Maybe there should just be a dictatorship if it makes no difference 🙄

Comparison to POTUS is also stupid. He’s head of government. Nothing at all like a ceremonial president.

M le President costs the French a fortune, and as for the cost of POTUS - makes HM look cheap.

Those aren't the only presidential models though. I know I must sound like a broken record now, but the Irish model is much more cost effective than the monarchy.

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.

@Poetrypatty

I have never yet met a republican who can explain to me how anybody's life would be improved in any way by having an elected head of state

Because we will all be equal.

Also, it's fairer if you can choose a head of state rather than any old random who happens to be born into it, there's some merit involved.

This is a myth though. People are not all equal in a republic, nor is society fair.

Though the people at the top of the heap in those systems are quite happy to with the illusion of equality.

This is a myth though. People are not all equal in a republic, nor is society fair

Even so, surely it's a step forward to get rid of people sitting on gold thrones wearing a crown while we bow and curtsey to them while paying them millions.

It’s an insult to Diana to say camilla should be a ‘queen’

@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.

Constitutional monarchy is a soundbite, as we don't actually have a constitution, just a bunch of old documents and the mess we were unable to resolve in 1660. Empirically yes it's a good system for the puppet royals' bank accounts and for keeping the public docile with comforting platitudes.

The monarchy Windsor-style is all tied up in ways that make it very hard for people to understand how the Queen influences politics so they give up trying, and watch the RF pratting about in ostrich feathers for a bit of light relief.

You're kidding yourself if you think the robber barons are "tamed". They keep multiplying like rabbits, the sovereign grant goes up, never down, and they have literally no limits on land ownership or what they can own and inherit from each other based on what Egbert the Magnificent or whatever his name was managed to get his mitts on in 1349.

‘ The revenue they bring into the country never gets mentioned’

It gets mention all the fecking time. But it’s not them bringing it in, is it? It’s the buildings, the jewels, the changing of the guard and all that pomp etc which will still be there once King Charles or whatever he’ll be called fecks off to take a back seat in Cornwall.
All of that belongs to the U.K., not to a handful of people who happened to be born ‘royal.’

The money that the Windsors (actually Saxe-Coburg-Gotha - they’re not a particularly English family)

The Queen is at least half British thanks to her mother. That’s before you even consider how complex her ancestry is on her father’s side.

Yes, the royal family has significant German roots. But that’s a natural consequence of centuries of marriage between European royal families. I think sometimes people believe we would have a ‘proper’ British royal family if the Hanoverians hadn’t been drafted in. It’s bollocks. James Stuart, the Old Pretender, had an Italian mother and a French grandmother. Christ only knows when we last had a pure-bred British monarch.

@GreenWhiteViolet

YANBU. It's outdated and ridiculous. I have some respect for the Queen and her sense of duty, but after she goes, that should be the end of it. All the history and palaces will still be there for the tourists and anyone else who is interested. The monarchy should be a part of our past, not our future.

The 'skip Charles' people are bizarre. That's not how a hereditary monarchy works. You get whoever is next in line, whether you like them or not.

I'm sure if we had a President there would sometimes be someone elected that I don't like or approve of. The difference? It's temporary, and it's democratic. President William? Sure. A million times better than King William. We can vote him out next time if he's terrible.

Agreed. Once the Queen dies, I'd like it to end.

@Poetrypatty

I have never yet met a republican who can explain to me how anybody's life would be improved in any way by having an elected head of state

Because we will all be equal.

Also, it's fairer if you can choose a head of state rather than any old random who happens to be born into it, there's some merit involved.

Why do we need a Head of State at all? If we’re getting rid of the monarchy, why replace them! Why not just stick with the elected government we have? We don’t need two elected leaders.

Once the Queen dies, I'd like it to end.

Why wait until then?

Christ only knows when we last had a pure-bred British monarch

Would've been Oliver Cromwell, had he accepted the Humble Petition and the word "King".

but why do people from abroad visit London. ??? For the Royals no doubt.

does someone really and sincerely believe this? how bizarre. I am from "abroad" and I love London but I can guarantee you I don't come here for "the royals". I honestly don't know anyone who does.

Why is a titular head of state required? The constitutional requirement was dealt a death blow by Boris when he made the queen prorogue parliament in an unconstitutional manner. She had no power to do otherwise so what is now the point of the office?

And as for the opening things etc. Have people read the thread on here where the poster's daughter had no clue who Prince Edward was
and a whole lot of posters said Prince Edward had shown up for various school things and none of their children knew (or cared) who he was either. Does it really matter if a royal (or someone married into the royals) opens a fete or cuts a ribbon?

Why do we need a Head of State at all? If we’re getting rid of the monarchy, why replace them! Why not just stick with the elected government we have? We don’t need two elected leaders.

It’s a safeguard against totalitarianism and dictatorship to have them as separate functions. Putting too much unchecked power in the hands of the PM is usually considered dangerous in political theory.

I really think the Irish have a good balance in their system.

Yes the monarchy should end

@WomanStanleyWoman

The money that the Windsors (actually Saxe-Coburg-Gotha - they’re not a particularly English family)

The Queen is at least half British thanks to her mother. That’s before you even consider how complex her ancestry is on her father’s side.

Yes, the royal family has significant German roots. But that’s a natural consequence of centuries of marriage between European royal families. I think sometimes people believe we would have a ‘proper’ British royal family if the Hanoverians hadn’t been drafted in. It’s bollocks. James Stuart, the Old Pretender, had an Italian mother and a French grandmother. Christ only knows when we last had a pure-bred British monarch.

Yes, the Queen Mum was very British in heritage. So was Diana. Same again with Kate.

Philip’s ancestry was as much Danish & Russian as it was German.

The “bunch of Germans” insult is becoming increasingly inapplicable with each generation.

No because they bring in so much money for the country.
We would all have to pay higher taxes if we didn’t have them.