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

I'll accept an interim compromise. 😆😆

I like to think that the Queen and now the King are a voice of reason and restraint in their weekly meetings with the PM.

Well we're lucky the Nazi sympathiser Edward VIII abdicated before leading us into WW2 aren't we?

Also, not even to mention the cost, but the economy doesn’t like instability.
So your answer to brexit, covid and Ukraine would be abolition, and all the uncertainty that brings? Whatever you’re worried about now, that would make everything 10 times worse

I worry about peoples thinking sometimes.

I agree with you, OP. But it won't happen because the only people who can start the ball rolling to abolition is the House of Commons, and they won't.

No way am I ever going to bow or curtsey to the shameless adulterer who wished he was a tampon inside the shameless marriage-wrecking OW. No effing way.

Here’s the thing, you cheapen the monarchy, you lose so much of their gravitas, thus pull/draw/influence that makes them so lucrative to brand Britain. I’d 100% trim it right down (boot out hangers on), so immediate family only.

All the castles etc. they have to be fully maintained. Likewise all the pageantry.

To give a comparison. The US president travelling on Air Force One. He could easily travel much cheaper. But the status it carries only increases the stature/power of the job.

This is such a shitty attitude. "Oh, you don't like literally everything about your own country and dare to say so? Well fuck off and live somewhere else!"

I've only ever heard it from Americans and Brits. It's so narrow minded and stupid

Is your google not working then?

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/10/secret-queen-soft-power-prime-ministers-elizabeth-ii-british-politics

edition.cnn.com/2022/09/11/europe/united-kingdom-queen-soft-power-intl-cmd-gbr/index.html

blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2022/06/30/royal-soft-power-the-british-royal-family-as-public-diplomats/

Soft power: persuasive approach to international relations, typically involving the use of economic or cultural influence.

We currently have Charles, meeting with heads of state throughout the Commonwealth, at Buck Palace. That’s just a tiny snippet of their influence.

Careful what you wish for. There will always be leaders who live a life of unimaginable privilege and wealth, whether they are elected politicians or royalty. If we were to become a republic we'd have a president who lives in a palace, and this president would likely carry little political power. I grew up in a republic and this is what we have, a president who has few political powers but is still the head of state, effectively very similar to royalty minus the continuity and consistency.

Also, if you removed the monarchy would you still expect the Royal Family to carry on supporting their numerous patronage and charities? Who would attract world leaders to visit London in the way the monarchy does? It's public knowledge that the soft political power of the monarchy is hugely beneficial to the UK.

The forelock tugging is strong here, must be a by-product of Britain's obsession with class.

Imagine if Andrew had been the eldest son and was now King.

The idea that the role is mapped out for a child who just happens to be born in the right place at the right time is frankly ridiculous. What if that person is completely unsuitable for the role?

It's also morally questionable that the 'lucky' child has no agency over his or her own life.

A few more for you

www.trtworld.com/opinion/what-queen-elizabeth-ii-s-death-could-mean-for-britain-s-global-influence-60642/amp

www.reuters.com/breakingviews/queen-was-britains-ultimate-brand-ambassador-2022-09-08/

@GaffNest but they are immensely wealthy. One of the wealthiest families in the world.

They can pay their own way.

Nothing cheapening about that.

I would like to see some proper concrete measures on how much they bring to the UK economy.

www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1667085/queen-elizabeth-ii-worth-royal-cost-uk-economy-spt

www.statista.com/chart/11972/does-the-monarchy-benefit-the-uks-economy/

I’m a remainer and left of centre politically, and I wouldn’t get rid of the monarchy.

My head says it’s outdated, but my heart says keep it. I quite enjoy it all.

That's exactly how I feel.

Intellectually, it seems wrong that the highest office in the land should be reserved for members of one family, no matter how unsuitable they might be. That just seems out of place in a modern, supposedly egalitarian and meritocratic democracy.

On the other hand, I enjoy all the pageantry, links with the past and sense of continuity.

All the “You don’t have to live in Britain, off you pop!” people, so you react like that to anyone who thinks anything should be changed about this country?
”Wouldn’t proportional representation be fairer?” “You don’t have to live in Britain!”
”We could raise money for health and social care by taxing big land owners the way we tax wages” “You don’t have to live in Britain!”
”We should go back to regulating companies not to pump sewage into the sea.” “You don’t have to live in Britain!”

I say this as an Irishman, she was an incredible stateswoman.

Her gesture in Ireland (including when she spoke in Irish), no politician could do for UK/Ireland relations in a century what she did in one visit.

Are you suggesting King Charles sells up and moves into a council flat, then?

No I was merely pointing out what I consider a massive contradiction.

And as a republican, I obviously don’t think we need a monarchy at all. And certainly not one where the main players own or have the use of three of four castles each!

This. Perhaps it’s my age, 73, but I’m astonished at the lack of knowledge about the succession.

To give a comparison. The US president travelling on Air Force One. He could easily travel much cheaper. But the status it carries only increases the stature/power of the job.

There's much more to US Air Force One than simply projecting an image, there are other factors involved such as protecting the office, communications and control that simply would not be available if he travelled commercially or if US Gov even temporarily leased in aircraft for flights when required.

As for cost somebody has done fag packet calculations and surmised the royal family gets to keep £500m and the taxpayer gets £11.5 bn.

inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/abolish-monarchy-royal-family-tourism-republic-president-cost-358652

He has even imagined Charle's resignation speech after losing a referendum.

Imagining a future king’s final speech

The king speaks from the balcony of Buckingham Palace, facing inside, with London behind him. He’s dressed in a dark grey suit. He looks a little tired and morose, pale from the shock of the referendum result tonight, but as his upbringing and royal genes might have predicted, he’s unfailingly regal to the end.

He begins with the same gentle abruptness he always uses at the start of a speech. “Though it pains me personally, I’d like to extend my sincere congratulations to the ‘Yes’ campaigners for their success in today’s election,” he says.

“I would be remiss in not honestly expressing, in this moment, what I’m feeling most of all: sadness. I also feel remorseful whenever I think today’s result stems from some misdeed or character flaw of mine.
“I must believe, as we now know the majority believes, that this result will be an important step forward – for Britain, for democracy, and for civilization. I’m as confident as ever that Britain’s future is bright. I hope you’ll join me in praying for guidance as our great nation begins its new journey.”
With that, there no longer is a United Kingdom, but a new country called the “Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” – though everyone will still reflexively say “the UK” for decades to come.

The video feed now cuts to the speech by the acting president, a former MP representing Sedgefield who campaigned on affordable housing, the man who made that one embarrassing speech on the floor of the House of Commons that everyone remembers. He is the replacement for the King of England?
All at once, Britain feels a twinge of regret – not enough to call for the night’s result to be reversed, but enough to feel queasy.
Britain collectively switches off the president’s speech. It won’t be the last time.

It makes me feel very uncomfortable to look at my children who are a similar sort of age as the young royals and think that because of a fluke of birth one set of those kids are considered inherently above my kids. I can understand it being more ingrained to doff your cap 100 years ago but not now.

The queen was a good egg with a well honed sense of justice and did a lot of good. But can we imagine if just for a minute that Nonce Andrew was to inherit the throne next. It's not right, is it? What would we all do then?

Long live the meritocracy!

Oh come on. Having a Queen/King is pretty cool! 😀 Everyone has a president, but how many countries have monarchs?
(I'm not British)

I tend to agree with all the points in the OP, but my main point against changing the status quo is that I don't trust the general public to elect someone decent as president, and also that this is not the time at the moment for massive constitutional change or to do something that could potentially weaken us even temporarily on the world stage- the time to do it was actually 1997 or the 2000s which were much more stable and had Diana not died it might have bloody happened.

The prospect of President Boris or Farage worries me a hell of a lot more than the current King or his successor. I hope the current incumbent will bring about some changes to the monarchy and let's see what he does with it. We probably will become a republic at some point or have more the Scandinavian model or monarchy. Perhaps when there is someone sensible and likeable we could have as president. Someone like Ruth Jones or Sally Lindsay - that's who you need!

The threads on this topic are interesting. I’ve scanned a few pages looking for reasoned, intelligent arguments as to why it’s in our best interests to keep the monarchy. Overwhelmingly, those ‘arguments’ take the form of the following:

‘Republics are despotic regimes, we don’t want to end up like Russia or China!’ Or, perhaps, Saudi or Jordan?)
‘God save the king!’ (Fuck the UK’s other 69,0000099 citizens).
‘But they bring in TOURISM!’ (Unquantifiable. And largely debunked).
‘They bring a bit of glamour, colour and drama to our lives!’ (Go watch ‘Dallas’, it’s cheaper)
‘They have no power’. (That’s what they want you to think. Control of the media and ability to object to laws running counter to your interests is power. And a lot of it).
‘But I LIKE Charles/William/Kate/Anne/Sophie’. (There are plenty of celebrities out there if people want to indulge the cult of personality. But even if individuals' popularity was relevant, this bunch don’t have a moral standing anyone should want to emulate).
‘What if we got a President Trump?’ (Vote him out, as the Americans did. What if we got a ‘King Andrew?’ Er. Oh).
'Move abroad'. (You first)
‘But … but … TRADITION!’ (Sending kids up chimneys was once tradition. Still doesn’t mean it was a good idea).

And the real goodie:

‘You are uneducated! Go Google how the sovereign grant works! Do some research!’

And the post argument stops there, right after that sentence. No summary of what’s on Google, or why it’s a good idea, or how it counters republican arguments such as vetoing laws (as per point above) or being - uniquely in the UK - exempt from the FOI Act. Claiming others are ‘uneducated’ is quite hilarious when this is the sum-total of someone’s reasoning and capacity for critical argument.

On the contrary, the comments from republicans are far more considered. There are many more reasoned, intelligent arguments about the need for change in the UK constitution than the kind of bilge posted above on this thread.

So you want president blair !!! brown!!! cameron!!!! or any of the other idiot prime ministers we have had,because that is what you will get if you get rid of the Monarchy and it will cost just as much !