I don't want to be 'reigned over' anymore

[Yubgftr]

While I totally respect the Queen and how she served the country, I think it's now a good time to end the monarchy as I think modern society has outgrown it.

Just the idea that someone inherits the job of head of state through birthright and reigns over us peasants is crazy in this modern age. Then all the ceremonies, titles, line of succession are remnants of a completely different era and tbh remind me of episodes of The Tudors or Game of Thrones, it's just so archaic and out of place.

I think having to bow and curtsey to people just because they were born or married into a special family also seems ridiculous. Why should I have to curtsey to any of them? Not saying I'd be rude or disrespectful but having to bend my knee to a set of people as if they were deities, it's just insane! I think I'd actually feel humiliated.

I also don't get the fawning and crying outside the palace - by all means be respectful and recognise her contribution but crying about someone you've never met? To me it's OTT

Back in medieval times when there was little education and religion was used to manipulate the masses, I can understand why all the peasants went mad for their sovereign and saw them as annointed by God etc etc but we're much more enlightened now (most of us!) so we need to make way for a new way of doing things.

Even a new national anthem - why is it all about the king or queen and god saving them? Why not about the people, the nation as a whole?

That said, I also hate the idea of someone like Boris Johnson being head of state and I bet that's a role he'd go for if we were a Republic. Swings and Roundabouts!

YABU - God save the king, monarchy forever
YANBU - time to end the monarchy

Exactly.

Don’t like free and fair elections? Off you pop!

Morons.

But you are not ''reigned over''. The royals have no real power. This is just for show and to maintain tradition.

You also don't have to bow or curtsy if you meet one of them.

You can simply choose to ignore them. They have no impact on your daily life.

I think they are great entertainment value and good for tourism.

I have much more of a problem with the Tory government than with the royals.

I am also quite looking forward to King Charles saying something that will ruffle Tory feathers on the environment, climate change and fracking.

The "Off you pop brigade" are making the biggest argument ever to get rid of the royals

It’s a shocking mentality, but as you said perhaps is quite revealing of the sort of worldview that would be passionate in its defence of hereditary monarchy. Transfer these people and their worldview to say the 17th century and getting exiled would be the least our worries!

I don't understand why people keep saying they prefer a king to a democratically elected head of state. The king in the UK has a representational role and that's it, he doesn't actually decide anything political. A show pony. What's the point? And opening up Buckingham Palace would bring in a lot more money than a royal family who live off our money.
I think the British monarchy is an embarrassment and I don't understand why people honestly believe they make the country a better place.

Telling people to emigrate because they don't want a monarchy shows how royalists lack arguments in their favour. All they can think of is "off you pop". Pathetic.

You can simply choose to ignore them. They have no impact on your daily life.

Turned on a tv lately?

To the people saying “move somewhere else if you don’t like it” - good grief! You wouldn’t think we are meant to live in a democracy. It’s perfectly reasonable to initiate a discussion on whether we have a monarchy. Maybe we should have a vote on it too?

Actually, previously when the monarch got too big for their boots they were the one got rid of! Not the people. Most of the good bits in our unwritten constitution come from the times we stood up to the monarch.

Charles Windsor is not uniquely talented or intelligent or kind. Not at all. He has many imperfections. Things could be changed but for the moment we have him on sufferance.

It’s just a freak of history that we still have a monarchy while other countries are rid of theirs. A bad king would quickly provoke a discussion about getting rid of him! Our Royals have actually worked hard to try to stay popular because they saw how things went for their cousins in other parts of Europe.

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼exactly!

I volunteer at a heritage site. Visitors are always very astonished to know that the royals were heavily involved in slavery and profited from it. Their jaws drop open in shock... Yes, so were many other monarchs and companies. The difference is as a POC I am not expected to fawn over them, but loving the royals is apparently some sort of Tebbit test for Britishness....

Prince Phillip visited my workplace. I did not attend that day as I didn't want to shake his hand or curtsey or do anything to acknowledge him, really. If Winston Churchill were alive, I wouldn't acknowledge him either because one person's hero is another person's war criminal.

Surely the country is strong enough to tolerate different views...

Correct.

There is no “reigned over” (bar a line in the anthem...btw I think the anthem could do with changing, just my opinion).

Parliament has been supreme since the 1689 English Bill of Rights.

There is a staggering amount of ignorance from English (Brits) about their own history...this thread being prime evidence of it.

There isn’t a better system of governance on the planet.

From what I understand, the monarch has ‘soft power’.

The Queen was the one constant for all the 15 prime ministers. They would discuss everything with her.

The royal website says the Monarch retains “the right ‘to be consulted, to encourage and to warn’ her ministers via regular audiences with the Prime Minister”.

She also had that red box of official documents to sign off.

I see value in that consistency of a Head of State.

There isn’t a better system of governance on the planet

Than choosing a head of state based on birth order in one family? You honestly think there couldn’t be a more democratic way to do that?

Oh, they have so much power you don't even know. They directly influence our lives, changing laws to serve their own interest. Then there's all the invisible power grabbing going on. You have no idea.

Absolutely. There's some very bizarre thinking on MN. It's amusing, worrying and very rude.

I've personally never been a fan of the royals. I just see them as any other strangers. The crying outside the Palace is ludicrous in my opinion.

Here's the news report about the woman arrested for holding up an abolish monarchy sign, for those saying anti-royalists should protest. metro.co.uk/2022/09/11/woman-arrested-after-holding-abolish-monarchy-sign-in-edinburgh-17351692/

The people want a Monarchy without God it seems.

There’s something about this in the OT before King David is appointed. God expresses concern that monarchy becomes idolatry and the people forget their covenant is actually with God, not a fellow mortal claiming to be ‘special’.

God has always been symbolic, rarely literal. I’d argue the symbolic connection remains between God and monarchy.

The symbolism of the Crown is that the monarch is saying they’re Head of State, but that God is above them and their Head. Divine appointment etc.

Monarchy without God is harder to justify. Plus, you risk God’s wrath (probably been brewing since the Enlightenment if that’s when people started to think God didn’t need to be involved in monarchy…).

Someone upthread said that an elected head of state would be divisive. I think Charles could be divisive. He does not command the sort of universal respect the Queen did. Many feel he has behaved very badly in the past with regard to how he treated Diana etc.

Incorrect! The Queen gets the opportunity to vet laws. She has reviewed thousands of laws, with evidence of her changing many of them, to serve her own interest and parliament can't do anything about it. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

The most recent poll has support for

the monarchy at about 65%.
Elected head of state about 22%

The rest don't knows.

So OP you've got a bit of work to do to democratically persuade the majority over to your point of view.

Not soft power. Direct power to change laws without going through the democratic process - as I said above, the Queen or King can alter any laws as they see fit and parliament is powerless. Not very soft, is it??

That may well be. But as this is a discussion forum, it should be able to be discussed without people tutting about how disrespectful it is or telling people to leave the country.

My DS and his friends think the monarchy are ridiculous. Though I don't know if they are representative.

Because you vote for a president?

@wellhelloitsme Wouldn't it be great if people actually discussed things properly instead of half baked shut up posts, childish comments and insults?

I find them utterly awful.
They are anachronistic at best. At worst the beneficiaries of slavery and empire.
We can have tourist money from royalty for sure, lots of castles and all that jazz, we just don't need to be paying bloody 'sovereign grants' and salaries to people who have no clue what real life is like for 99% of the population of the UK and commonwealth. They are laughable and offensive all at the same time!

I’m not in U.K. but as I was watching King Charles walking around shaking hands with people and I saw 1/2 people hug him, I thought to myself things are changing. Wasn’t any touch of that nature I.e hugging not allowed of a monarch? I think he will relax a lot of the traditions and if/when William succeeds him, he will do so even more. I think it may just be a gradual shift rather than a sudden one, but that’s just from an outsider looking in!