The British Monarchy

I respect your views.

For me the Queen has been a force for good, probably the whole monarchy thing is a bit anachronistic but the alternative is, well, a bit nothingy. I prefer the lovely pomp and ceremony of it all.

Most traditions and cultures are by definition anachronistic, they wouldn't be traditional or anachronistic without being so.

Just because some people want to be edgy by removing something doesn't mean they are modern or right, Kings and Queens are a history we have and it's a history and culture that is part of us whether we like it or not.

Should we remove all tradition religion and culture because they are anachronistic?
 
Last edited:
I am anti-Royalist so - for me - the death of the Queen is the perfect end to it all. She seemed like she was well regarded internationally, and she appeared to be well liked in the UK (from what I can gather). There are too many incidents of power abuse and idiotic behaviour for the family to justify its born right to 'rule' others. Anyway, as I say, I think the Queen would have been a dignified way to dissolve the royal family, but obviously that will never happen.
The majority don’t feel like this so you’re gonna have to get on with it.

They’re a net benefit to the country in reality.
 
I respect your views.

For me the Queen has been a force for good, probably the whole monarchy thing is a bit anachronistic but the alternative is, well, a bit nothingy. I prefer the lovely pomp and ceremony of it all.
I understand that view and we all have a right to our opinion: for too long has debate been sacrificed at the altar of polarisation.
 
Most traditions and cultures are by definition anarchistic, they wouldn't be traditional or anarchistic without being so.

Just because some people want to be edgy by removing something doesn't mean they are modern or right, Kings and Queens are a history we have and it's a history and culture that is part of us whether we like it or not.

Should we remove all tradition religion and culture because they are anarchistic?

God save the Queen and the fascist regime?
 
I am anti-Royalist so - for me - the death of the Queen is the perfect end to it all. She seemed like she was well regarded internationally, and she appeared to be well liked in the UK (from what I can gather). There are too many incidents of power abuse and idiotic behaviour for the family to justify its born right to 'rule' others. Anyway, as I say, I think the Queen would have been a dignified way to dissolve the royal family, but obviously that will never happen.
There appears to be an implicit assumption the alternative is a superior solution but there are plenty of examples of power abuse and idiotic behaviour by elected heads of state (Donald Trump, anyone?) for that to be taken as read. For myself, I shall reserve judgement until after the new King has demonstrated how he carries out the role.
 
I didn't know about his affairs, is this proven fact or hearsay ?

No it's fact one of Kates mates, and anyway by just mentioning the affairs it implies, for you affairs are a no no, but having a royal mistress to shove dildos up is arse are fine?

@urban genie is using a rather loose definition of the word fact there, but I do think we might see a lot of this stuff in the next year or so.

I suspect a lot of people were loyal to the Queen, more so than the family, and a lot of stuff probably got kept out of the press for her sake. Andrew's sordid rape of a trafficked child only got out because the American press got hold of Epstein.

God knows what else Charles, Andrew, Edward, William and Harry got up to that hasn't come out yet.

Since we're on a football forum you could compare it to United post-Ferguson or Arsenal post-Wenger. You lose the figurehead at the top, there's a reshuffling of internal heirarchies, old scores get settled, people get pushed aside and get bitter. They've lost the matriarch that kept all their squabbles under control.
 
Not a monarchist and don't agree with the concept but I would agree that by and large Elizabeth was an excellent ambassador for the UK on the international stage. Given how our international image has already diminished in recent years her passing may add to the sense of a declining nation that people in other countries perceive. Whether for or against, it is the end of an era.

She presided over much of the move away from empire and for a time we seemed to be on our way to a new identity but latterly appear to have become lost along the way. I doubt her son or any of our current political leadership are able to lead the reinvention we need as a nation. Arguably he is representative of the things that prevent us from moving on, but I would love to be proved wrong.

I am of the view that the huge amount of coverage and extensive pageantry will be less about mourning her as a monarch and more about seeking to maintain a narrative about the continued relevance of the monarchy. Everything is very performative at the moment, including some people's reactions. This is understandable as the main function of a monarchy in the modern world is largely performative. However, it will be interesting to see once the dust has settled and we go back to the reality of our current national situation, how much, if any, of a sea change in our attitudes to the monarchy there is.
A great post. The Royal Family is largely symbolic and the Queen herself has done a lot to promote the UK, at a time when the country is in decline. The question now is whether the Monarchy (slimmed down) can re-invent itself and be an agent for change (you never know with someone like Charles) or will it be a barrier to progress? Surely no one sensible would argue against this country modernising itself?
 
Yes thanks for the reminder. Their existence hardly keeps me awake at night.
Good, it shouldn’t really.

The put back in more than they take out and whilst the monarchy does wield constitutional power, in reality they only do stuff ceremonially and do whatever the PM wants anyway.

So it doesn’t really affect any of us negatively.
 
In response, I would say that it is easy to believe what you are told all of your life. I agree with you: to many she is an important figure and they will be sad today. If I look at the output of the BBC and the Daily Mail, it is heavily swayed towards the saintly and, to be frank, always has been when it comes to Elizabeth II. If you have grown up in a royalist family, you will veer towards the reported view and not question it.
But do the reasons matter if it brings people happiness? Ive spoke to people who think we are mental for paying to watch a load of millionaires kick a bag of wind about. Cant get their heads round it.! But will pay hundreds to go and watch an opera (my idea of hell)

She brought people happiness and the whys and the wherefores in this difficult period with people worrying about money shouldnt matter.

Dont think charlie will have the same impact but time will tell
 
There appears to be an implicit assumption the alternative is a superior solution but there are plenty of examples of power abuse and idiotic behaviour by elected heads of state (Donald Trump, anyone?) for that to be taken as read. For myself, I shall reserve judgement until after the new King has demonstrated how he carries out the role.
I think that's the right approach. I am less bothered by the consitutional role of the Monarch (it acts as a check and balance on politicians). But that could just as easily be achieved with a much slimmed-down version of the Royal family. The problem is that the sheer scale of the Royal family and its legions of hangers-on prevents the UK from modernising. I think its presence, plus the media circus, encourages the nation's fixation on the past which is stopping us moving forwards. It is the whole political system which needs re-inventing not just the Monarchy.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top