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 think the Royal Family is a stabilising influence on the country. The monarch can see the bigger picture and can help the PM maybe see things in a different light. They are above party politics.
I do however feel that we should only pay for the immediate family - the King and heir to the throne.
Watching King Charles in the last few days, he seems happier when talking to the general public, rather than dealing with all the pomp and circumstance. Maybe we will see a change in how the monarchy works.

I'm quite surprised too. Given how very popular Diana Spencer was, and how upset many of the royalists were at both the divorce and the events that led up to it, they now largely seem to have forgiven him.

And I totally agree about the hypocrisy on environmental issues. He should practice what he preaches, or stop preaching it. Maybe he'll be a bit circumspect with his pontifications now he's king.

It's all made up. All these titles they go on about Duke of such and such Duchess or This and That but in all those places you get the echo of earlier times when the monarch had literally fought and won in battle for these fiefdoms. They were literally warlords the sort of folk you see in the Chechen or such like, bloodthirsty tyrants. They used the cloak of a corrupt and venal church to legitimise their ill-gotten gains and the myth-making of the divine right of monarchs began. The Queen literally believed that and the anointing of the oil during the coronation was not shown at the time as it was believed to be a sacred and private moment.

The monarchy is the most important tool in the British Establishment's toolbox of controlling the population, building a sense of identity around institution and privilege and power and profoundly undemocratic. The fact they are now so good and world-beating at it gives me cause for major concern.

Funny as well the most militant types of pro-monarchists (think Loyalists in NI or some flag-wearing suited foaming Tommy Robinson supporting Brexit street supporter) are always right wing and get to claim their concept of nationhood.

It was telling that Charles Windsor despite in the past saying he would be a defender of all faiths used that in the singular in the accession oath and the only religion mentioned was Protestant. As head of the Church now maybe he should reflect on the biblical rule Thou Shalt not commit adultery.

He had a long run-up to consider these things and maybe even suggest a division of Church and state but did not. But he did get annoyed about an inkpot.

Bargain.

Another reason (among umpteen others) why the UK has such a great system.

Er, I think that was the poster's point!

[We badly need an irony emoticon on Mumsnet so it can be recognised once deployed!]

I agree with this. I‘m also an immigrant and definitely not a Brexiter.
I think while the RF are privileged, they also lead heavily regulated and restricted lives and I honestly don’t envy them.

Google is your friend. Cost per person, and a quick flick on Dutch and Belgium monarchies, they cost way more.

It's like:

Educate yourself (aka look something up on Google);

Be Kind (I'm multitasking by telling you to Shut Up and virtue signalling at the same time;

You're part of the problem (I can't do critical thinking)

Add your own!

I'd like to know more about how this monarch (Denmark) improved the popularity of the monarchy in her country. It sounds as if she works and lives a more normal life. That's the case in the Netherlands as well, I believe? www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/11/margrethe-ii-denmark-jubilee-europe-only-reigning-queen

@BigWoollyJumpers

Both Charles and Truss have been imposed on the public

If you are so confident that the public want to continue with the monarchy, let's vote

There is a concerted campaign to flood the MSM with royalist content . The establishment do t want to allow any questioning

It's coming though

Sweden...who now have a far right party among their main political groups. This is due to to growth in anti-Muslim immigration.

And Spain?....could grief. Catalonia has never been afforded a referendum. The Catalonian people pointed to Britain giving Scotland a referendum. Is General Franco still in charge?

@ImJustMadAboutSaffron

It's like

What does "It's like" even mean?

But the posts you are referring to aren't saying that things can't change. They are saying that this is how it is now, and it is fairly ignorant to not be aware of it.

Countries like the U.K don't make things up as they go along, there are ways of doing things that are constitutional. It doesn't mean it can't change. It will change if enough people want it to.

edition.cnn.com/2020/03/14/europe/european-royal-families-intl/index.html
Useful link: cost of UK royal family is highest while cost of Danish royal family is lower but per head of population thee times more than in the UK.

Anyone else noticed that republicans engage with monarchist arguments and dismantle them, monarchists completely fail to engage with republican arguments and just resort to straw men and insults?

There hasn't been any requirement to bow or curtsey to the Monarch or a Royal for many years now. That is literally personal decision.

The Monarch reigns, but does NOT rule due to the Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty as a result of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. James II and his ally, Louis XIV, wanted to be an Absolute Monarch ruling over the country and Europe, respectively. His daughter, Mary, and her husband, Prince William of Orange were on the side of Constitutional Monarchy.

The defeat of James II and victory of William of Orange (Battle of the Boyne probably the most famous of the Williamite wars) led directly to a Constitutional Monarchy, Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty and a Representative Democracy in England. Consequently, the United Kingdom itself became a Constitutional Monarchy.

Hence, the Monarch reigns, but does NOT rule over us. Parliament rules over us.

Never seen these figures before, but it certainly puts it into perspective!

That much more money spent from the public purse and you end up with Trump. 🤣

Nothing more needs to be said, does it?!

No more arguments needed. Royal Family all the way.

I agree with you op and so does the vote! Love to see a source for all of this money theyre generating when just the duchy of Cornwall sucks 21m out of our deprived county every single year.

We are all equally citizens. we all have equal right to call for change. Nothing is fixed in stone. There is nothing essential to being British and nothing about being British that the people of Britain can't call on to change. The modern monarchy is quite young. We were ruled by the Romans before. Being British doesn't mean you have to love the queen any more than it means you have to. Endorse a herdleditary peerage system (and for those of us who know some of the folks entitled by birth to sit in the House of Lords the peerage system seems properly bonkers)
That said, the royal family adds a bit of colour and the illusion of influence so may have some value. Certainly the queen did a good job and took her role seriously. I get the feeling Charles takes himself too seriously and Harry and Meghan are no different from any us tv celebrity so should be allowed to gradually fade away

Off you pop then.
Nobody cares what you think , wouldn't know you from Adam, so really you are an insignificant little nobody.
Also if you had a president, you might still hate him or her, and the same amount of money would be spent one way or another, so you would still be whinging and whining for attention regardless.

I can't keep up with the thread because I have had to go to work since I am not Eugenie!

Someone- can't keep up with who- seems to think that if the royals didn't own slaves themselves, it makes the Royal African Company ok. Apparently this makes them lily white in comparison to the US. And appears to be deeply pressed that I didn't want to meet Prince Phillip. You would be really pressed if you met my Kenyan friend who turned down an OBE!

Sorry, that is my prerogative as a British citizen. I don't need to move to a country where everything is perfect. I can prove myself a good citizen by paying taxes, volunteering and upholding the very British tradition of freedom of speech.

I don't ever want to meet Charles either. Given I don't eat meat, don't have a car and live in a flat, I am uninterested in his pious lectures on the environment or his son's lectures to PoC.

Couldn't be arsed to read your entire thread OP. I have really mixed feelings and in the past would have agreed with you. Now I think, eh, I want there to be fewer royals, it could do with streamlining, but TBH how many US presidents in the past 70 years do I feel proud of as head of state? (Sorry immigrant American here.) A purely election-based system seems to be bringing up a lot of dregs in both countries for Pres and PM. Basically rich powerful assholes seem to keep running everything, maybe the royal family at least brings some benefits.

It's worth having the debate surely? Without being shouted down? Even if it then stays the same, at least it's a positive choice. I think the likelihood is that Charles will need to get more popular, and that will mean some degree of modernisation of the way it all works.

Oh yes

They all do. That particular PP was being sarcastic.

The issue is these arguments seldom work because there are some extremely despotic, backward regimes that are monarchies, and some of the most successful societies on this planet are republics. Either argument can work equally well in reverse.

The bottom line boils down to whether you believe in hereditary privilege - thus opposing a vote for your own head of state and supporting a lack of full democratic accountability - or you don't.