To think the monarchy is regressive and should be abolished?

[Muezza]

The principle of the monarchy, that they are superior people because of the family they were born into/married into is completely regressive and embarrassing for us as a country.

All the hoopla around the jubilee is cringe worthy

I know its just an AIBU thread but it makes me so sad when I read this. I honestly think the first past the post system has led to people to really despising their own because the inbuilt polarising effect makes it’s seem like everyone’s total idiot. I’ve lived in a few countries with some version of proportional representation and while they’re not perfect and you get a bit of the usual political backbiting, there is nowhere near the polarisation and vitriol I’ve seen in the UK and the USA. It’s not the electorate that are the problem, it’s just the system, imho the UK is a good country generally it deserves better than this.

elective monarchy is a monarchy ruled by an elected monarch, in contrast to a hereditary monarchy in which the office is automatically passed down as a family inheritance. The manner of election, the nature of candidate qualifications, and the electors vary from case to case.

This!

The monarchy is so old fashioned it’s embarrassing, but our current ‘government’ is even worse.

okay, makes sense, that’s what I imagined it was, so in what way is it different from having an elected but totalitarian ruler? Are there any good examples?
Or is it that they are still just heads of state but instead of being born into it they are elected? In which case is this different from the Republic of Ireland presidency model in anyway?

At this point in time, I don't have enough research to offer a qualified analysis.

I would rather the second chamber of the British Government was made democratic ie. an elected House of Lords, before we consider abolishing the monarchy.

Another thing that seems to have been ignored so far is that the Queen is head of state of the UK (pop 67m) and 14 other countries (pop 80m) and also British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. Would they accept an elected head of state if more than half the population don't get a vote? Do they get a vote on whether the monarchy is abolished? At the moment they get the same say as Brits do, ie. none.

If the monarchy was to be replaced by a president, then like others have said, I would prefer the role to be almost totally apolitical and the office holder must not be a current (or even recent) member of a political party - more like the Lord Mayor of London than the Mayor of London - and their role should be very much ceremonial like the monarch's current duties. The Irish Presidency is a very suitable template for this - about the only political power they have is that any bill they are given to sign into law which they don't approve of can be sent for consideration by the Supreme Court before they sign.

If this happens then one problem is that the world knows who the Queen is, but who can name the current presidents of countries like Ireland, India or Germany.