Should The British Monarchy End?

[Necroghastia]

...Why? What's so special about them? What separates them in any meaningful way from anyone else? If being from some inbred family qualified you for leadership, the South would've won the Civil War.

Because its cool.

Please, monarchies are sooooo 1300s. These days fully automated luxury gay space communism is where it's at.

[Reino de Portvgal]

It shouldn't, but we don't have a say in it so let's see what the future will bring.

[WayNeacTia]

I wonder if the same opinion would hold to say... the Gulf monarchies.

Like the Arab Gulf States? Don't their monarchs already have a ton of power?

They are the power....

[Diarcesia]

So... without a doubt, Elizabeth II was an important person - she may not have declared wars, chosen her own Prime Minister or did any other thing in the political realm other then reading a speech once a year, which was written for her by her government, and sign laws into effect, plus a few other governmental functions (like receiving visitors of state or visiting other nations).
By and large, one could very well say, that Queen Elizabeth II. had less of a political function and more of a social function: Being a unifying factor, the highest authority in the nation, the person who hands out medals and who represents the country abroad more then any other politician (albeit mostly without the power to do anything).
She was, as it is called, the Head of State. There is a fun little thing in many countries, which I feel some Americans have trouble wrapping their heads around, namely the separation of the offices of the Head of State (the guy who shakes hands) and Head of Government (the guy who does the actual work), in the UK, those are the King/Queen and the Prime Minister - in the US, that is the President in both offices.
In the end, one could very well say, that Queen Elizabeth II. did a good job, love her or her institution or not, one has to admit that. And yes, there have been good Kings and Queens, but there have also been bad ones - just like with Prime Ministers, Presidents, Chancellors, whatever you want to call them.

But - Queen Elizabeth II. is dead, now isn't she? So, as it is usual with monarchies, her son takes power as Charles III., nothing unusual... but before the old Queen is even buried, people already want to abolish the Crown.
Why? The Queen is dead, long live the Republic?
Yes, it is a British tradition, yes, it is part of history, yes, the British Royalty is a huge economic factor (by the way, very bad example, Pencil Sharpeners 2, you could have done better), and while those are the weaker reasons, in my opinion, a British King or Queen has the power to keep the country together, to represent it better then many others simply due to their standing, but there we are at the troublesome part - their standing.
The Queen had the position in the hearts and minds of the people because she was that old lady, who had been making radio addresses during the War, who has been there for the last seven decades, who had been taught her craft by some of her country's greatest politicians.
King Charles III., at least currently, lacks that standing. He is not an incompetent buffoon, as some people apparently like to think of him, but like everyone succeeding someone great, he simply won't be able to fill the shoes.
Should, therefore, the monarchy in the UK be abolished?
In my opinion, as a German, no. First of all, give that man a chance. Second of all, abolishing the monarchy would cause political upheaval and unrest, which is the last thing the UK needs right now. Third of all, who or what should replace it? Fourth, and maybe most importantly, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as we know might cease to exist soon, if all goes wrong consisting of Wales, England and a few islands Google Maps alone knows where, a time during which the UK (or K, as it will then be known as) will need every bit of unity and unifying factors one can find, which ties in perfectly with points two and three - unrest and who or what should replace the monarchy and, most importantly, does that replacement possess the ability to move people like the Monarch does?

As Lord Protector Cromwell's legacy is shown, merely abolishing the monarchies is hardly the entire solution.

[Haganham]

All of that could exist without the monarchy's continued existence. Hell, tourism might even get a boost without having to work around the family's schedule for tours of palaces and such.

Nope. The tourism maybe, but the deal the monarchy has with the government is a sweetheart one. There's no reason to expect it would continue if the monarchy were abolished. Not to meantion that along with the wealth, the crown also owns all the royal corperations, the Royal Collage of Arms, the Royal Collection and the like. So they'll still have all the trappings of royality.

Abolishing the monarchy would a very expensive symbolic gesture.

Though maybe if the royal family privatized they might get capitalistic enough to start just selling CoAs :think:

[Nora Xent]

parliamentary republics are better than constitutional monarchies so yeah why not?

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

As Lord Protector Cromwell's legacy is shown, merely abolishing the monarchies is hardly the entire solution.

There's a right way to get rid of monarchy and a wrong way to get rid of monarchy. Cromwell's ended up being the wrong way.

[Necroghastia]

All of that could exist without the monarchy's continued existence. Hell, tourism might even get a boost without having to work around the family's schedule for tours of palaces and such.

Nope. The tourism maybe, but the deal the monarchy has with the government is a sweetheart one. There's no reason to expect it would continue if the monarchy were abolished.

...I really don't see how people could no longer make historical dramas without a present-day monarchy.

[Nora Xent]

In my less serious opinion, it's time for commonwealth 2: Lady Protectress Boogaloo.

[Diarcesia]

As Lord Protector Cromwell's legacy is shown, merely abolishing the monarchies is hardly the entire solution.

There's a right way to get rid of monarchy and a wrong way to get rid of monarchy. Cromwell's ended up being the wrong way.

And that's why abolishing monarchies out of iconoclastic impulses is not to be taken lightly.

[Kalivyah]

British people admitting that they have no culture without the monarchy and the aristocracy which leeches off of their people

[Haganham]

Nope. The tourism maybe, but the deal the monarchy has with the government is a sweetheart one. There's no reason to expect it would continue if the monarchy were abolished.

...I really don't see how people could no longer make historical dramas without a present-day monarchy.

They absolutly could. The difference being the revenue would go straight to the royal family, as opposed to now where they go to the government and the government gives the royals an allowance out of it.

[The Selkie]

As Lord Protector Cromwell's legacy is shown, merely abolishing the monarchies is hardly the entire solution.

Which is part of my point why abolishing a monarchy right now with the snap of a finger would be a Bad Idea - unrest, upheaval, not a civil war, mind you, but still not a Fun Time.
Until someone has a better solution (like fully automated luxury gay space communism (to rob Necroghastia's idea, yes, I know it was a joke)) or there is an actual framework or method of how to do that, plus a large majority of the British People actually wanting that, I will remain with my no.

[Reino de Portvgal]

British people admitting that they have no culture without the monarchy and the aristocracy which leeches off of their people

Then again, isn't that exactly the same that republican leaders do?

[Kalivyah]

British people admitting that they have no culture without the monarchy and the aristocracy which leeches off of their people

Then again, isn't that exactly the same that republican leaders do?

That's just what all capitalist nations do.

[Reino de Portvgal]

Then again, isn't that exactly the same that republican leaders do?

That's just what all capitalist nations do.

And the others as well.

[Czervenika]

All monarchy should end, imo. Take it from a Canadian.

I'm a Canadian as well, and I believe it should stay. The Monarchy has existed since before Canada was even Canada, and our constitution is written around it. How the hell are we going to get rid of it, when we can't get Canada and Quebec to even agree on what "Canadian" is? As for the American's chiming in? You have absolutely no iron in the fire here. We didn't force you to get rid of a crim.... (erm President) now did we? Even when he decided it would be a good idea to I don't know... violate the Convention on Chemical Weapons and gas his own damn citizens.....

Just write a new constitution without references to monarchs. Easy.

[Novaya Equestria]

So... without a doubt, Elizabeth II was an important person - she may not have declared wars, chosen her own Prime Minister or did any other thing in the political realm other then reading a speech once a year, which was written for her by her government, and sign laws into effect, plus a few other governmental functions (like receiving visitors of state or visiting other nations).
By and large, one could very well say, that Queen Elizabeth II. had less of a political function and more of a social function: Being a unifying factor, the highest authority in the nation, the person who hands out medals and who represents the country abroad more then any other politician (albeit mostly without the power to do anything).
She was, as it is called, the Head of State. There is a fun little thing in many countries, which I feel some Americans have trouble wrapping their heads around, namely the separation of the offices of the Head of State (the guy who shakes hands) and Head of Government (the guy who does the actual work), in the UK, those are the King/Queen and the Prime Minister - in the US, that is the President in both offices.
In the end, one could very well say, that Queen Elizabeth II. did a good job, love her or her institution or not, one has to admit that. And yes, there have been good Kings and Queens, but there have also been bad ones - just like with Prime Ministers, Presidents, Chancellors, whatever you want to call them.

But - Queen Elizabeth II. is dead, now isn't she? So, as it is usual with monarchies, her son takes power as Charles III., nothing unusual... but before the old Queen is even buried, people already want to abolish the Crown.
Why? The Queen is dead, long live the Republic?
Yes, it is a British tradition, yes, it is part of history, yes, the British Royalty is a huge economic factor (by the way, very bad example, Pencil Sharpeners 2, you could have done better), and while those are the weaker reasons, in my opinion, a British King or Queen has the power to keep the country together, to represent it better then many others simply due to their standing, but there we are at the troublesome part - their standing.
The Queen had the position in the hearts and minds of the people because she was that old lady, who had been making radio addresses during the War, who has been there for the last seven decades, who had been taught her craft by some of her country's greatest politicians.
King Charles III., at least currently, lacks that standing. He is not an incompetent buffoon, as some people apparently like to think of him, but like everyone succeeding someone great, he simply won't be able to fill the shoes.
Should, therefore, the monarchy in the UK be abolished?
In my opinion, as a German, no. First of all, give that man a chance. Second of all, abolishing the monarchy would cause political upheaval and unrest, which is the last thing the UK needs right now. Third of all, who or what should replace it? Fourth, and maybe most importantly, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as we know might cease to exist soon, if all goes wrong consisting of Wales, England and a few islands Google Maps alone knows where, a time during which the UK (or K, as it will then be known as) will need every bit of unity and unifying factors one can find, which ties in perfectly with points two and three - unrest and who or what should replace the monarchy and, most importantly, does that replacement possess the ability to move people like the Monarch does?

Personally, I agree with what you said. If they abolish the constitutional monarchy, there's bounds to be lots of trouble. In fact, if they wish to go for this route, I'd dare say the upheaval - which I'd call the Monarchy's Fall Crisis - would be quite chaotic, chaotic enough that the volks who did the abolition of the monarchy would basically realize what they had done: lots of protests and riots, lots of chaos going on, and lots of blood (if that were to happen). However, even if that were to happen, I am unsure how chaotic such an upheaval would really be, but I'll think it'll be very, very bad to experience such upheavals and unrests.

[Luziyca]

I cannot speak for Britain, because I don't live there nor do I have British citizenship (even though my dad does: long story).

That being said, given the Canadian and British monarchies are identical, my stance with regards to the Canadian monarchy is that it should not end, firstly because it would affect treaties with Indigenous nations that were signed with the Crown, and the government would likely need to renegotiate every treaty if the monarchy were to be abolished (which may not be not that bad given past track records of Canada violating those treaties, but it'd definitely be a headache). Secondly, so long as the United States continues to exert influence over Canada, it is imperative that our political system not be completely Americanized, and given that if the monarchy comes to an end, it would be pretty likely that Canada would become a presidential republic in the long term.

However, if we can deal with these particular issues, I'd be pretty ambivalent about the Canadian monarchy, and in the very unlikely event that the constitution gets amended to get rid of the monarchy, I would probably go either way on this issue.

[Diarcesia]

So... without a doubt, Elizabeth II was an important person - she may not have declared wars, chosen her own Prime Minister or did any other thing in the political realm other then reading a speech once a year, which was written for her by her government, and sign laws into effect, plus a few other governmental functions (like receiving visitors of state or visiting other nations).
By and large, one could very well say, that Queen Elizabeth II. had less of a political function and more of a social function: Being a unifying factor, the highest authority in the nation, the person who hands out medals and who represents the country abroad more then any other politician (albeit mostly without the power to do anything).
She was, as it is called, the Head of State. There is a fun little thing in many countries, which I feel some Americans have trouble wrapping their heads around, namely the separation of the offices of the Head of State (the guy who shakes hands) and Head of Government (the guy who does the actual work), in the UK, those are the King/Queen and the Prime Minister - in the US, that is the President in both offices.
In the end, one could very well say, that Queen Elizabeth II. did a good job, love her or her institution or not, one has to admit that. And yes, there have been good Kings and Queens, but there have also been bad ones - just like with Prime Ministers, Presidents, Chancellors, whatever you want to call them.

But - Queen Elizabeth II. is dead, now isn't she? So, as it is usual with monarchies, her son takes power as Charles III., nothing unusual... but before the old Queen is even buried, people already want to abolish the Crown.
Why? The Queen is dead, long live the Republic?
Yes, it is a British tradition, yes, it is part of history, yes, the British Royalty is a huge economic factor (by the way, very bad example, Pencil Sharpeners 2, you could have done better), and while those are the weaker reasons, in my opinion, a British King or Queen has the power to keep the country together, to represent it better then many others simply due to their standing, but there we are at the troublesome part - their standing.
The Queen had the position in the hearts and minds of the people because she was that old lady, who had been making radio addresses during the War, who has been there for the last seven decades, who had been taught her craft by some of her country's greatest politicians.
King Charles III., at least currently, lacks that standing. He is not an incompetent buffoon, as some people apparently like to think of him, but like everyone succeeding someone great, he simply won't be able to fill the shoes.
Should, therefore, the monarchy in the UK be abolished?
In my opinion, as a German, no. First of all, give that man a chance. Second of all, abolishing the monarchy would cause political upheaval and unrest, which is the last thing the UK needs right now. Third of all, who or what should replace it? Fourth, and maybe most importantly, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as we know might cease to exist soon, if all goes wrong consisting of Wales, England and a few islands Google Maps alone knows where, a time during which the UK (or K, as it will then be known as) will need every bit of unity and unifying factors one can find, which ties in perfectly with points two and three - unrest and who or what should replace the monarchy and, most importantly, does that replacement possess the ability to move people like the Monarch does?

Personally, I agree with what you said. If they abolish the constitutional monarchy, there's bounds to be lots of trouble. In fact, if they wish to go for this route, I'd dare say the upheaval - which I'd call the Monarchy's Fall Crisis - would be quite chaotic, chaotic enough that the volks who did the abolition of the monarchy would basically realize what they had done: lots of protests and riots, lots of chaos going on, and lots of blood (if that were to happen). However, even if that were to happen, I am unsure how chaotic such an upheaval would really be, but I'll think it'll be very, very bad to experience such upheavals and unrests.

Bloodshed on the streets is quite the hyperbole, but it won't take long before the Brits get nostalgic about the Monarchy in general.

[Veraguas]

Yes. Why have something that is powerless and unneeded be used?

The same argument could be made for the President of Ireland, who arguably has just as little power as the British monarch.

[Unifactious]

Yes.

[Veraguas]

All monarchy should end, imo. Take it from a Canadian.

I'm a Canadian as well, and I believe it should stay. The Monarchy has existed since before Canada was even Canada, and our constitution is written around it. How the hell are we going to get rid of it, when we can't get Canada and Quebec to even agree on what "Canadian" is? As for the American's chiming in? You have absolutely no iron in the fire here. We didn't force you to get rid of a crim.... (erm President) now did we? Even when he decided it would be a good idea to I don't know... violate the Convention on Chemical Weapons and gas his own damn citizens.....

Plenty of Commonwealth Realms became republics with hardly any change at all. They just swapped the monarch and Governor General for a ceremonial president. Why couldn't Canada do the same?

[Nora Xent]

Yes. Why have something that is powerless and unneeded be used?

The same argument could be made for the President of Ireland, who arguably has just as little power as the British monarch.

yet they were elected instead of coming from the family that had the most violent army in the past.

[WayNeacTia]

and in the very unlikely event that the constitution gets amended to get rid of the monarchy, I would probably go either way on this issue.

The constitution can't just be "amended" to get rid of the monarchy. A whole new constitution would have to be written, which ALL ten provinces and three territories would have to agree on, along with the federal government. Now given the political climate of Canada, how likely do you think it is going to be that any of that is even remotely possible? Quebec is barely Canadian, unless it happens to suit their current agenda. Alberta wants to pass an illegal "sovereignty" act, in which we can just ignore federal laws if we don't like them. Alberta and B.C. are still at war over a pipeline, which started with two premiers from the same fucking party. I could go on....