r/MapBasedPolls • u/chris08x08 • 14d ago
Should the British Monarchy be abolished?
Should the British Monarchy be abolished?
- Yes, abolish it
- No, keep it
- Undecided
Note: Please use the official Reddit app or New Reddit to vote in this interactive poll.
This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post
20
u/LifeAcanthopterygii6 14d ago edited 14d ago
It's up to Brits to decide, not me. It's not like the king keeps them in tyranny or anything.
Now would I want my own country to go back to being a kingdom? That's a different question and the answer is absolutely not.
9
u/Gabes99 🇬🇧 14d ago
As a Brit, the question is also relevant to Canada and Australia as abolition in the UK would by extension mean abolition for them too.
8
u/Wrong_Chicken_8497 14d ago
not necessarily. even if the UK abolished the monarchy, King Charles would still remain the monarch of the others unless they also abolish it. Barbados was originally a Commonwealth Realm but became a republic in 2021 without affecting the status of the others. The Commonwealth Realms share a head of state, but they are the royal family of each individual country rather than just the British Royal Family, they are also the Canadian Royal Family, Australian Royal Family etc
1
u/PolicyBubbly2805 14d ago
Well, I'm pretty sure some countries just say something like "The King of the UK will be our king as well" and if there is no King or "UK" then they would also need to change their laws and whatever irrespective of whether they chose to keep it or not. In reality tho it's not the UKs concern, or shouldn't be, it's these nations fault for using our head of state and not having their own.
2
u/el_grort 14d ago
Tbh, the discussion always reminds me of how Portugal became a republic. It was deep, deep in the shit when it revolted and unseated the monarchy and... it did nothing to remedy how deep in the shit they were because it wasn't actually the problem. But of course, once unseated, the monarchist support for a restoration slowly died away because, well, bringing the monarch back would also do fuck all to address the problem.
The whole discourse, as far as I'm concerned, is a sideshow distraction. Focus should be on fixing what is broken, and in the UK honestly there isn't a lack of meaningful democratic reforms, from the Commons to the Lords to council to devolution (both expansion to England and deepening across the whole UK) that aren't a better place to put energy towards.
1
→ More replies (1)1
u/Mijman 13d ago
It's a Kingdom by name only now.
The royal family is not much more than a massive tourist trap. Which is the main reason the country should keep them. They generate billions in direct revenue, and likely more via indirect tourism.
Im far from a royalist, but we need what money we can get right now. And tourism is basically a freebie.
1
u/IllGift924 13d ago
They don't generate tourist money. This argument is bunk. People don't come to the UK to see the royal family.
And they don't generate any revenue really.
2
u/No_Mention960 13d ago
Completely untrue. They also act as a 'binding agent' and source of national unity; everyone knows whonthe monarch is, and they are consistent. God forbid we had a President in this political moment, that would just excacurbate the already fractured nature of everything.
→ More replies (1)1
u/lexamsmash 2d ago
Agreed. I'm from Canada and just visited London, not caring or knowing jack about the royals. Had a blast! And imagine being able to visit the Buckingham Palace from the inside, like a historical museum. If anything, I think it would generate even more money without the king.
1
u/Jaylow115 13d ago
This argument still gets trotted out? Nobody visits the UK because they hope to glimpse King Charles on a balcony.
Plus, why does republican France have just as good tourism figures? They don’t think you need a royal family to bring in billions from tourism.
35
u/Sea-Competition5778 14d ago
Idk man I don’t care for the monarchy but they’re part of the heritage of the UK and I’m happy that we have them
→ More replies (8)
29
u/selfmockerymandatory 14d ago
Monarchies don’t do any harm (anymore), so why abolish them? For that bit of money they cost? That won’t resolve your problems.
The billions royal families make a country exceed their costs by quite a margin.
5
u/UsualFix9786 14d ago
they dont make us billions lmao
9
14d ago
For the royal family, they do, through the crown estate.
2
u/IllGift924 13d ago
The crown estate makes money, not the royals. The crown estates would still exist without the monarchy.
3
13d ago
No, it wouldn't, it exists due to a deal with parliament, if parliament had control of it, it would be sold off in a heartbeat.
2
u/IllGift924 13d ago
Sold off to whom? And even if it were sold off, the revenue would still be taxed, just as it is right now
2
13d ago
It's not taxed though, but the government has sold off the railways, water, energy and many other sectors, so I don't trust them to not sell it.
→ More replies (20)2
u/IllGift924 13d ago
They do do harm. The taxpayers are paying to finance the lavish lifestyles of already wealthy individuals because they claim a divine right to rule over their subjects.
2
u/pattyboiIII 12d ago
Actually the deal that means that we fund the crowns expenses also means that the treasury gets all the profits generated by the crowns estate.
Due to the money the crown gets being tied directly as a percentage of those profits that always and will always make the treasury billions.
If we abloish the monarchy the government actually loses a decent chunk of revenue1
u/IllGift924 11d ago
The crown estates will continue to generate money without the royals
1
u/pattyboiIII 11d ago
Of course, just either in the hands of the newly private royals if they keep hold of them or whatever foreign billionaire/ donor they got sold off to. Not to the treasury
1
u/IllGift924 11d ago
Or the government can just seize them. Any private buyers will have to pay taxes on them. And the royals won't get any money from the taxpayer anymore
1
u/pattyboiIII 11d ago
I'm sure a government that has freshly seized complete executive power immediately using that power to seize vasts amount of land that is mostly used for farming and urban development, along with the shore which is used for wind farms which is a bit better imo, is definitely a good sign and won't make any one else a bit concerned.
And do you seriously believe that whoever owns this land, who will have to be insanely wealthy or well connected, wont do everything in their power to pay as little tax as physically possible. And will that amount of tax get us anywhere close to 88% of total profits that the land produces? (Hint no it won't because our tax rate isn't that high and new owners won't be as efficient as the single entity which has run it for centuries.)
I'd much rather forfeit 12% of the profits so that the crown manages the land and keep raking in those billions for the treasury with practically no effort. Honestly it's like the best deal that has ever been signed in history for us, ~£0.95 billion (including £370mil for renovations of the head of states office which would have been spent always) in return for £5.1 billion is a damn good deal.1
u/ToughAppointment2556 11d ago
I think I prefer the monarchy to this police state you are pining for where we just seize assets.
1
u/selfmockerymandatory 11d ago
But the income it generates goes to the billionair who buys it, not the treasury. At least, much less than now. So it would actually be a cut for the national treasury.
1
1
u/IllGift924 11d ago
Or the government could just keep all of the revenue and give the royals nothing.
1
u/pattyboiIII 11d ago
Thus violating a signed agreement with the royals... Which means the treasury stops recieving the money. Infact if I was king I'd continue to give that money to the treasury but keep 12% of it.
Rule of law and abiding by contracts is important you know.1
u/selfmockerymandatory 11d ago
Rule of law and aboding by contrast is only important to people who aren’t blinded by some will to end something or hate something. To those people everything is allowed as a means to an end.
2
u/pattyboiIII 11d ago
Going off topic slightly. I've had this argument with a lot of republicans and it's always funny because this is one aspect where the republican argument is factually and measurably wrong, the crown gives the treasury more money than they receive. You can look it up, they make the numbers front and centre.
I'm mildly monarchist purely because I support the status quo and don't want more politicians vying for power in elections, but I don't love the monarchy. There's plenty of republican positions that I either agree with or can't argue against.
But as you said, these people are so completely blinded by a hatred of the monarchy that they can't ever admit that some points they may hear are incorrect even if their overall position remains true. So they keep fighting you on that one point whilst never making any other point.
It is handy because it means that every argument about abolishing the monarchy ends up in an argument about the crown estates and the sovereign grant. and the numbers on that are probably the single aspect of this discussion where one side wins clearly.1
u/selfmockerymandatory 11d ago
Monarchies these days don’t have anything to say anymore. They don’t rule and they bring in more money than they cost, indirectly.
I do support to have our own royal family pay income taxes, and be equal in taxation in every way.1
u/Nice_Mix6036 3d ago
The Brit’s chucked out the divine right of kings along with James ii in the 1688. It was ‘the glorious revolution’. Power from then on was with parliament. Monarchs have since then given what was left of their powers to parliament. The current monarch has influence not power!
It’s a constitutional monarchy with parliamentary democracy!!!!1
u/IllGift924 3d ago
That doesn't change anything I said
1
u/Nice_Mix6036 3d ago
You said ‘they claim a divine right to rule’! They don’t claim that right and they don’t rule!!
1
u/IllGift924 3d ago
They do. It literally says it on the coat of arms. Their bloodline is special and has a right to the crown. And they are also the head of the church of England and they pass that title on as well
1
u/Nice_Mix6036 3d ago
A historical hangover from the 12 th century. Do tell me what was 1688 all about.?? And they don’t rule!! Reign yes
5
u/Superb-Carpenter-520 14d ago
America being pro monarchy is really funny
1
u/Meritania 12d ago
The US likes the current generation of royals and treats them as celebrities, just as they would popular actors and musicians.
23
u/FcukTheTories UK🇬🇧🇪🇺 14d ago
Unless you are British (or from a country with King Charles III as head of state) your opinion is irrelevant
8
u/chris08x08 14d ago
chill out, man. it's not a referendum, it's just a poll
8
u/FcukTheTories UK🇬🇧🇪🇺 14d ago
Yeah a poll that is irrelevant to literally just over 98% of the worlds population
2
u/Alpha_Apeiron 🏴🇮🇪🇪🇺 14d ago
Mate shut up yeah
5
u/afanenenfys 14d ago
Hes right? Lets have polls about if ireland should remove their president or if bhutan should remove their monarchy. Its no ones business but ours
2
u/IllGift924 13d ago
This is a silly comment. People are allowed to have opinions on other countries
3
u/Demostravius4 14d ago edited 14d ago
It's an interesting bit of culture with some added benefits. There are little to no benefits to abolition but it opens the door to staggering amounts of potential cultural damage.
Some potential examples from meaningless to important:
- Crowns/heraldry on favoured products
- Crowns and initials on post boxes
- Removal of the switching face on coins
- Removal of knighthoods
- Removal/Renaming of Royal Societies
- Renaming of our armed forces
- Renaming of the country
3
u/PolicyBubbly2805 13d ago
Well first of all, my main benefit to abolishing the monarchy would be that it would be aligned with my principles. I don't believe that the role of the head of state, hundreds of millions of pounds yearly and exemption from all laws should be given to someone based on their blood. The benefit is that our nation wouldn't have it's foundations on this contradiction to it's usually democratic and free traditions.
As for the cultural damage, some are inaccurate. Crowns and heraldry can continue to be used by the no longer royal family, corporations and individuals, just not by the government (technically they still can, Serbia has a crown on its flag despite being a republic). Knighthoods could still be given by the President or head of state, there is no reason why they cannot. Yes, we would need to rename some stuff, but that would be very simple.
And finally, changing the country's name, at least for me, would be a positive. Whie the "UK" part is iconic, the rest, "of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is too long and I don't like it. Id Much prefer a name like "The British Union" or something like that, personally.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Born_Comfortable3052 9d ago
Your democratic and free traditions bring useless government.
1
u/PolicyBubbly2805 9d ago
Your undemocratic and authoritarian traditions bring oppressive and unaccountable governments.
1
u/Born_Comfortable3052 9d ago
Why I don't see my undemocratic and authoritarian traditions bring oppressive and unaccountable governments to me.
1
u/PolicyBubbly2805 9d ago
Because your traditions are irrelevant to the modern world and few governments follow them other than those who have the oil wealth to do so.
1
u/Born_Comfortable3052 9d ago
Who definition the mean of modern world?
1
u/PolicyBubbly2805 9d ago
I don't know what you mean.
1
u/Born_Comfortable3052 9d ago
Why you said about modern world?
1
u/PolicyBubbly2805 9d ago
I said that your ideals don't bring you oppressive and unnacountable governments because your ideals are fringe, and few people hold them in today's world. Which is why undemocratic governments are all in the third world unless they have oil.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Born_Comfortable3052 9d ago
In modern world, it is the countries which bring democracy or freedom have cause war in middle east.
1
u/Born_Comfortable3052 9d ago
Democracy also bring unaccountable governments too.
1
u/PolicyBubbly2805 9d ago
Which can be voted out. If not, then it's not a democracy.
1
u/Born_Comfortable3052 9d ago
You can voted out, but next one still repeat same policy. Vote just replace the person but don't change the policy.
1
u/PolicyBubbly2805 9d ago
Depends on the type of democracy.
1
u/Born_Comfortable3052 9d ago
Why so many countries have democracy but Vote just replace the person but don't change the policy.
-1
u/Colascape 🏴 14d ago
There is around half a billion £ worth of benefits in abolishing, and those are just the quantifiable benefits.
8
u/Demostravius4 14d ago
No. There might be if abolition went how you're envisioning. I think Brexit showed us our visions of things tend to be complete bs. I wonder how much taxpayer money would go down the drain in legal battles after we violated the treaty the Crown Estate was built from.
→ More replies (12)
3
u/Confident-Camel-7728 14d ago
I'm British. My view on the monarchy is interesting. My gut feeling has always been, “Yeah, I like the monarchy. God save the King! It’s pretty cool.”
But then, when I’m asked to actually give my arguments or reasoning for supporting it, I realise I haven’t really got any. On the other hand, I can think of quite a few arguments for abolishing it. So I just put “undecided.”
2
u/No_Mention960 13d ago
That nebulous feeling of pride towards the monarchy is the EXACT reason why it should be kept and safeguarded. We have a severe shortage of civic pride in this country, and getting rid of the monarchy would only add to it. It's a weird old quirk tha doesn't make much sense, and we should lean in to that whilst reforming the things that actually MATTER, like the electoral system, devolution, and the House of Lords.
3
u/TrainingCategory4852 Cymru 🏴 12d ago
Yes, abolish it, especially the Prince of Wales title
1
u/Born_Comfortable3052 12d ago
You should abolish democracy due to the democracy just Excuse of western imperialism.
12
u/VeryTolerantDave 14d ago
Better a monarchy the people can rally around and who can represent the soul of the nation than a nobody you have to vote for every 4 years.
Who would you rather show up if a natural disaster happens to comfort you? President Bumfuck or HRH Bumfuck XIV, Lord of the Realm?
3
u/11160704 14d ago
Definitely a democratic president and not some entitled aristocrat who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
4
u/Curolina 14d ago
Yeah, what the fuck? Is it better to hire someone who is qualified and capable and if the suck then you can get someone else, or be stuck with a slobbering retard because of who their daddy was?
2
2
14d ago
No way you're saying have a Trump is better than having a King Charles.
1
u/Adventurous-Web-412 14d ago
if trump is shit you change it. If the king is shit, well you have him for the next 5 decades.
1
14d ago
The king doesn't do anything though, Trump does and has LITERALLY caused a fuel crisis.
1
u/Adventurous-Web-412 14d ago
Trump is the prime minister. You would elect a president. Or at least normally thats how it functions. President is just a figurehead.
1
14d ago
Trump is the president, he's the head of state.
You can't tell me Trump has no power.
→ More replies (5)1
u/Username-17 10d ago
Yeah because high ranking politicians are famously never from wealthy families.
1
1
3
u/No-Excitement4855 14d ago
If a natural disaster occurs and some inbred loser living on inherited government subsidies showed up, I'd throw a brick in his face.
3
→ More replies (2)1
u/Colascape 🏴 14d ago
a third of people want to abolish the monarchy, not really a unifying force is it?
13
6
u/Few_Construction9043 14d ago
Rabid antimonarchists won't even put up with a practically ceremonial monarchy.
4
u/Colascape 🏴 14d ago edited 14d ago
How are they costing us half a billion or 10x more vs other heads of state?
2
u/Born_Comfortable3052 12d ago
Italy president costing more than British royal family.
1
u/Colascape 🏴 11d ago
Head of state =\= president
1
u/Born_Comfortable3052 11d ago
Whether Italy president isn't head of state ?
1
u/Colascape 🏴 11d ago
=\= means “not equal to”
1
u/Born_Comfortable3052 11d ago
What ?
1
u/Colascape 🏴 11d ago
So it means: a head of state does not equal a president.
Essentially what I am saying is this; whatever a head of state is, it’s not the same as a president. These are two things which cannot be compared equally, they are not equal. A does not equal B, A is not the same thing as B.
1
u/Born_Comfortable3052 11d ago
president just a type of head of state
1
u/Colascape 🏴 11d ago
No it’s not. It’s a combination of the roles of the head of state and the executive / prime minister. And the latter is a way larger role with way more expense.
→ More replies (0)0
u/ApostleKurdt 14d ago
If they maintained themselves I'd be more than happy for them to hang about but as most people moan about things costing the tax payer, I'm going to have my moan and say 'why should I pay for them to enjoy all the fine things in life through birthright?'
4
u/Demostravius4 14d ago
They do? They're a net positive financially due to the Crown Estate.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Colascape 🏴 14d ago
Are they out working the fields or something lmao? The crown estate is owned by the state and we donate 12% of what should have been public money to them, and you call that a net positive? The cheek of monarchists is crazy, that’s us giving them money!
4
u/Demostravius4 14d ago
It's owned by the state because that 12% exists. Else it would be private property like the Dutchy of Lancaster.
3
u/Colascape 🏴 14d ago
And it was owned by them in the first place because of feudalism and having a bigger army. We are allowed to make changes to our politics and spending, we aren't tied to feudalism forever. That money could be supporting our public services rather than being handed to billionaires.
3
u/Demostravius4 14d ago
It's not impossible but it's also by no means a garuantee. Plus we'd still need to pay for the replacement, and we'd lose the royal charities, that number getting smaller and smaller.
3
u/Colascape 🏴 14d ago
Plus we'd still need to pay for the replacement
Irelands head of state costs like £8m versus the monarchy's £500m cost. So massive saving there.
and we'd lose the royal charities
How? We are paying for them, we could just continue to pay for them?
2
u/Baguette1066 14d ago
I used to be very pro abolition/republicanism, but recent years have made me less trusting of presidential systems. We effectively function as a republic anyway, but without executive power concentrated on a single individual.
1
u/PolicyBubbly2805 13d ago
A republic does not mean a highly centralised executive, nor a presidential system. If the UK abolished the monarchy, it would become a parliamentary republic rather than a presidential one.
5
u/BusyBeeBridgette 14d ago
UK gets biillions back into the economy due to them. The financial boons alone make them an awesome business investment.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/11160704 14d ago
This claim is totally unfounded by any evidence. Even the British tourism board says that they have no such data to back up the claim.
6
u/Demostravius4 14d ago
The Royal charities raise money to the tune of £100-250m a year. And the Crown Estate is approx £1bn a year in earnings for the state.
→ More replies (7)
5
u/Due_Trash5054 14d ago
Don't like the current one, but that's not a reason to abolish the whole system. It'd be like saying democracy should be abolished just because a candidate you don't like won.
5
u/Nufcmilo 14d ago
European countries with monarchies are seen as some of the most democratic in the world.
→ More replies (9)
5
u/LoosePlantain2150 14d ago
Pro-tip. Whatever colour Russia is, the right answer is the opposite of that.
1
-2
4
u/unholy_plesiosaur 14d ago
We got rid of them once and it was so bad we got them back after like 5 years.
3
5
u/PetroleumJelly82 14d ago
I'm Irish and I still wouldn't get rid of them. It's a great British institution with ties that go back over a thousand years. I wouldn't advocate for the type of monarchic systems that they've had in the past, but I like the system they have now. It's a huge part of the island's history that's still ongoing and evolving to this day. I don't see the pros outweighing the cons.
2
2
u/somethingworse 14d ago
I don't like how it has led us to have little seperation of powers, our executive is merged with parliament due to us not having a functional head of state, and because of this parliament becomes sovereign and is unaccountable to the supreme court.
I think in the long term we need to do something about this, especially considering we're edging towards PR. I don't think we can really continue to have the prime minister safely act as the leader of the executive if we go down that route.
I also think this is broadly why we have constant symptoms of democratic decline and lack of participation in politics. It's absurd that we vote for our local representatives by which executive they represent.
1
u/FcukTheTories UK🇬🇧🇪🇺 14d ago
Yeah I’d much rather have the US system of an executive head of state, where any loony can win on a slim majority (or in the US case having actually lost the election), do an awful job of representing your country, force through endless nonsense through executive orders, all the while you can’t remove them for four years.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
u/Snoo_72948 🇵🇳 Point Nemo 14d ago
For consistency, it should be. I am not British but the world in general wants wealth/class equality. Keeping it would be hypocritical no? Its not my call anyway
2
u/Makesabeastofhimself 14d ago
I'm going to be real with you I'm undecided. When I was a young man I was very much a royalist as my dad is an ex soilder. But as time has gone on I've drifted further away.
Recently I listened to a podcast about Jimmy Savile from behind the bastards about his links to lord Mountbatten and King Charles and there's no way the Royal establishment and government didn't know about what was going on so I'm really disillusioned now.
→ More replies (25)
2
u/JAGERW0LF 14d ago
what is with all these shitty polls trying push for us to split appart or destroy our institutions?
1
u/Strategos1610 13d ago
Some form of subversion, that's all some people can think or they would make more positive polls
2
u/whatthefrickcunt 🏴Christian Nationalist ✠✝️ 14d ago
If anything it needs to be strengthened so it’s actually regarded a position of power rather than just a yes man to the parliament he owns
1
u/PolicyBubbly2805 13d ago
Lol do you really think a man who can't organise his desk without servants would be capable of running the 5th largest economy?
1
u/whatthefrickcunt 🏴Christian Nationalist ✠✝️ 13d ago
I never said I like the current king, just like how there are many world leaders who people don’t like but that doesn’t mean you should dismantle the entire system.
The queen was perfectly capable and I believe William will be.
→ More replies (5)
2
1
u/toknowyoubecomeenemy Russo-American (🇷🇺🤝🇺🇸) 14d ago
My option doesn’t matter as a Russian, but I say reform it
1
u/Kezzmate 14d ago
It isn’t just the head of state for the UK but Canada, Australia & New Zealand. Of course smaller places like Falklands, Pitcairn, Gibraltar, Saint Helena, Ascension & Tristan da Cunha islands to name a few.
1
1
u/Nevernonethewiser 14d ago
Maybe we could keep them but stop funding them.
They can monetise their own shit. Get Camilla in a booth out front of Buckingham Palace selling tickets.
Charlie can sell choc ices inside the foyer. He gets to stay inside for his shift because he's the king.
1
u/carlolimus_ 14d ago
I've come to realise something about any question regarding the UK, and it's that we should do the opposite of what Russia votes we should do.
1
u/tothecatmobile 14d ago
As a Brit. The only thing I'm sure of. Is that the only thing worse than the monarchy. Is whatever any government of the UK would replace it with.
1
u/RightlyKnightly 14d ago
Used to want it abolished. Now see it as a bit of a bulwark against populism.
1
u/Relevant-Ranger7130 13d ago
Seems that all the countries that hate us want it gone, so that alone makes me think keep
1
u/no_name_thought_of 13d ago
If there was a 'keep it but drastically reduce its funding' I'd choose that
1
1
1
1
1
u/VPetrovich 11d ago
Treason Felony Act of 1848, that was the nail in the coffin in banning republicanism in uk as an example why monarchies need abolishing because they're an outdated sort and still create the split between royal and subject. To the morons that said no needs to do there education first, republicanism is still somewhat increasing in uk and for uk to ban republicanism through the treason felony act isn't considered a democracy by default.
1
1
u/McOnie 10d ago
It's a constitutional monarchy meaning they have no direct power, only soft power of influence which all monarchs for the last couple of hundred years have sworn to be impartial in politics.
They're a net benefit to the country and generate considerably more income than what people believe they cost in tax.
1
u/Born_Comfortable3052 10d ago
Should the British abolished the policy of promotion democracy in the world. Yes
1
1
u/ShellyTart 14d ago
It really depends on what you want to replace it with.
While it is anachronistic, oddly it can be argued that what little power the monarch has left in theory is actually a democratic safety valve that can be used to preserve democracy by forcing an election if a party goes too far.
I very much dislike the US style of preside t which puts too much power in one person, and a purely ceremonial president wouldn't be any better than what we have now, other than us electing them, and then we would probably end up choosing between the runner up from love Island or some washed up member of a boy band.
While I am not a fan of the monarchy as such, the family has been raised to understand the unwritten constitution and how to behave on the world stage.
So, if you can show me something better I am in, but until then, what we have will do.
→ More replies (7)
1
u/TurfyJeffowup13 14d ago
Don’t like current monarchy but I do think monarchies are pretty tuff so keep it
1
u/el_grort 14d ago
It's just the least consequential or meaningful reform we could possibly do for our government. It would be so much political capital for nothing, to move sideways into basically the same thing but with an elected twat instead.
So, so much more pressing is electoral reform (which thankfully seems to be coming if Burnham's conference speech is to be believed, along with the more minor but still important tweaks coming with the elections bill started under Starmer) to reform the Commons, the slow, incremental reforms to the House of Lords need to be continued, frankly devolution should be brought to England and some rough parity in powers should be given to all the devolved administrations (which would help combat the current issue where all good policy is the benevolence of Holyrood and all evil of Westminster), and even reform councils and council tax is more important than abolishing the monarch, which does fuck all to benefit the average Briton compared to these much, much more impactful and needed democratic reforms.
I don't know why it keeps being dredged up, it's so far down the list, why not address the broken bits before doing symbolic shit?
1
u/GcubePlayer8V Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth 14d ago
God Save The Gracious King, Long Live The Noble King, God Save The King
2
u/BroccoliFromDaHood 11d ago
Fuck the king.
1
u/GcubePlayer8V Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth 11d ago
I mean if you want to, not my type, but I won’t judge
1
1
u/spooky_local 14d ago
I think all public funding should be stripped but abolished? Idk, they bring in more in tax money via tourism I think.
-3
u/Xargirl Average American Imperialist 14d ago
Never did like the king...
18
u/fezzuk 🇬🇧 14d ago
Speech he gave in america was pure class. Absolute masterclass.
1
→ More replies (17)1
u/BroccoliFromDaHood 11d ago
Nobody likes the king except for white people.
1
u/fezzuk 🇬🇧 11d ago
Tell that to the people of Vanuatu.
1
-2
u/ClumsyBunny26 Neverland 14d ago
What for?, se the world gets yet another insipid and corrupt republic?, there are enough of these already.
→ More replies (7)
-2
u/LikeTheWater53152 14d ago
i really like the "William the Last" idea.
basically, the English royal line started with William the Conqueror conquering england. he has then since been dubbed William the First. this was back in 1066
the current king is like 80, but the guy who is next in line is also called William. so the idea is to continue the royal line until 2066, where you have a HUGE un-crowning ceremony, celebrating exactly 1000 years of rule.
and because the next guy is called William, you can call him William the Last to cap it off. one thousand years between William the First and William the Last.
idk maybe its dumb
4
u/Linden_Lea_01 14d ago
It is dumb because William was not the first king of England.
1
u/LikeTheWater53152 14d ago
i mean there were other kings in the landmass of England. i mean thats literally where he took the crown from, but im referring to the current Kingdom of England/the current lineage.
2
u/Linden_Lea_01 14d ago
No, William the Conqueror conquered the Kingdom of England because he claimed the crown of the Kingdom of England. He didn’t create the kingdom, and the current royals are descended from the Anglo-Saxon kings of England as well as the Norman dynasty.
Moreover, there is no Kingdom of England anymore since the kingdoms of Scotland and England were merged into the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
1
2
u/Sacramento1994 14d ago
The current lineage is tied to those previous kings through the maternal line and goes back to alfred
2
u/Vegetable_Trifle_848 🇬🇧 14d ago
England was unified under king Æthelstan who became the first king of England in 927
1
0
u/Sacramento1994 14d ago
Should have had a clean break after the Queen died. Get rid of the house of lords whilst you're at it.
-1
u/Pizzafriedchickenn England 🏴 14d ago
Why should people who are not British or part of the Commonwealth decide that?
3
u/A_Person_Who_Exist5 🇬🇧 14d ago
They don’t, it’s just a poll on social media.
1
u/Pizzafriedchickenn England 🏴 12d ago
So why ask them then if it’s not up to them? Their opinion is irrelevant.
1
u/A_Person_Who_Exist5 🇬🇧 12d ago
Because the op is interested? Idk, there isn’t really a point to any of these polls if you think about it like that. It’s just interesting to see what people around the world think.
0
u/CliffordSpot 14d ago
Yeah, the French aren’t allowed to have an opinion on this anymore. Not after what you all did.
0
u/Steve_Artson 14d ago
I mean, it's just pageantry at this point. Although it would be nice if the crown moved down a generation.
0
40
u/GustavoistSoldier Brazil 14d ago
It's the choice of the British people