NationStates

Given that Anti Monarchy protests have started against King Charles The III this raises the question, should the british monarchy be brought down. There have been talks about this for years as the monarchy is basically using tax payer money on their fancy mansions and other fancy projects. However some people claim the monarchy is important to british culture and national identity and that "Britain has no future". So should the british monarchy end or will it continue on after Queen Elizabeth's passing.

To me either choice means nothing. Even if the monarchy gets brought down they will still be rich aristocrats and have a huge influence on british culture.

Whoever guesses the reference correctly first wins an imaginary medal.

(Side note i'm not British I'm American so sorry if I messed up any details.)

Canceling Brexit may bring more benefits to British society than ending the monarchy. But if that's what the people wants, so be it.

No, it should not end. The monarchy is vital to Britain’s culture and uniqueness. Without the Monarchy, the United Kingdom would be much less united and not a kingdom at all.

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

The Royal Family has long been a corner stone in British history, culture, society, and politics. They are also widely seen as a positive element by the people of Commonwealth. They should stay

As a Briton, few things are as offensive and naïve as the idea of abolishing our monarchy, especially at a time like this. The monarchy is an institution that is core to our identity and our history as a nation and is the cornerstone upon which this Union is founded. Besides, this is not even a matter for foreigners (excluding Canadians, Australians, etc, as the King is their monarch too) to discuss - they most often lack the context and the understanding necessary for the topic.

Thankfully, the joy, cheer and somber well wishes for our King and our monarchy from the people are enough of a demonstration that we will not be losing our monarchy soon. I take joy in how republicans have been shut down as of late (specifically thinking of the matter when some republican yelled at the royal procession and people began singing the anthem in his face; served him right).

Great Britain eke Northern Ireland wrote:As a Briton, few things are as offensive and naïve as the idea of abolishing our monarchy, especially at a time like this. The monarchy is an institution that is core to our identity and our history as a nation and is the cornerstone upon which this Union is founded. Besides, this is not even a matter for foreigners (excluding Canadians, Australians, etc, as the King is their monarch too) to discuss - they most often lack the context and the understanding necessary for the topic.

Thankfully, the joy, cheer and somber well wishes for our King and our monarchy from the people are enough of a demonstration that we will not be losing our monarchy soon. I take joy in how republicans have been shut down as of late (specifically thinking of the matter when some republican yelled at the royal procession and people began singing the anthem in his face; served him right).

God Save the King

All of what people said, and, in addition, it's one of the few things keeping Britain from becoming a "people's republic". Religiosity is already going down, unfortunately, helping to fuel a socialist uprising. We don't need some punk terrorists and leftist thugs playing the populace like all the other "Dear Leaders" did in the past. I just only hope that the Monarchy would soon get their shit together in those most important places that matter in British society before they end up giving a reason for these BullshitVik dolts to destroy their throne, akin to what happened to that imbecile "Tsar" Nicolas II.

Yes.

Monarchism in general is indication of backwards cultural values and regressive social thinking that hold onto an instinctual adherence to tradition in defiance of practicality. A monarchist system, be it constitutional or absolute, is a parasitic institution that enshrines privileged rights into the hands of a handful of individuals who live lives of glamor and extravagance often at the expense of their people and usually without rhyme or reason for this preferential status. While the feudal warlords of old could justify their kingship through personal achievements such as conquest and the inner workings of their state apparatus the monarchs of today can only justify their reign by claiming divine right (something which cannot be proven) and blood lineage (a nepotistic means of succession that ignores ability and capability in favor of familiarity) which are both flimsy and superficial means of justifying one's right to rule.

Constitutional Monarchism, such as the kind that Britain practices, is definitely the worst form there is. While an Absolute Monarch is ultimately a tyrant they can still justify their position through the power of their position as the head of both state and government. Constitutional Monarchs, who are little more than national mascots and figureheads, have no justification for their existence whatsoever beyond mere "tradition"; but tradition alone is not a worthwhile excuse for a system of favoritism that pampers few with luxuries at the expense of the many's needs. There is not a single member of the Royal Family or indeed the entire British Aristocracy that is deserving of the wealth, titles, and privileges they possess. They did not earn them through merit or trial but through inheritance from those who did. It takes a very warped worldview to argue that elites should be allowed to prosper and profit off the legacy of their dead ancestors.

While Monarchists will howl about "British Tradition" as they claim dissolving the monarchy would bring about the unraveling of British culture they are merely exposing themselves as proponents for stagnation. Cultures necessarily go through radical and frequent changes throughout history, including drastic changes in government. This is not something to oppose but something to celebrate; cultures that resist change are the ones who fail to persist. Attempting to tie the British Crown to British Culture is a misguided move that will inevitably lead to the destruction of both. Monarchism is not a desirable nor efficient nor fair system. It's permanent erasure from the world is inevitable. When the day comes that British Republicanism triumphs the survival of Britain as a country will not be determined by the end of monarchy. This did not happen in Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, China, Mexico, or any other country formerly ruled by a monarch. If it happens in Britain it will happen purely because the British people lacked the imagination to perceive a British Republic absent of an entitled sovereign and their spoiled family, a position which would be formed out of pure ignorance - and ignorance is a choice. If Britons truly wish to preserve the UK then they should be fostering republicanism, not rejecting it, because keeping the monarchy on life support will only hit the country harder when it is finally toppled.

As a non-Briton, I have no opinion either way. I'm not inherently for or against monarchy (but I am against absolute monarchy, which of course the UK is not).

As a Canadian the monarchy is important to me because. Queen Victoria helped create modern day Canada, so the British monarchy is important to me and a lot of Canadians "alike" I have no further opinions on this.

Jewish Underground State wrote:Given that Anti Monarchy protests have started against King Charles The III this raises the question, should the british monarchy be brought down. There have been talks about this for years as the monarchy is basically using tax payer money on their fancy mansions and other fancy projects. However some people claim the monarchy is important to british culture and national identity and that "Britain has no future". So should the british monarchy end or will it continue on after Queen Elizabeth's passing.

To me either choice means nothing. Even if the monarchy gets brought down they will still be rich aristocrats and have a huge influence on british culture.

Whoever guesses the reference correctly first wins an imaginary medal.

(Side note i'm not British I'm American so sorry if I messed up any details.)

Death to monarchies everywhere. Yes.

Not a chance, the monarchy is the key part of UK history and this historical aspect should be conserved

It makes me giggle you know. Virtually every communist/socialist regime barely lasted a century (failing due to their "dear leaders' own ignorance and insolence), but the monarchies (while yes, we had some pretty fucked-up kings), especially Britians', lasted almost a millennia. And the leftists hate that, how one of the very things they despise lasted longer than any leftist regime. It's envy, jealousy. The same type that has today's "revolutionaries" crying "Eat the Rich", not because of any "exploitation", but because many of those millionaires and billionaires worked their asses off to gain their wealth (making more cash from their inventions and economic knowledge than any leftist "liberator" on Earth), while the communist leaders needed some gullible twits to do their dirty work for them.

Yes, I'm quite aware of some of the fucked-up shit some monarchies do, but when it comes to being dicks to the people who look up to you, the Left needs to have an electoral on that because they're VERY good at giving the bird to their supporters.

It probably won't end anytime soon because the same pervasive atmosphere of disinterest in the act of governing that prevents Anglo governments from fixing major structural problems in our society will also prevent governments from doing anything about the institution of the monarchy. That won't stop it from being ever more irrelevant and out of touch, though, as has been the trend for decades now.

The Aber wrote:It makes me giggle you know. Virtually every communist/socialist regime barely lasted a century (failing due to their "dear leaders' own ignorance and insolence), but the monarchies (while yes, we had some pretty fucked-up kings), especially Britians', lasted almost a millennia.

this notion of monarchy as this stable, unchanging institution is just silly - if you were to show Charles I the modern UK now he would be absolutely appalled at the state of the monarchy as an institution and call it no better than a republic.

Why monarchy exists anywhere in the world in the modern times is beyond me.

The Orwell Society wrote:No, it should not end. The monarchy is vital to Britain’s culture and uniqueness. Without the Monarchy, the United Kingdom would be much less united and not a kingdom at all.

Good

The Aber wrote:It makes me giggle you know. Virtually every communist/socialist regime barely lasted a century (failing due to their "dear leaders' own ignorance and insolence), but the monarchies (while yes, we had some pretty fucked-up kings), especially Britians', lasted almost a millennia. And the leftists hate that, how one of the very things they despise lasted longer than any leftist regime. It's envy, jealousy. The same type that has today's "revolutionaries" crying "Eat the Rich", not because of any "exploitation", but because many of those millionaires and billionaires worked their asses off to gain their wealth (making more cash from their inventions and economic knowledge than any leftist "liberator" on Earth), while the communist leaders needed some gullible twits to do their dirty work for them.

Yes, I'm quite aware of some of the fucked-up shit some monarchies do, but when it comes to being dicks to the people who look up to you, the Left needs to have an electoral on that because they're VERY good at giving the bird to their supporters.

I wonder why countries that subscribe to a highly antagonized ideology declared to get wiped off of the planet don't last as long as a former world superpower that is an ally of the United States.

I have nothing against the UK’s monarchy in specific, just stop inbred aristocrats from leeching off welfare money and demanding official titles to make them feel special. If you want to call yourself a royal, go ahead, but the government shouldn’t entertain that nonsense.

El Lazaro wrote:I have nothing against the UK’s monarchy in specific, just stop inbred aristocrats from leeching off welfare money and demanding official titles to make them feel special. If you want to call yourself a royal, go ahead, but the government shouldn’t entertain that nonsense.

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in practice hands out aristocratic titles in the name of the monarch lmao. Maybe you've heard of this affair lol

As a brit who misses Queen Elizabeth II:

Yes.

Why should it, it doesn't take that much money when balanced against other things, and it helps with patriotism. Monarchies have been around a long time, and I like them personally, but I see why many don't. I doubt the British Monarchy will end any time soon, or even in my lifetime, but who knows.

Why do idiots like the AU (GaulSoodman) think that leftist regimes always fail due to US and Western intervention? Like, no, dumbass, you treating like trash the people you swore an oath to make things better than the last regime is why you fail. Purposely withholding resources and food from your own people, of whom you convinced in the first place to help you rise to power (of which you craved to have for your own selfish reasons), is gonna bite you in the ass. Building megaprojects while the majority of your population is so malnourished that few even elect to eat the maggots off the literal shit of livestock is eventually gonna get you booted. Your scientists arrogantly ignoring the advice of their fellow workers in the midst of a possible catastrophic failure of a power plant (and the government immediately trying to cover up everything when said-plant does go up in smoke and irradiates much of Europe with various levels of radiation) will fuck the credibility of your regime up. Having your cronies pop your political allies in the head out of pure paranoia? NOT HELPING. It ain't some nonsense about "US Imperialism" or some other smooth-brained idiocy. It's karma, coming back to bite you in the ass, and those of anyone who manages to fall for the same exact schtick you've tried to pull for a century.

Now watch, some moderator is gonna warn me for "flamebaiting". No, flamebaiting is trolling and causing unnecessary drama for a possible group of people for shits and gigs. It's a message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup, or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the "troll" (original poster provoking angry response) often has no real interest in and finds humor or entertainment in reactions. Nah, I'm my opinion, giving some bull-headed imp my two-sense due to their historical bias and ignorance is NOT flamebaiting.

The Orwell Society wrote:Without the Monarchy, the United Kingdom would be much less united and not a kingdom at all.

You say this like it's a bad thing?