Would the idea of the monarchy get introduced today?

[ForFunAquaTurtle]

Meaning if there wasn't one and lets say an mp said we are going to take a random family put them on a throne give them plenty of land and money and status , would it go down well with the public?

Are you up for the job. Bearing in mind, the reining monarch is the head of the church of England, and I am an atheist,I wouldn't want the responsibility.. the late queen worked up until a few days before she died, she was dedicated.. perhaps a communist ruler!

No fear. I demand that my monarch is descended from a line of land-snatchers, who've ridden around on horses and killed other people to get it, not a pussycat who has land given to them by an M.P.. Whose land would you give them?

Nope, but then that's not how hereditary monarchy works.

Someone (rich and powerful, so now either a dictator or a mega rich business leader, previously excellent fighter and land owner), uses their muscle, money, influence and brute force to gain power. (previously starved or beat the commoners until they agreed to fight on their behalf, now soft power, money, influence and control of social media to manipulate the masses) to gain more power and influence until they are at the point where they can name themself supreme leader (king, queen etc.) and they are so strong and so powerful nobody can challenge it.

Our monarchy sensibly told a God fearing populous that God had appointed them and we would all go to Hell if we disagreed. Now days that probably wouldn't hold but you can always call the dissenters sheep and embarrass them into silence. Or just wipe them out digitally if not literally.

So no, we wouldn't be happy, but we could easily walk blindly into a new world where a few people have the power of the old kings and they can call themselves whatever they like.

No it’s a great question op and of course we wouldn’t! One would hope that our society is more of a meritocracy nowadays. Of course it isn’t, partially because we are always looking back to the past rather than facing forwards.

I was looking at the news footage of the State banquet for Macron last night and while all very pretty, I was wondering what it’s true value is to the UK in terms of diplomacy, inward investment and businesss deals, balanced against the immense cost? Does anyone ever do that sum? Do we humble citizens ever get to know this information?

And what does it say about us as a country when we can lay on such feasts and finery for foreign signatories when our hospitals are failing and many people do not have access to dental treatment or affordable care for their elderly relatives?

Of course there will always be disparities between the very rich and the very poor but credibility issues arise when the difference between these two extremes are growing as fast as they are currently, and governments are not putting their citizens first. Did the gold carriage have to negotiate pot holes along the way? I doubt it!

Of course, in terms of the French state visit, a €100 bn trading relationship is at stake, as are matters of security, and immigration, and I am sure the name Trump will crop up in discussions. But those important matters could have all been handled within the EU summits had we remained members.

No, we wouldn't. And with any luck this lot will be pushed off their privileged perches as younger and more enlightened generations come through.

dignitaries not signatories!

"I was wondering what it’s true value is to the UK in terms of diplomacy, inward investment and businesss deals, balanced against the immense cost?"

I would imagine it is actually quite a good investment. All powerful people like to have their ego stroked and as a society I don't think we have moved away completely from being impressed by 'old money' heirloom tiaras, titles, the weight of history, everyone certainly loves fine foods and fancy banquets. The UK do that very well indeed, its kind of a USP which we can use to cover up for our short comings. You have to spend money to make money, fake it till you make it etc. in our case I think we are hoping to blind people to our current short comings by reminding them of distant power and hoping it works. Given we are not a complete world wide laughing stock. I would say it is somewhat effective.

Whatever we would need to host occasionally and I suspect as we reuse a lot the most expensive bit is the security which would be needed for any conference. I would love to see what the reality is though. I am obviously biased as I love the spectacle and seeing the tiaras out and the fancy frocks!

In theory it wouldn't work today but the way that certain families in the US have created political dynasties suggests that it isn't quite as clear cut as we might think. I don't think modern societies would leap straight into monarchy but they might end up there by the back door, in a similar way to how Octavian ended up as the Emperor Augustus. History is good at warning us to keep an eye on our democratic processes but each generation seems to think it is different.

There’s not a great deal of difference in the old style model of a King versus a modern day oligarch though. Wealth power and influence concentrated in the hands of a few men who also have a significant political and social influence. Little public scrutiny too.

Also, there’s North Korea.

When I was doing my British Govt and Constitution A level (back when dinosaurs roamed the earth) I read a quote to the effect that you wouldn’t come up with the idea of a constitutional monarchy if you were starting from point zero - rather than in an evolving historical continuum - but that actually it works fine in practice.

I don’t subscribe to the view that the abolition of the monarchy would make all poverty a thing of the past and usher in a golden age of joy and paradise.

I think we’d lose far more than we would gain.

If you think privilege and inherited privilege is confined to monarchies you need to get out more!

Communist states are notorious for their nepotism. Doesn’t N Korea have a dynasty? An absolute monarchy in all but name - a tyranny, in fact. And the top dogs in the USSR looked after their own.

Elites and the clinging on to privilege are aspects of human nature.

I didn't advocate replacing them with a communist or facist dictator did I?! And rest assured, I really don't need to "get out more".

The thing about our current experience with monarchy is that it's only the last few centuries in terms of the thousand years we've had monarchs that you could describe it as a system of "take a random family put them on a throne give them plenty of land and money and status".

Before the 1800s being a monarch meant fighting, violence, bloodshed, betrayal, executions. Female members of the royal family being horsetraded into other royal families with no say, males having to lead troops into battle, always looking over your shoulder in case one of your own family members was going to kill you and take the throne, fighting off foreign powers.

The current royals can't keep their position by anything but public will - we have all the tools to become a republic if we wish without having to execute them or raise an army.

However, as PPs have said we have our own modern day version of it - people with power and money are fighting for resources and more power - water, air, space, data. The old style European monarchs have evolved into for the most part (very privileged) public servants and stewards of the lands they are responsible for. The new monarchs have no care for anything but their own personal wealth and power - a bit like the pre 1800 monarchs. Trump, Musk, Putin, Zuckerberg, Bezos etc use the world like their own playground.

And we can see that even what was supposed to be the most powerful democracy in the world couldn't stop them placing their puppet in the presidency.

I was waiting for North Korea to be mentioned! Twice already on this thread! Why does no one mention the Republican of Ireland or Iceland?

If we are going down that route then our current Head of State could easily be Andrew now, God forbid, had Charles done more than break his arm at that polo match or the barrister in Sydney had been carrying a gun instead of a starter pistol.

In other words, these arguments are a little pointless.

But I think it’s fair to say that whoever serves the people shouldn’t personally benefit financially by such obscene amounts of money and that there should be no murky division between which money is public and which is private.

I agree with the point expressed in
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2025/05/21/world/eye-watering-cost-of-king-charles/ that …

“Giving one of the richest people in the world a huge pay rise at a time when government departments will shortly unveil billions of pounds in spending cuts is unseemly.”

As the article point out, other countries manage to have monarchies that are far less lavish in their spending than ours.

But my main objection is one of principle; that if your job is to serve and represent the citizens of the UK then you shouldn’t come from an elite upper class, you should have grafted and won that position on merit. We all know that the tone of any business or organisation comes from the top down. I think the UK would thrive better and more chances would be opened up for children from any class to succeed once we eliminate the privilege which is embedded at the very heart and top of our society.

I wish that we did have the tools to become a Republic Wordler.

We don’t even have clear facts about their finances on which to base an informed decision.

Our representatives are prohibited from discussing them in the House of Commons.

And they are not even subject to the same tax or property laws as us,

The great and good have seen fit that there is no clear mechanism by which we can vote them out, except lobbying your MP or joining Republic.

And very, very conveniently, the next monarch is hastily proclamated a day or two after the death of the preceding one, without a pause in proceedings for the citizens of the country to have their say. Even after a seventy-year reign! Surely the British should have a say every fifty years or so minimum? Is that too much to ask?

Meanwhile, the RF and their offices have incredible resources and soft power and influence, and vested interests, not to mention the honours system, with which they can shape the public narrative.

But North Korea is a modern state that has introduced and maintained a dynastic absolutist rule since the 1950s. The “Eternal Leaders” are not called Kings, but they are practically indistinguishable in concept. So it’s very relevant to the question posed by the OP - would this go down well with the public? Well, it survives as a new installation in one modern state at least

Ireland and Iceland have obviously not gone down this route. So why would anyone refer to them? Other forms of constitutions have always been available, even when monarchies were very common (Switzerland for example has never had a monarchy since independence in the 1600s).

I thought the honours system was deployed on the advice of politicians. Does the monarch really make the selection? I know the monarch chooses the OMs.

Great well let’s go for another form of Constitution then; Swiss style if you like!

I’ve never got the objection to our mild-mannered constitutional monarchy, but then I’m not into principles. I’m a total pragmatist - if it ain’t broke, etc.

Humanity has suffered its worst miseries and cruelties because of principles. Nasty, unbending, dogmatic, inflexible and inhuman things!

Honours (Knighthood, Damehoods, OBEs, MBEs and CBEs etc) are decided by the government, you are correct.

The Monarch does a have a few awards that are in their personal discretion, like the Royal Victorian Order, which is awarded for personal service - so a long service gong for the Household staff and family members. The Order of Merit, Order of the Garter and Order of the Thistle are also at the Monarchs discretion. The types of people who get those are retired Prime Ministers and people who had made great achievement in Science and the Arts etc. The people who are awarded those tend to have already shaped the public narrative.

I also don’t understand why republicans fret themselves. If we want a republic we can have one.

If we want one.

No thank you! Highly federalised and supremely inefficient …

And what about all of the senior civil servants who are hanging on for their gong? Are their professional decisions complete unaffected by the prospect of potentially receiving an honour?

But at least the public transport and health systems function, and schooling is free.

With all the utter craziness in the world, it wouldn't surprise me if it happened.