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

That's true! A good example of power corrupting. After Oliver popped his clogs guess who was slated to take over... His son. Hmmm.

No, Cromwell did not establish a republic at all. He established a hereditary theocracy and styled himself as the Lord Protector.

The biggest indicator now for voting allegiance and stance on issues like this is level of education. And the flag-shaggers don't come out too well...

These days level of education is no indicator of intelligence with half the population in younger generations being graduates. Age is the greatest indicator for support for the monarchy.

And if he was busy rewilding, people would be accusing of him not caring about agricultural production at a time of an impending grain shortage....

What's happened to the thread 🤣

It's GCSE history in places!

When you compare the behaviour of a good portion of society, it could be argued that most members of the current monarchy are more useful on the world's stage for the uk.

No we did not. Charles I had his head chopped off by Cromwell to establish a hereditary theocracy. Not a republic. Yes we had a civil war, actually we have had several civil wars. But we have not had a war in which we have killed millions in order to establish a democracy. Unlike everyone else with a Republic has done.

Seems you are the stupid one as you don’t even fucking know basic history.

I think I'd rather take pot luck with society than have Andrew represent me.

Can we stop calling each other stupid and swearing at one another? It’s a pretty interesting thread.

Didn't do any of this at school. They were too busy indoctrinating us about how we won the war and glossing over centuries of abominations.

People don't have to leave their own country because they challenge the status quo. That's how things grow and transform.

That’s just it though, the royal family doesn’t represent anyone in terms of governance. They have no political power at all. Their roles today are that of ambassadors and as living heritage.

Discovereads Really sure about that? Italy?

Not caught up with the whole thread yet, but has anyone claimed the bring in through tourism much more than they cost? It's like a verbal tic and usually gets mentioned sooner or later

I don't think you're BU, OP - not because of money or individuals but the sheer principle of the thing. Fact is the majority don't yet feel the same way, but I have hope it'll come in time, though probably not in my lifetime unless Charles makes an even worse hash of the job than I'd expect

Not caught up with the whole thread yet, but has anyone claimed the bring in through tourism much more than they cost? It's like a verbal tic and usually gets mentioned sooner or later

They have indeed! I was looking forward to replying to that one but someone beat me to it.

Never heard of Mussolini? And his Italian Social Republic?

has anyone claimed the bring in through tourism much more than they cost? It's like a verbal tic and usually gets mentioned sooner or later

Equally predictably followed by “What about Versailles?” We’ve been here too long @Puzzledandpissedoff!

@Discovereads that’s an interesting take on British history but it’s one not widely shared beyond (maybe also within?) the UK. There is a reason the union flag is often referred to as the “butcher’s apron” outside of Britain.

I won’t get into a body count (it’s arguably in the tens of millions during empire) but there were many atrocities enacted under the watchful eye of a constitutional British monarchy, mostly overseas but also some on “home” soil. Just Google “atrocities committed by Britain” I think you will agree, at the very least, that pacifism is not a defining feature of British history. Also, plenty of countries without a monarchy can be considered more peaceful than the UK today, according to the global peace index score, the UK doesn’t even crack the top 10, yet Iceland and Ireland do and they have no monarchy. So constitutional monarchy is not the causal factor for peace you imagine, though probably it doesn’t prohibit it necessarily either.

Lol. Ok then. We've literally invaded every country in the world bar 22 but you keep peddling some myth we're a benign nation.

There's absolutely no evidence that Cromwell intended for his son to succeed him. He gained support because he wanted to abolish the monarchy and people were tired of the belief that kings had a divine right to rule. It was very much about overthrowing a hereditary monarchy and 'I'm going to put my son in charge after I die' was not in the manifesto.

That he then became power crazed is a separate issue to the country's desire to overthrow a hereditary monarchy.

That's why I wrote most members.

You were talking about everyone having bloody revolutions to get rid of the monarchy and establish a republic.

They had a peaceful referendum in 1946, so after Mussolini, and the king and his male heirs were exiled. Not guillotined.

That he then became power crazed is a separate issue to the country's desire to overthrow a hereditary monarchy

It’s hardly a separate issue when it led to the restoration of the monarchy. Better the devil you know and all that.

Mussolini killed over 400,000 innocent Italian people…and this is in addition to how he also worked with Hitler to genocide the Italian Jews. Saying the monarchy was abolished by a ‘peaceful referendum’ in 1946 is being deliberately obtuse and ignoring the years of revolution caused by Mussolini and his Italian Social Republic in the two decades prior. A referendum that arguably was only peaceful because it was done post WWII and under the eye of the Allies and the UN.