[Stormsmith]

No. What's to be gained? Nothing. But the most of the world adores the young royals, Kate, Wills, and Harry all.

[Godstud]

No. Absolutely not!

[annatar1914]

"Yes - Republic and President"

Sigh, in many ways, I've broke loose of the past, poses shoring myself against the ruins, so that I could bury my Christian spirituality and actual ideals.

Only One Monarch, Who is also the perfect and Real Society of Love as Three Equal Persons, God Himself. Every other 'Monarch' is a mockery, a joke, a shadow at best.

[Godstud]

God save the Queen!!(England, and monarch of Canada)
Long live the King!!(Thailand)

God is a fictional being and therefore cannot be a King, since he wouldn't rule anything. What a silly proposal that I'd expect from a fundamentalist Christian.

[SolarCross]

There were kings on this earth before there were imaginary kings in heaven and there will be kings on this earth long after all childish lies of kings in heaven have been forgotten. The king in heaven is the shadow and the mockery. The kings of this earth are the real thing.

[annatar1914]

Well shall see gentlemen, we shall see. And in the interim, all our 'betters' with their transitory tinsel glory shall fade like grass in a summer drought;


"My name is Ozymandias, Kings of Kings, behold my works, ye mighty, and despair!..."

Rule by the People, for the Common good, not private trust, not an accident of birth or wealth, but of merit and public service.

[marjy]

I voted 'No'.

Anyway, the Crown is the gift of Parliament and not an absolute right (King William & Queen Mary, 1689 refers).

The role of sovereign exists only by the will of the people.

"And in the interim, all our 'betters' with their transitory tinsel glory shall fade like grass in a summer drought;"

Exactly so:


"'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

...all the way to Syria apparently.

[Decky]

Yes - Republic and Lord Protector

Britain should be headed by a human being not a reptile. What right do the house of Saxe-Coburg Gotha have to sit on that throne warming their clutch of eggs? None at all, if they want to be monarchs of somewhere they should be sent back to Germany. Who won the wars? Not Germany I will tell you that.

Keeping those benefits parasite just makes Britain look pathetic and backwards.

[Heisenberg]

Aren't you a Catholic (well, a Catholic atheist), Decky? Are you sure you want to go down the Cromwellian route again?

[Decky]

I hate Cromwell he was a shit. However if Britain was a republic the leader would have to be called lord protector instead of president, we are not French. I might not like the leadership during that period of English history but I can hardly fail to acknowledge that it exists. What would you call the head of state if we became a republic?

[Baff]

I would call him Baff.
After myself.

[Luna]

Yes. It's not a major issue one way or the other. The Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family would be powerful anyway due to their land holdings, always having cousins within the top brass of the military, and various familial investments in oil and finance.

But pulling the political legitimacy out from under them is one way to weaken their "above the law" status, seen in the Prince Andrew end of the Epstein teen prostitution investigation grinding to a near-halt long before it would for anyone else.

[QatzelOk]

Should we really be holding onto ancient institutions like royalty, class divisions, strategic racism, and impoverishment of political competitors?

I mean after all, these power-clusters have brought us to where we are today: domesticated human pets haplessly barrelling towards a sort of dumb extinction.

Would ridding humanity of our mafias really make a difference? Mussolinin and Hitler thought so, and look what happend to them.

[DrSteveBrule]

Britain is a de facto republic already. The Queen is really only kept around as a symbolic cultural figure that brings in tourists, so what's the point of removing the royal family?

[Thompson_NCL]

This is a moot question, as there doesn't seem to be any real interest in getting rid of the monarchy within the UK. Canada remains loyal to the Crown, the Australians don't have much interest in Republicanism and even the Kiwi's decided to keep the Union Flag on their own national flag.

Possibly things will change in CAN/AUS/NZ when HRH's reign ends, but I doubt anything will change in the UK.

[Heisenberg]

I hate Cromwell he was a shit. However if Britain was a republic the leader would have to be called lord protector instead of president, we are not French. I might not like the leadership during that period of English history but I can hardly fail to acknowledge that it exists. What would you call the head of state if we became a republic?

I would call him a regicide and a traitor.

Should we really be holding onto ancient institutions like royalty, class divisions, strategic racism, and impoverishment of political competitors?

Yes.

[Donna]

No.

I think it would contribute to ethnic tensions in the long term.

[Decky]

I would call him a regicide and a traitor.

A traitor to what? The English? He was commanded to fight by the English Parliament.

[Sphinx]

I voted 'No'.

The monarchy is part of Britain's identity. The Queen doesn't rule, but what she represents for the British people is a sort of connection with their history and their traditions.

[layman]

No, only radicals and idiots think this is a good idea.

Would ridding humanity of our mafias really make a difference? Mussolinin and Hitler thought so, and look what happend to them.

wow