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 really don’t get the “they bring in tourists” argument because the country with most tourists each year is France. And we know what happened to their monarchy. I just don’t get it.

Oscar Wilde who you qoute wittily had a riposte ...
“Cecil Graham: What is a cynic?
Lord Darlington: A man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.
Cecil Graham: And a sentimentalist, my dear Darlington, is a man who sees an absurd value in everything and doesn’t know the market price of any single thing.”

would like to ask another question about the "defender of faith(s)" role, does anyone else not see a contradiction in being the Head of the Church of England and also being as rich as Croesus? It's kind of the elephant in the room isn't it? If you are doing your best to set an example and follow Jesus's message then surely you make efforts to shed wealth, not retain and accrue it?

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

Was Jesus just kidding when he said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven ?*

And, are the very, very rich RF waking up from nightmares every night worrying about going to Hell?

*Or, do they not really believe a word of it.

You can still bring in tourists without the royal aspect. Do you think abolishing the royal family is going to stop tourists coming in to this country?

Of course you don't have to accept the status quo or move, how ridiculous. If you're in a minority and you really want change, you can campaign, persuade, lobby, until you've convinced enough people of your argument to be in a majority. You might fail, of course. But a functioning democracy isn't just asking people what they think and doing that. It also includes allowing all the discussion and debate that can change minds and consensuses.

Their evasion of inheritance tax is another key point. Most families with a very modest house in the South East are hit by that tax now. It’s the No1 thing stopping wealth trickling down the generations. But the richest family in the land pays none. Outrageous!

Just 4% of estates attract IHT, very far from most. Inherited wealth is the greatest cause of inequality in our society. If £1 million tax free and 60% of the rest isn’t enough for you, perhaps check your privilege.

Why do people keep saying this when is demonstrably false?

The royals do not bring in billions or even millions in tourism revenue because a) they are not tourist attractions and b) people would still visit places with royal heritage without the royals family, no one is coming to the UK specifically to meet a Royal (at least not without a prior invite).

You only have to look across the Channel to see the truth of the matter. Versailles, for example, recieves around 10 million paying visitors a year while Buckingham Palace only allows around 500,000 visitors. In fact all of the official residences only attract around 3 million visitors in total.

Places like Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle would bring in far more revenue if the Royal Family were removed and the buildings made fully accessible to the public.

She was a wise old owl and make no mistake. That conversation would have been crafted, disseminated and amplified to maximum effect. Which it is was and YES lost the vote which I'm glad they did.

@Blossomtoes

A royalist telling others to check their privilege😂
You are really running in circles aren't you

I'd rather be a sentimentalist than a cynic with a shrivelled soul.

Because the last lot of polling suggests that a referendum would be in favour of the monarchy now.

In a few years time that may change - I suspect William will be the last unless the popularity increases amongst the younger members of the population.

yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2022/06/01/platinum-jubilee-where-does-public-opinion-stand-m

What's wrong with dictators and kings? It's simple. What's wrong in the first place (there may be other wrongs too!) is that there is no established and peaceful method of changing them. In this way, King Charles is a Stalin, a Franco, a Pol Pot. a Mao, a Putin ...

We got rid of James VII and II without bloodshed. Ditto Edward VIII. If our elected parliament wanted rid of the king, they'd do it. They don't because their constituents don't either.

The comparisons to several genocidal regimes is rather insulting to those who knew what real suffering is.

This. All this " be a strong republican and hate everything about the monarchy or you're a servile forelock tugger" is so reductive and immature.
To quote Ben Goldacre, I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

the last lot of polling suggests that a referendum would be in favour of the monarchy now

I bet those figures would look different after a[ five years of Charlie on the throne and b[ if we had a proper information impartial campaign about the royals rather than the soft soap approach we've had for decades

The people to say move abroad are hilarious - why should I have to leave my country because I want to abolish the monarchy? I don't want to live abroad, I want to live in a country where my identity as a citizen is not tied up to being someone's subject. I have never as an adult sung the national anthem because I cannot bring myself to utter the words 'long may s/he reign over us' when I do not want this to happen. Saying "well move then you can sing the French anthem" is no solution.

To be clear, if you all want them then fine - perhaps we should put it to the vote, like we did with Brexit? If the country really does want them, fine. But if we don't, THEY are the ones that can move abroad!

Versailles is a soulless place. It reminds me of the blood letting during the French Revolution. I don't care how many tourists it gets. The French are obsessed by our Royal Family

But we get them anyway…..

It won't go to a referendum, because only a few whiny anti-royalists are complaining. Most people are happy with the Royal family in this country. Don't like it? LEAVE.

If you want to stay, suck it up buttercup. The Royals are going nowhere.

Exactly this. ^

Versailles is a soulless place

😂winning argument there

So being a republican means I have a shrivelled soul. Right, I get it. Play the ball, not the woman.

This attitude just doesn't make sense to me. Ok, if it really is the case that most people prefer to have them, then of course they should stay. But it isn't as simple as just LEAVING is it? It seems fine to me to want to stay in a country, while pointing out the things that you don't like about it, and perhaps trying to persuade other people to agree that change is needed. Perhaps I will be lucky enough to see the monarchy abolished in my lifetime, perhaps not.

It's not an argument. I expected to love it and all I felt was bleakness.

WhileMyGuitarGentlyWeeps do you understand that you're coming across as simultaneously totalitarian and infantile? I doubt you're winning anyone over, and suspect that some of your fellow pro-monarchists, many of whom have made some thoughtful and interesting posts, would rather you stopped making them look like a bunch of tantrumming children who are just angry that other people won't go away and stop having opinions.

The arguement that if you disagree with an aspect of your country you should leave is ridiculous.

Should the suffragettes have left because they disagreed with the voting arrangements?

Should anti-slavery campaigners have left because slavery was legal?

Should the people who wanted to join the EU have left because we weren't already a member or the Brexiteers have left because we were a member at that point?

I personally don't have a strong opinion about the monarchy, but the idea that you cannot campaign for a change you believe in is a stupid narrative.