Britons, or anyone for that matter, should the British Monarchy be abolished?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Preferably, I'd think the best course of action is abolish the monarchy and move an electoral system from FPTP to PR after Queen Elizabeth dies. Australia mentioned once moving to become a Republic after her death.

[The Govanah Jake]

For the sake of a 1000+ year tradition I'd say no. It's not like they have much power politically and have these days taken a symbolic role. However I do think that there over reliance on tax paper dollars should end and maybe some other modest changes too. Also I shouldn't mention that the Monarchyship itself brings in a lot of money from tourists.

[Santander]

What does the electoral system have to do with the monarchy?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I support an elective monarchy, like the Anglo Saxons had.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

For the sake of a 1000+ year tradition I'd say no. It's not like they have much power politically and have these days taken a symbolic role. However I do think that there over reliance on tax paper dollars should end and maybe some other modest changes too. Also I shouldn't mention that the Monarchyship itself brings in a lot of money from tourists.

Taxpayer dollars?

[DavidB.]

Don't abolish it, but don't give it more power either (normal)

[Santander]

And of course it should be maintained, with more liberal exercise of Royal Prerogative. Male-preference succession and the disqualification of heirs who marry Roman Catholics should be restored, not because Roman Catholics are bad, but because the monarch is the head of the Church of England and thus ought not to be married to a Papist. Marrying former Roman Catholics should be allowed, though. Queens are also great, but should be considered a special and rare gift from God, not the norm.

[The Govanah Jake]

For the sake of a 1000+ year tradition I'd say no. It's not like they have much power politically and have these days taken a symbolic role. However I do think that there over reliance on tax paper dollars should end and maybe some other modest changes too. Also I shouldn't mention that the Monarchyship itself brings in a lot of money from tourists.

Taxpayer dollars?

Who do you think pays for the monarchy and their expenses?

[Santander]

For the sake of a 1000+ year tradition I'd say no. It's not like they have much power politically and have these days taken a symbolic role. However I do think that there over reliance on tax paper dollars should end and maybe some other modest changes too. Also I shouldn't mention that the Monarchyship itself brings in a lot of money from tourists.

Taxpayer dollars?

Who do you think pays for the monarchy and their expenses?

Well first, it wouldn't be taxpayer dollars. Also, the Queen and her family have various assets and trusts which generate substantial income. They only use public funds to pay for things such as security and transportation expenses when conducting official duties or maintenance of official residences. The Queen herself is a taxpayer too...

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

"the modern day decadence of our upper ten thousand"

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think whatever your opinion on the monarchy, the arguments pro and con that rely on beancounting seem rather vapid, especially the tourism one.

[Green Line]

Morally opposed to any and all monarchies.  Get rid of em.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I obviously don't support instituting monarchies where they're not present, and if there's significant demand in a country to have a monarchy abolished then I'm absolutely in favor of that, but I don't see any particular affront in keeping a well-liked constitutional monarchy in existence as a sort of national symbol or "heritage" thing. (This isn't a position without precedent among socialists, incidentally; George Orwell entertains it in The Lion and the Unicorn, and I believe it's the current position of the Japanese Communist Party.)

Of course, if/when Charles becomes king, it probably won't be so well-liked any more in this case, at least in the short term.

[Kingpoleon]

Historically, the ending of monarchical rule usually leads to a much more democratic leader within ten or twenty years(France, Germany, Spain, etc.).

[nicholas.slaydon]

No.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Historically, the ending of monarchical rule usually leads to a much more democratic leader within ten or twenty years(France, Germany, Spain, etc.).

I'm pretty confident that this statement contains not only one, but several fallacies.

[Kingpoleon]

Historically, the ending of monarchical rule usually leads to a much more democratic leader within ten or twenty years(France, Germany, Spain, etc.).

I'm pretty confident that this statement contains not only one, but several fallacies.

The chief one being sarcasm.

[Kingpoleon]

I support an elective monarchy, like the Anglo Saxons had.

You just want Prince Harry to be King.

[catographer]

And of course it should be maintained, with more liberal exercise of Royal Prerogative. Male-preference succession and the disqualification of heirs who marry Roman Catholics should be restored, not because Roman Catholics are bad, but because the monarch is the head of the Church of England and thus ought not to be married to a Papist. Marrying former Roman Catholics should be allowed, though. Queens are also great, but should be considered a special and rare gift from God, not the norm.

What's the argument against Queens? Besides just sexism.

[Suburbia]

No. Let's see how Princes Charles, William, and George do. That is what they were born to do, be KINGS.

I personally feel that William will probably be one of the most consequential Kings in history, especially with the madness that's going on tonight. He and Kate better step up their game.

[SteveRogers]

No. Let's see how Princes Charles, William, and George do. That is what they were born to do, be KINGS.

I personally feel that William will probably be one of the most consequential Kings in history, especially with the madness that's going on tonight. He and Kate better step up their game.

You think Prince William is the key to defeating ISIS

[Figueira]

I've always been a bit skeptical of the tourism argument. Are a lot of people going to cancel their trips to the UK if the monarchy is abolished? Maybe a few, but not really enough for tourism by itself to be a justification. And besides, most of that tourist money is benefiting London and not really the rest of the UK.

However, I do kind of understand the cultural desire to keep the monarchy, so I'll say that it shouldn't be abolished, although I wouldn't really be that upset if it somehow was.

[Neo-JacobitefromNewYork]

Norman invader usurper monarchs should be expelled and old Anglo-Saxon Orthodox Monarchy Restored.

[Lechasseur]

No

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

My personal preference would be for the monarchy to be abolished throughout the Commonwealth, with the exception of Canada, and for the House of Windsor to make Rideau Hall their primary residence.