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

This republican zeal must be some understated way of rebelling, showing that you are ‘oh so progressive’ and independent minded. Against a symbolic monarchy.

If you really want to rebel, at least find a real cause.

If the U.K. switched to an elected Head of State a written constitution would have to be created and the limited parameters in which a Head of State could overrule what the executive did would be written in. Incorrectly proroguing Parliament would be one of the limited powers I would expect to be written in.

Ps and to add the judiciary acts as a check to the power of the executive and a Head of State would add another check.

With respect those on this thread criticising posters on here who want change "because we don't understand how things work" should surely comprehend that republicans are not interested in simply repeating traditions because "things have always been this way". We are interested in opening up a respectful debate about how things should or could proceed in future.

Surely some of the best things about the UK are free speech, fair play, democratic values. If that is the case then why are monarchists so scared of simply opening up a civilised conversation about the future of the monarchy? It seems to me that it is the posters suggesting that republicans should "leave the country" are the ones who need to learn some lessons about how a liberal democracy works!

wannabee Jacob Rees-Mogg, just poor

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Long overdue we get rid of the sponging parasites.

If you feel this way OP then contact your MP with your concerns and push for having a referendum or some kind of national conversation about the monarchy and where it is headed. If enough people do this then change will ensue. The fact that we still have a monarchy means most people are content with it or don't feel strongly enough to protest.

I appreciate that monarchy is a historical concept and that people may question it. The fact is that my life wouldn't change one iota whether we had a monarchy or a presidency.

This way we know who we are going to get. It will be Charles, then William, then - when I'm long gone - George. And for a long time they will be influenced by the example of the Queen. No dragged out elections every 5/7 years. No who can tell the most lies to win. No who can raise the most money for campaigning (hint - it would almost certainly be a Tory).

PPs have pointed out that a presidency has worked in other countries, and it's true. But it's also given us Berlusconi, Putin and Dubya. My problem with a presidency has always been that I don't think I'd want to vote for anyone who would put themselves forward. President...Johnson/Cameron/Blair/Brown/Corbyn/Truss? No thankyou.

I’ll take a constitutional monarchy, whose members may actually give a toss about their country, than the clearly self-interested Larry Pages, Sergey Brins, Jeff Bezos, Zuckerbergs, Rockefellers and Rothschilds of this world. Unfortunately the latter are the ones who really “rule over” us.

The next few years would be the time to do it, @Friars23 as Charles isn't going to reign for several decades like the Queen. Holding a referendum to end the constitutional monarchy with him would be undramatic and acceptable to many people- and William would probably breathe a sigh of relief, tbh.

I don't agree. ISTM there would be a massive democratic issue with a head of state even if elected refusing the request of the person with the support of parliament.

The problem with codified constitutions is that people think they solve everything. In reality they just make lawyers rich. They also ossify, like in the US. In the situation under discussion the matter was resolved by the court and no debate was ultimately prevented.

Personally I would actually favour the "Head of State" oversight role being invested in a committee of say 11 peers or business people or even 11 people picked at random from society like a jury - but with rational reasoning tests passed first (which I also believe should be imperative for screening potential jury members, but that's another thread. With advisors etc, must come to a majority view. Simply to handle very serious matters where intervention is required to ensure Parliament does not exceed its vested power or that democratic process is disrupted like in the case discussed above.

There are ways to do it without another meglomaniac in charge.

The monarchy can continue swanning about looking pretty and generating tourist revenue if they wish, I don't care either way. But it's clear they cannot exercise the important powers needed to oversee Parliament even in the most extreme circumstances where it is their duty to step in.

After almost 70 years on the throne of moderation and diplomacy, if the Queen could not do this, do you really think Charles could? It's inconceivable and therefore we are all very vulnerable as there is no check or balance.

Parliament (such as it is now) has been busy attacking and undermining our independent broadcaster, our judiciary, our civil service, all forms of rationality that moderate its power. Without a head of state in any form that feels it is their duty to step in and stop it, we are in big trouble. The Lords have tried, but they need the backing of somebody neutral who will actually feel the obligation to use that power when required (very rarely) rather than shirk is to maintain their family's position.

The Royals have a vested interest in deliberately not using their power when it is necessary for democracy to continue functioning, because it would put their own position at risk.

Let them carry on with their palaces and photos ops if you want but we need a proper constitution where somebody has the power to stop the citizens being screwed over like this.

An elected, largely ceremonial Head of State such as the Irish presidential system also can do the soft diplomacy role, although I grant perhaps for some foreign countries a long standing royal family such as the U.K. may carry some further prestige. This wouldn’t be enough for me to think a constitutional monarchy is the best for the country.

Oh, you’re post hopping with this madness, now? No cat chat? 😂

Not even that. As the Queen breathed her last breath, the title of King automatically landed on Charles. There's also been some complaints from Wales having a new Prince & Princess of Wales allocated to them by the new king...

The trouble is, when you see who we get when there's a general election, it does make you wonder. Proportional representation would be good, but I doubt either of the main parties would agree to that as they don't see it as being in their interests - never mind the electorate!

I cant take another 10 or however many days of this shitshow.

Its embarassing being British.

I live on an Gammon infested island that fawns at Kings and Queens and all the ickle princes and their fairytales, whileactual prices gad about with serious sex offenders, collect suitcases of money and deal arms (and probably murder their ex-wives....oh...little bit of contraversy!)

because devine right isnt a thing, and they have no damn right in the little scrap of earth that I consider my home.

I like an apolitical head of state not subject to the whims of a divided electorate. You figure out a better system to get one, let me know.

@MargotChateau

There is an additional point I should have made in my earlier post to you, one that is very important.

There are plenty of people in NZ who are doing just fine and would like to either forget about how this country was colonized, or they would like to pretend that is All Dealt With Now and it was just those Wicked Victorian Poms and Nothing to Do With Us and so Let's Be a Republic. People like David Seymour, for example. I mistrust their motives.

Having a monarchy and the UJ on the flag represents what this country really is and how it originated. It's just a lot more honest. I think until Maori collectively are ready to countenance a change a referendum should be completely out of the question.

As an example of what I said above, there is evidence that "committees" drawn from across the population come to remarkably close views when they discuss issues, properly informed of facts by experts in whatever are relevant fields to the issues, and actually come up with far more radical ideas and effective solutions in terms of outcomes, than politicians do.

After an almost tied Brexit vote, when few people understood the implications, a competent Prime Minister would have called a "Citizen's Council" of people from across demographics and geography to have exactly such meetings and go through the options properly (and likely outcomes of each), discuss, thrash it out, and then presented their conclusions to the electorate. Why did this not happen? It's been shown to be effective.

The oversight role of a Head of State could be carried out in a similar manner, with rotating members and advisors withour any political influence or "donations" and vested interests like all of our political parties are run. So that there is some governance and oversight.

And then let the Royals be in the ceremonial/ diplomatic role. They have no need for official state powers that they cannot even exercise when it is sorely needed. I think for those who wish to maintain a monarchy, the final step needed to do that is that all notional relationship to having power over the state is finally removed. Because while they notionally have it but cannot exercise it, nobody can exercise it and that means we are all screwed.

It's for situations like this that we should get rid of the monarchy:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charles-vetted-laws-that-stop-his-tenants-buying-their-homes

Our now king using archaic rules and privilege to line his own (already bulging) pocket. Disgraceful. But he will not be challenged because 'he's the king'. He thinks it's OK to do this kind of thing because we let him, and he knows he will be unchallenged.

Yes, I know there are corrupt self-seeking politicians too, but at least we have the chance to vote them out, and they are obligated to be transparent by the rules of the House, and subject to scrutiny.

Add to that the ridiculous notion of deference to a family who may happen to have been born with certain parents is frankly baffling. I mean bowing to Prince Andrew for example? Abhorrent

And all the celebration of their obscene wealth (mainly garnered by their ancestors stealing land from ours many hundreds of years ago) is also abhorrent when so many are struggling to feed themselves. They are symbolic of inequality and our acceptance of it.

Yes, I'm sure some of them are nice people but if they are that nice they'd get along fine without all of the taxpayer money and pomp that surrounds them.

I'm proud to be British (so please don't tell me to sod,off to another country because that is frankly insulting to a lifelong citizen) but strongly feel that the royal time is over.

If they go as part of the constitution then we will still have the palaces for people to visit, just as they do in other formal royal countries (eg Versailles in France, which is a huge attraction).

I think it's very outdated. I actually liked the queen because she has devoted most of her life drama free unlike her family to serve her position especially navigating diplomacy in a positive way etc but now Charles being king on day 0 has hit me like a ton of bricks on how ridiculous this whole thing is. The Queens character was very different to Charles and I'm not sure how he is going to pull that off or live up to that expectation. They are one of the most privileged people in the world though which now sticks out even more. There's articles stating the Queen liked horses and corgi's etc or strolling along Balmoral but everyone would like to that too but only if they could afford it especially when we face a winter where many people in this country is going to have to choose between heating and eating. Is this the royal family's fault, perhaps not but it's an eyesore in this current climate. When your kids at your state schools feel cold this winter drawing pictures of the coronation or whatever, remember that the future heirs will be in their private schools nice and warm being payed by either the tax payers or dodgy suitcases full of cash or wealth gained illegitimately.