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 also like that the head of state in our monarchy is apolitical meaning it can be for everyone not just those that agree with their views.

It's not for those of us for whom monarchy itself, however residual or nominal, is antithetical to our political and other beliefs.

Ok @Blossomtoes but protect our rights then if not abortion rights? I disagree on that.

The royal family is hardly apolitical, come on.

Be about your business, citizen

@JohnPrescottsPyjamas you are so very very right, especially your last point. People have short memories. The RF PR machine is to be much admired for the way they rescued the royals from that particular disaster 🤬.

Shut up , she has made great points.

The government work for the people actually they are no rulers but that's another subject that people are waking up to.

@VeryQuaintIrene dear god. 🙄 They’ve certainly done a good job of keeping their subjects in their place.

I'm fearful of the subtle power they have. I mean I am terrified that the inkwells and small tables debacle could escalate into full scale WAR against the serfs and the peasants among us.

And It is early days yet.

@greenhousegal 😂

Didnt that show you everything you need to know about the spaniel?! What a pompous arse 😱

At least there IS a mechanism for removing a disappointing prime minister, which is more than can be said for a monarch. But again, the main point: the monarchy is supposed to be purely ceremonial and not have any real power. Someone like Boris performing the same role then wouldn't be ABLE to make those kinds of undemocratic changes. They wouldn't have the power to.

And if they did, then the king or queen could do the same. I hate Boris as much as anyone but there is just no coherent argument here for the idea that an elected HoS is worse in principle and would deliver worse individuals or outcomes.

Super Charlie, Fragilistic, Exploding Alidocious.

@greenhousegal 😂😂😂😂

And the king of Saudi Arabia is a standout example of how horribly wrong that can go. So what?

Hardly. Saudi Arabia isn’t a constitutional monarchy. Try again.

YANBU. At all. Time to get rid now.

Just checking in and looking forward to the day this Truman show ends.

Just preparing my protest placard for the Coronation.

@cakeorwine in Thailand you can go to prison for 15 years for less majeste. Can I suggest theirs..

NO GOD
NO KING
ONLY HUMAN

And Trump is not a meaningful parallel to a constitutional monarchy, because he has far, far more power than any constitutional monarch. Most of the American president's powers are, under our system, invested in the prime minister and the ruling party in parliament (hence the fact that the Tories have done just as much harm to our country as Trump did to the USA). So if we are arguing whether to replace the monarchy with a similar "ceremonial" president, Trump is irrelevant.

The idea seems to be that constitutional monarch's are safe because they don't have any power, but presidents are incredibly risky because they do have power. It's nonsense: they both have as much power as the system allows them, and the robustness of the system is a function of checks and balances across the WHOLE system and all its officers.

Anyone who thinks the cultural baggage of the RF as ambassadors for the privilege of the British aristocracy in all its classist and racist glory is irrelevant, only has to consider the following two events, how remarkable they each are and how much coverage they have each had in the British media:

1. 96 year old white woman dies peacefully of natural causes in the lap of luxury at Balmoral.
2. 24 year old unarmed black man is unlawfully shot dead by metropolitan police officer in South London.

They never want to have this conversation, do they?

I don't know how to vote but I completely agree with you, OP. It's all ridiculous.

poor behaviour goes on everywhere, it’s only because the RF are so heavily scrutinised that the poor behaviour is so recognised

That's a naive comment. You really think you know half of what really goes on? They each have their own department to control information and put a spin on what does come out. The media generally play along as they don't want to a) have sources dry up, b) be missed out of the honours system and c) at times go against the grain if the country is in a pro mood such as at the moment

@KarmaComma ·

I don't know how to vote but I completely agree with you, OP. It's all ridiculous.

Just click on either 'you are being unreasonable' or 'you are not being unreasonable'. Not sure if it works on phones?

Questionable royal behaviour includes the Queen and Charles' lobbying, Mountbatten's probable paedophilia, Charles' Duchy of Cornwall behaviour, cash scandals and Bishop Ball incident and Andrew's sex abuse allegation which he refuses to be tried for (not to mention Charles' association with Jimmy Savile), and Princess Anne's dog Dotty biting two children and then escaping being put down because the Queen's dog psycologist gave evidence (Anne was told by the court to keep Dotty on a leash until she had been sent to obedience classes, but according to Brian Hoey's book Pets By Royal Appointment there is no record of her complying). The Queen's corgis and another of Anne's dogs apparently also often bit servants, who would then be blamed. There is another account in the book of Anne's dog not being house trained and her expecting the servants to clean its business up.

The example of Prince Harry's probable cheating in the A-Level is minor compared to other allegations, but still not really ideal! There is also his alleged abuse of polo ponies, although he was cleared of this. I read that there were also staff bullying allegations against Kate, although I don't really want to go into the Cambridges vs Sussexes battle. I do, however, think that while Meghan has done some unfortunate things, probably her behaviour is a useful smokescreen to cover other royal bad behaviour.