A genuine question for royalists.

[Tutorpuzzle]

I am a republican. I believe that absolute power can only end in disaster. Trump appears to want absolute power. Boris Johnson tried it (proroguing of parliament, amongst other things.)
Please can you tell me why you think (ignoring the Windsors self-destructive present tendencies), having a head of state who is in position only by accident of birth is a good thing?

Yes, I think you’ve got to the nub of it there, @unreasonablyso . Notwithstanding the present scandals, I think the death of the queen has made people who were previously on the fence about the system as it is, really begin to question the constitutional structure and not just individual miscreants.

Imagine if Charles had died, Andrew would now be King. It's crazy that power is handed down this way.

The Royal family are awful self serving people surrounded by people who kowtow to them. They have actively got legislation changed to suit their needs. Read THIS article from the Guardian. The details how The Queen got environmental Laws charged in her her personal interest. It’s got nothing to do with the ‘history’ of the U.K. and everything to do with greediness. Also are you aware The Queen (and future sovereigns) managed to get herself exempted from paying inheritance tax. This only happened in 1993. Info here Unsurprisingly John Major, the then prime minister, ended up being knighted. How is that in anyone’s interests but the monarchy. The exemptions the royal family have for environmental laws, or health and safety laws or employment laws could be reversed by the current King but he also doesn’t care and only wants what is best for himself.

I was writing a big ger to your post but have now got AI to help but with lots of my imput! So here is the AI reply.

That is a classic, rose-tinted view that willfully ignores the privileges the monarchy actively retains at the expense of accountability.
It's not a harmless symbol; it's an arrangement sustained by specific legal and political carve-outs:
• Immunity from the Law: The Sovereign remains immune from criminal and civil prosecution (Sovereign Immunity).
• Environmental Blind Spots: No other private landowner is granted the immunity the monarch holds—over 30 laws reportedly prevent police or environmental inspectors from entering private royal estates (like Balmoral and Sandringham) to investigate wildlife or pollution offences without the King's explicit permission.
• Freedom from Scrutiny: The Royal Household successfully lobbied for exemptions from key sections of the Freedom of Information Act and historically from Anti-Discrimination and Equal Pay laws, making them a legally protected, opaque employer.
• The Mutual Benefit Society: The idea that politicians are "public servants" who simply respect history is laughable when they are perpetually rewarded for their deference. The constant cycle of politicians being elevated to Lords, Knights, and Dames by the Crown creates a self-serving establishment that ensures the monarchy's privileges are never truly challenged.
The "compromise" is a cozy deal between the establishment and the Crown, not a benefit for the average citizen

sorry for the part AI response but I’m typing on a phone and AI is easier. The sentiments are mine.

The Royal family are self serving and out of touch. There is no place for them in modern society. It doesn’t mean we can’t appreciate the history of the Royal family.

I’ve no idea what ‘having a higher global status’ means?

Only if Charles had died before having children, in which case Andrews whole life would have played out differently as heir to the throne. It wouldn't simply be that life was exactly as today but with Andrew as King...every day of his life from the day Charles died to today would have been completely different

It isn't a genuine question though, is it? You have just dismissed everyone who has attempted to answer it.

But we can’t change the individuals.

that’s the entire issue. We have no recourse against them. Remember when the queen failed to step in when boris illegally suspended parliament?

It is my heritage
It is in part what makes me English
It makes us different to everyone else
The Queen joined the forces during WW2 when many others bottled out
Philip was naval commander praised for his decisions that prevented successful bombing of British ships during the invasion of Italy
As a mate of mine who is a republican Aussie said he was glued to royal funerals and coronation and said correctly no nation on the planet could have done the Queens of Phil's funeral the way it was done or the Coronation
It is the result of over 1000 years of incredible history
It brought in millions £ in terms of tourism and TV rights
The world watched
That will do for me

@snowlaser I doubt Andrew would have changed his ways.

No, @HelenaWaiting , if you read my responses you will see that, if not in total agreement with some of the responses, I can absolutely understand the point of view. Eg soft power.

But this is a discussion forum! And, given present events, it’s important to discuss the consequences of our present constitution. Good or bad.

Blimey, I can’t believe people are still looking up to The Queen - when her final act was protecting a sex abuse suit.
She used her tax-free private wealth to help Andrew buy silence from Virginia Giuffre. That was her decision and shows the type of person she was. Is anyone on Mumsnet going to justify that???

Thank you @LolWhotzit , this is exactly my point, generational power inevitably leads to this sort of thing.

Why do you think ‘it’s the finest system of government ever devised?’

I'm not a royalist nor a republican and wouldn't say that at all but I'm happy enough with the current system.

It will a huge upheaval to get rid - according to consitutional experts I've seen not be easy to do as there a space for a head of state and it's not always as clear who owns what - so it would take time money and poltcial capital for what exactly what the next step look like.

We've just had brexit with no clear end goal and that's cost us economcially and brought no obvious benefits yet. Looking round the globe constitutional mochanies seem a fairly stable system compared to many other type of government.

This country has been a republic - after brutal civial war - and we ended up with a Lord Protector who disbanded parliment - so had less control over him that previous King we'd just got rid of and tried to pass position on to his eldest son.

France went from kings to mass killing, civial war to French emperors brief flirt with a king with The Bourbon Restoration to modern government - hardly plain sailing involving huge debts and lots of death.

We've spent centuries stripping power from our Monarchs they have some still but image we'll continue on current path of dimishing their importance and using them where we can. At some point family might want not to do it any more and it woudl be mcuh easier to get rid at that point.

If you want to sell me on a republic now tell me exactly what you want instead and how much it's going to cost and what the benefits are to me and the rest of us voters.

@surreygirly I get all that but it should be part of our HISTORY not our future. Times have changed.

Perfectly valid and important points @surreygirly .

The fact that the prime minister is not the head of state keeps his or her ego in check. What lengths would Boris Johnson or Tony Blair have gone to in order to get themselves into that role if it was up for grabs?

Well, @CatHairEveryWhereNow , we were told last week that Andrew’s honours and titles couldn’t be removed because of the political upheaval..and it’s now been done overnight! So of course it could be done.

And I’m not suggesting another bloody referendum, which I think would be akin to a revolution, but a planned, long-term event. With a definite ‘clear goal’. There are plenty of democratic alternatives to what we have now, widely discussed by people far cleverer than me.

I actually think the ‘it can’t be done’ argument holds far less weight than the history/tradition argument.

First post nails it

why do you think a republic would be any better? Trump? Nixon? Kennedy? Macron? Putin? Do you really want a President like any of them?

Definitely against any unelected power in any sort of sense.

If Charles and Di were unable to conceive, which is a pretty common occurrence, we[d be looking at King Andrew in probably about 5 years from now.

Oh @Vaxtable , I’m not sure Putin is democratically elected! But all the others have, or will be, voted out ant some point And their families haven’t been in power since the nineteenth century!

President Putin is better than King Putin. You could have someone like Putin on the throne for sixty years.

Lol that Andrew would have been a paragon of virtue had he been first in line to the throne

yes but the king is king because he happened to emerge out of elizabeth

🤣🤣🤣

It's not as if the Russian people
can vote him out now though. And in any event democracy is terrifying- most people are idiots who follow the latest soundbites and their own self interest.