republicans, over here!

[arghpleasestop]

OK, it's been 24 hours now.

Can I say it yet?

Long live the king - any king! - you must be joking. How on earth can it be the 21st century and there is still a hereditary monarchy of 'special people with the right blood' who wear crowns, live in palaces and play a formal role in politics?

I can see from other threads that others feel upset and are following it all closely. This thread is not to deny those feelings and for sure Queen E worked hard shaking hands for a long time - but to say, WTF, bring on the republic please.

Personally I'd rather not have the rulership of the entire nation hinging on whether some random bloke is firing blanks or not.

History could have been very different

Of course.

Just as it would have been different had Charles died childless in the ski avalanche that killed his friend.

King Andrew, anyone?

The case for a monarchy so far seems to boil down to:

• because that's how it's always been done
• Trump/Johnson
• Russia/China
• how will we ever pay for Buckingham Palace and the other royal residences unless a monarch and their extended family lives in them.
• glitter and shiny things

You can make your points without being so snooty and dismissive of everything that everyone is saying. Yes, you love the royal family and are happy to be subservient to them but you can express that without continuously putting people down.

Queen Anne would have been more preferable than King Charles

Even getting Victoria was by chance.

Victoria's father was Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn, the fourth son of the reigning King of the United Kingdom, George III.

Until 1817, Edward's niece, Princess Charlotte of Wales, was the only legitimate grandchild of George III. Her death in 1817 precipitated a succession crisis that brought pressure on the Duke of Kent and his unmarried brothers to marry and have children.

In 1818 he married Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, a widowed German princess with two children—Carl (1804–1856) and Feodora (1807–1872)—by her first marriage to Emich Carl, 2nd Prince of Leiningen. Her brother Leopold was Princess Charlotte's widower and later the first king of Belgium. The Duke and Duchess of Kent's only child, Victoria, was born at 4:15 a.m. on 24 May 1819 at Kensington Palace in London.

.......................................................................................................................................
Can you imagine that as an AIBU? I am being pressurised to marry and to have children because the country I live in has decided that the Head of State is there by birth right and none of the family have children

Amen. They're the only family in the UK exempt from the FOI Act. They don't pay inheritance tax. They pay other taxes, at an amount they think they will, which you are not allowed to know. They exert an inordinate influence over the media, and can veto BBC programmes. The unelected head of state has a meeting with the elected PM each week, the contents of which you and I are not allowed to know. They claim to be devoid of power, but exert this on an insidious level, in a means whose end is nothing more than positive self promotion and self interest. As a final observation on that point, they are apparently above the law.

Those objections are purely political, and I'd object to the system no matter which individuals are involved, rather than the Windsors personally. Until: they started lecturing on climate change when their footprint could rival the Pacific basin, the queen ensured re green issues no compulsory purchase orders could be levied against her personal land in Scotland, many members of that family are bone idle (cf. court circular), the eldest son hung out with the country's most notorious paedophile, was only recently embroiled in scandal about monetary donations, and tries to influence governmental policy as evidenced by the 'spider' letters. As for Andrew, no explanations necessary. This bunch are particularly poor custodians of their extreme privilege.

Cost to UK vs. income 'generated through tourism' is unquantifiable. We don't know what they cost because we're not allowed to. But it defies belief that a supposed democratic country, whose economy has for two years been decimated by a pandemic, can spend four whole days sacrificing more working productivity to string bunting around and wave tacky little flags in a misguided celebration of hereditary privilege. Have we lost our collective senses?

Now there is this unedifying, over-sentimental circus. After 3-5 years of Charles III, we'll see whether people are still so enthusiastic.

That was cathartic.

We only got Henry VIII because his older brother died young and childless.

People who object to the monarchy are always portrayed as "bitter and hateful"..... Not so, it's usually people who have a strong sense of justice and fair play. To call them hateful is pathetic and ill thought out.

Maybe it is too hard for that poster not to put people down, what with being so highly educated, and all. Anyone with a different view must obviously be an uneducated oik.

Who knows what great Monarchs we missed out on?

And let's not forget William the Conqueror. Or else we would have maybe a divided kingdom of Anglo-Saxons and Vikings...which could have meant a good deal with Scandinavian countries......

... it would have been different had Charles died childless in the ski avalanche that killed his friend
King Andrew, anyone?

The thought had occurred to me

Just goes to show that, however bad we republicans think it is, it could have been even worse

www.republic.org.uk/petition

Just goes to show that, however bad we republicans think it is, it could have been even worse.

Which surely is part of the reason we're republicans. All it takes is an accident of birth, a quirk of chance and there would be an Andrew on the throne with no recourse to the ballot box for removing him. (That's aside from the point that Charles does not in any respect have an unchequered history, and I'm not talking about Diana/Camilla).

IMO it's a pity King Andrew is not on the throne right now. It would likely hasten the demise of this feudal, anti-democratic, anachronistic farce.

I’ve seen more rudeness on recent threads from monarchists than from republicans.

They’ve been angry, dismissive, ready to tell anyone who doesn’t agree with them that they don’t care about their opinions but we are expected to listen to theirs.

why would anyone see the title to this thread and wind themselves up by joining it? - all they want is a ruck. Plenty of threads for them elsewhere.

Hahaha loving Queen Victoria's AIBU

IMO it's a pity King Andrew is not on the throne right now. It would likely hasten the demise of this feudal, anti-democratic, anachronistic farce

Actually that's a fair point. Personally I'm not expecting Charles to do much good for the monarchy's reputation, but there's no doubt Andrew would have been even worse

Then again people can be fickle - you only have to look at the posts saying "Oooo Charles has won me round" on the basis of just one speech

I don’t think questioning this farce makes me angry or bitter. I just don’t agree that in 2022, accident of birth should entitle an individual, regardless of their character or ability , to a life of obscene luxury and indolence courtesy of taxpayers.

Had the misfortune yesterday evening to not turn off the radio in time before the news came on and heard William declaring the Queen was relevant to everyone, which shows how grotesquely out of touch he is. There is no 'outpouring of grief' or mourning taking place under our roof or of anyone we know. The young people I have come into contact with could not care less; they have worries and concerns that Royalty will never have to give a passing thought to. I also find it gravely disturbing that someone who regularly took advice from Jimmy Saville and hobnobbed with that other prolific paedophile Peter Ball enjoys a position of huge responsibility. With you 100% OP and avoiding the news for the next fortnight; there is no 'news'. All this toadying makes me want to puke.

if that’s what some people think then go and live in a republic! I am sick of people trashing the Monarchy!!

You're just proving the points made by many anti-monarchist posters on this thread with that little outburst.

We live in a democracy and the people have every right to question, criticise and even outright oppose those that rule them, whether you like it or not. You don't get to demand that anyone who doesn't share your blind, unquestioning loyalty to the RF go and live somewhere else.

I, and many others on this thread, do not accept that King Charles III and his Mother before him are inherently superior to the rest of us and have a god-given right to rule purely because centuries ago one of their ancesters thought he was inherently superior and had a god-given right to rule, so he decided to launch an invasion and take power from another man who believed he was inherently superior and had a god-given right to rule. The fact that this outrages you just goes to show oppressive the system is, you can't stand criticsm of a group of people who wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire.

I think it’s interesting that as other people have said, the BBC which is meant to be impartial has made no representation of republicanism.

Re impartiality, is it normal for a political leader to tour with the royals?

Liz Truss wants to tour with Charles and he has agreed

I’m disappointed that the Queen’s passing seems to have ignited a love of royalty rather than a debate about monarchy.

did you see Charles’ tantrum about his desk yesterday? He has nothing but contempt for us.

It was always going to ignite that response. I'm not sure how much of it was real and I think it will fade fast

It's herd mentality thats being whipped up by the media atm. I reckon when all the pomp and ceremony is over and the dust has settled people will be able to have some reasonable discussions.