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

Exactly same thing happened after JFK's assassination. LBJ was actually sworn in on Air Force One just hours after Kennedy's death - so there is a functioning HoS.

Well, Centre Parcs has backed down now. If I was the King's PR I would have a statement along the lines of as a rough first draft -

Unfortunately in the confusion and stress of the passing of HM The Queen, a provisional staff change was initiated without the approval or consent of His Majesty. Staffing changes will be made in due course but rest assured the future of my loyal and dedicated staff will be paramount when those decisions are made and I wish to take this opportunity to thank them for the care, concern and support they have given me and continue to give me and my family at this difficult time.

But I bet he doesn't know about the furore and no one probably dares bring it up. He needs to have a media-savvy head of PR who has a grip on all things to do with his 'brand' now and anticipates any flare-ups and heads them off before they grow legs in the media and beyond. The detail matters. I would also let Harry wear his uniform ffs.

The French have way more tourists and they binned off their Royals

I too was surprised at the speed of the new king being put in place. The queen reigned over a different time.in the 50s and 60s many people were manual workers and "looked up" to the royals.more people these days are questiong the role of people born to enormous wealth and privilege. I liked the queen but feel as you say now is a good time for a rethink.

'The king is dead king live the king ' in the same breath has always been done
Prevents people having time to think.

Did people not realise that the change is instantaneous? The second the Queen passed, Charles was King. Even if it had happened overnight and nobody found out until the morning, that would just mean Charles became King in his sleep and nobody knew it until the Queen was known to have passed. I'm pretty sure there's a joke about it in a Terry Pratchett book somewhere.

As this seems to be nearly full have started a continuation thread.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4633470-i-dont-want-to-be-reigned-over-anymore-part-2

Ah....you've just committed the Circular Reasoning Fallacy and the Begging The Question Fallacy.

You must be referring here to something called Prince's Consent. The other was previously known as Queen's Consent. These are formalities in the business of Parliament itself.

"Queen's consent is a parliamentary process, with the role of sovereign purely formal. Consent is always granted by the monarch where requested by government. Any assertion that the sovereign has blocked legislation is simply incorrect.

"Whether Queen's consent is required is decided by Parliament, independently from the royal household, in matters that would affect Crown interests, including personal property and personal interests of the monarch.

"If consent is required, draft legislation is, by convention, put to the sovereign to grant solely on advice of ministers and as a matter of public record."

It is the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel's "responsibility to bring anything in a bill that might require consent to the attention of the House authorities and to advise them (so far as we are able) whether consent is required. The decision on whether consent is required is for the House authorities."

The UK Supreme Court has asserted that Parliament is the Supreme Legislator in that it can make, pass or amend ANY law. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has asserted that "Parliament can itself qualify its own sovereignty". In other words, Parliament can choose to limit the extent of its own powers if it wants as it did with the Human Rights Act.

As we can see, the Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty is key to our democracy and its a formality that we have a Queen's consent, now known as King's Consent. Yet the Monarch does NOT have the power to decide which Bills require consent as a formal process.

Indeed, no Monarch has blocked legislation since 1708 and has therefore NOT encroached upon Parliament's power as the Supreme Authority of the UK. In fact, Prime Minsterial advice to the Monarch has been shown to bear full responsibility upon the Prime Minister for full consequences of faulty advice given to obtain Royal Assent. Power and responsibility does not reside with the Monarch.

Parliament remains Supreme and Sovereign. Not the Monarch. This is not seriously disputed.

Your Circular Reasoning clearly does not stand.

Missig the point. no-one is claiming they actively block legislation. They merely use their influence to shape it to suit them before it ever gets anywhere near a vote.

This is a meaningless statement since you've not articulated the reasons France has more tourists than the United Kingdom.

Is it likely its related to not having a Royal Family?

Or is it more likely due to the French population being bigger and France being bordered by eight states?

France is on continental Europe which means its really easy for people to drive from any of those states. As a result,the potential tourist pool for France is much, much bigger than for an island nation like the UK bordered by just one state.

The implication of your statement is the UK will have more tourists visiting if we abolish the Royal Family. This would be a Non-sequitur Fallacy.

On the contrary, I didn't argue anything about blocking legislation, hence I didn't highlight that section.

Rather, YOU missed my point that Parliament is Supreme and it is Parliament through the OPC who decide which Bills require consent. Hence, all the highlighted parts demonstrating that.

It is NOT the Monarch who decides which would be your implication from your statements.

Since Parliament is Supreme and controls the mechanism for consent, it is democratic. Hence, it's not commonly spoken of.

Try again.....🤔

It stands to reason that visits to royal sites would go up if visitors were given improved access. Not sure why that needs explaining.

I can't believe you seriously expecting that we would have a complete constitutional void with no head of state for potentially years whilst we have another divisive Brexit style referendum, and then (if the answers "no") a presidential election?

If people are surprised at the ‘speed’ of the new King being put in place, that is entirely on their lack of knowledge.

No judgment - if you don’t know, you don’t know.

But on the flip side, lots of people did know - because it’s how it works, and how it’s always worked.

And will always work. As long as you have a monarchy.

‘The King is dead - long live the Queen’ is not an unheard of saying.

Cooler it did confuse me as a kid when I read it in books, because nobody had explained the unspoken parts to me, i.e. "The [old] King is dead, long live the [new] King!" I thought it was just old-timey people being gnomic again

Oh please! [Bangs forehead on desk.] We know how it works! And we know why! It's whether it should always work this way that people are questioning politely. Things change and traditions are adapted over time. It could potentially be possible to put the question to the people after the end of each reign. Or every fifty years?

There was presumably an occasion when the way things are done currently were done for the very first time?

I personally don't feel it would have been unreasonable to put the question after seventy years of reign. A lot has changed in that time after all.

And when can the subject be raised if not now, if we want the question raised before the end of the next reign, which will presumably be in ten to fifteen years time?

I am not a rabid republican btw. I think there is a lot that is good in the monarchy. But I think there should be an opportunity for the question to be asked.

You might know how it works, and are simply questioning it, @Shortandfurry301 - but it’s quite obvious that it’s come as a shock to quite a few people.

"The only thing known to go faster than ordinary light is monarchy, according to the philosopher Ly Tin Wheedle. He reasoned like this: you can't have more than one king, and tradition demands that there is no gap between kings, so when a king dies the succession must therefore pass to the heir instantaneously. Presumably, he said, there must be some elementary particles kingons, or possibly queons that do this job, but of course succession sometimes fails if, in mid-flight, they strike an anti-particle, or republicon. His ambitious plans to use his discovery to send messages, involving the careful torturing of a small king in order to modulate the signal, were never fully expanded because, at that point, the bar closed."
Mort

I mean … it’s no good questioning a fundamental change in process - when the process is actually happening, leaving a complete vacuum and not even a vague notion of what might replace it. Is it?

The questioning should have been happening years back, ready for a new transition to be out in place when it was actually required.

Thanks. I knew it was there somewhere.

We know how it works! And we know why!

It's clear from some posts that those people didn't. Luckily, Pratchett has explained.

If you don't want to live in a monarchy any more, move. Bye then

Dear me. I think most sixth formers could come up with a better argument than this!

And I take it you want to live in a country with free speech?

Clever. Really clever.

Dreadful response.

Could have said that to suffragettes too - if you want a vote leave… and it would have been as absurd as your response.

It’s ok to want to improve the country you live in, and there’s a place for everyone to have their say.

That's all you get from royalists

1. Off you pop
2. Leave the country
3. Produce a detailed dossier itemising governance once monarchy is removed then
4. President = Trump