Is it time to end, the Monarchy?

[Marc Meakin]

If only to gauge the temperature of peoples opinions on here and to ascertain if I'm out of touch as an old man of (very nearly) 60

[Fiona T]

Probably.

I don't feel massively strongly about it, but I suspect in our children's lifetime it will end, or at least become a nominal thing.

Like most people, I had a lot of respect for the queen and the way she conducted herself. She'd been an ever-present entity in our lives.

I've nothing against Charles (or Camilla) but they simply don't hold the nation's affection in the same way.

The whole idea is antiquated, the amount spent on not just the king/queen, but the extended family is eye-watering, and tbf I don't think it can be that great having your future completely decided for you before you're born.

At some point one of the future monarchs is either going to go completely off the rails, or just say "fuck this" - I don't want this for me/my children.

[Fiona T]

And the other big thing - as a non-religious person, do you not find the whole religious aspect of it all a bit weird or even uncomfortable? All this is being done for a god that doesn't exist! Does Charles really believe that stuff? Most people today don't. Will William or George? Seems increasingly unlikely as the nation becomes less and less religious.

[Mark Deeks]

do you not find the whole religious aspect of it all a bit weird or even uncomfortable?

I didn't, until yesterday. But that whole ceremony just felt a bit culty.

[Gavin Chipper]

They're an unelected, undemocratic, anachronistic waste of our money that reinforce the idea that some people are born better than others. What are the arguments in favour?

[Gavin Chipper]

do you not find the whole religious aspect of it all a bit weird or even uncomfortable?

I didn't, until yesterday. But that whole ceremony just felt a bit culty.

I'm not sure it was really the occasion for Charles to don his giant masturbation glove either, but there you go.

[Elliott Mellor]

And the other big thing - as a non-religious person, do you not find the whole religious aspect of it all a bit weird or even uncomfortable? All this is being done for a god that doesn't exist! Does Charles really believe that stuff? Most people today don't. Will William or George? Seems increasingly unlikely as the nation becomes less and less religious.

This is a good point. The UK is a majority atheist society nowadays, and swearing all manner of allegiances and oaths to a god that, in my mind and that of a large number of others, is purely fictional isn't really something that people can get behind. As Mark said, the ceremony yesterday seemed extremely culty (at least, the bits I caught from my mum having it on did).

[Gavin Chipper]

And the other big thing - as a non-religious person, do you not find the whole religious aspect of it all a bit weird or even uncomfortable? All this is being done for a god that doesn't exist! Does Charles really believe that stuff? Most people today don't. Will William or George? Seems increasingly unlikely as the nation becomes less and less religious.

This is a good point. The UK is a majority atheist society nowadays, and swearing all manner of allegiances and oaths to a god that, in my mind and that of a large number of others, is purely fictional isn't really something that people can get behind. As Mark said, the ceremony yesterday seemed extremely culty (at least, the bits I caught from my mum having it on did).

Is the UK really majority atheist? I'm not sure it is. Less than half said they were Christian in the census, but no religion was only 37.2%. It can depend on how the question is asked though. Some people identify as the religion of their parents without necessarily actually believing the actual truth of it. This site reckons 52% of British people have no religion, but even that's not the same as atheist.

[Mark James]

It's way past the time. Can't believe RTE, the national broadcaster of Ireland, showed the fecking ceremony. That's like NBC broadcasting the Islamic call to prayer.

[Elliott Mellor]

And the other big thing - as a non-religious person, do you not find the whole religious aspect of it all a bit weird or even uncomfortable? All this is being done for a god that doesn't exist! Does Charles really believe that stuff? Most people today don't. Will William or George? Seems increasingly unlikely as the nation becomes less and less religious.

This is a good point. The UK is a majority atheist society nowadays, and swearing all manner of allegiances and oaths to a god that, in my mind and that of a large number of others, is purely fictional isn't really something that people can get behind. As Mark said, the ceremony yesterday seemed extremely culty (at least, the bits I caught from my mum having it on did).

Is the UK really majority atheist? I'm not sure it is. Less than half said they were Christian in the census, but no religion was only 37.2%. It can depend on how the question is asked though. Some people identify as the religion of their parents without necessarily actually believing the actual truth of it. This site reckons 52% of British people have no religion, but even that's not the same as atheist.

I'd say so, yes. You can't take census results as being necessarily accurate because a lot of people will be coerced to put the same religion as their parents put. Out of all the people I know and associate with, I'd say people who are genuinely religious (even very liberally) make up less than 10%. Most people just won't use the term "atheist", even if for all intents and purposes they are. "Some people identify as the religion of their parents" is quite an understatement - virtually every child is indoctrinated to follow the religion/beliefs their parents do.

Even if you aren't going to accept the UK as majority atheist presently, it certainly will be in 10 or 20 years time - attitudes change, and the most religious group in society are those who are elderly, and who are dying off at a much faster rate than the younger generations.

[Marc Meakin]

And the other big thing - as a non-religious person, do you not find the whole religious aspect of it all a bit weird or even uncomfortable? All this is being done for a god that doesn't exist! Does Charles really believe that stuff? Most people today don't. Will William or George? Seems increasingly unlikely as the nation becomes less and less religious.

This is a good point. The UK is a majority atheist society nowadays, and swearing all manner of allegiances and oaths to a god that, in my mind and that of a large number of others, is purely fictional isn't really something that people can get behind. As Mark said, the ceremony yesterday seemed extremely culty (at least, the bits I caught from my mum having it on did).

Maybe you have hit the nail on the head there.
There is a correlation between religious fervour and monarchism.

I am an atheist, yet I feel that like Brexit, (I was a leaver Btw) it may be a case of be careful what you wish for.
There are many nations that have denounced their Monarchy that may have regretted it.

My argument in favour of the Monarchy is purely on tradition and the revenue that it generates.
Yes it needs reform and ironically Charles is the one to do this.
I liked that he wants to serve and not be served.
Lets see him put his money where his mouth is

[Marc Meakin]

Maybe in our lifetime or even Charles lifetime there will be a referendum.
Or do you all want a revolution ala Russia?

[Marc Meakin]

It looks like I am the lone voice in support of the Monarchy on here.
Paging Rhys.....

[Elliott Mellor]

And the other big thing - as a non-religious person, do you not find the whole religious aspect of it all a bit weird or even uncomfortable? All this is being done for a god that doesn't exist! Does Charles really believe that stuff? Most people today don't. Will William or George? Seems increasingly unlikely as the nation becomes less and less religious.

This is a good point. The UK is a majority atheist society nowadays, and swearing all manner of allegiances and oaths to a god that, in my mind and that of a large number of others, is purely fictional isn't really something that people can get behind. As Mark said, the ceremony yesterday seemed extremely culty (at least, the bits I caught from my mum having it on did).

Maybe you have hit the nail on the head there.
There is a correlation between religious fervour and monarchism.

I am an atheist, yet I feel that like Brexit, (I was a leaver Btw) it may be a case of be careful what you wish for.
There are many nations that have denounced their Monarchy that may have regretted it.

My argument in favour of the Monarchy is purely on tradition and the revenue that it generates.
Yes it needs reform and ironically Charles is the one to do this.
I liked that he wants to serve and not be served.
Lets see him put his money where his mouth is

I assume that he won't be having servants or enjoying all the privileges afforded to the royals that others couldn't ever expect then? Totally meaningless and false statement otherwise.

I still dispute the revenue argument. I am not convinced that the difference in revenue if you didn't have a monarchy would be significant, and certainly not outweighed by the cost of them.

[Elliott Mellor]

It looks like I am the lone voice in support of the Monarchy on here.
Paging Rhys.....

You probably want to reconsider your position if this is where you're at.

[Marc Meakin]

So how do you think the Monarchy should go?
Slowly, starting with Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
A dissolving of the commonwealth maybe az its a reminder of our imperialistic path.
Do away with the arrogance of ' Great' Britain as a name.
Have a public vote on name change maybe a new flag.
Or a good old revolution.
Maybe Kier might have something for the King's speech next year

[Elliott Mellor]

So how do you think the Monarchy should go?
Slowly, starting with Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
A dissolving of the commonwealth maybe az its a reminder of our imperialistic path.
Do away with the arrogance of ' Great' Britain as a name.
Have a public vote on name change maybe a new flag.
Or a good old revolution.
Maybe Kier might have something for the King's speech next year

You're just deliberately dragging things to the extremes because you haven't actually got a decent counterargument for what has been raised.

Nobody has suggested anything to the effect of a name change or a new flag, and quite why we need any sort of insincere speech at Christmastime by someone pretending they can sympathise with the public is beyond me.

[Fiona T]

I'm sure as a quizzer you know that the 'Great' refers to the largest of the islands.

[Marc Meakin]

My counter argument is based on fear of the unknown as England at least has had a Monarchy for over a thousand years.
At least with Brexit I knew what society was like before we joined the EU.
I know I keep going on about Russia but I'm trying to come up with a country that has genuinely prospered since giving up the Monarchy.
Even Australia, a much more modern and progressive nation currently wants to retain the Monarchy.

Yes the Monarchy is not relevant in a modernistic way, the King doesn't go into battle like they used to.

So in effect my argument is to keep the status quo based on nothing more than a reluctance to change when there really is no need.
I definitely think it needs reforming, scaling down to just the first family getting a duchy.
Andrew should be put on trial and every one outside the King's Son and his children should earn their keep and Harry has proven how easy that is.

But i concede, at least on this forum I am the only sane, pro royal. (though its a shitty straw poll with only a handful of contributers to this debate)
Though my sanity is or has been for another forum to debate

[Elliott Mellor]

My counter argument is based on fear of the unknown as England at least has had a Monarchy for over a thousand years.
At least with Brexit I knew what society was like before we joined the EU.
I know I keep going on about Russia but I'm trying to come up with a country that has genuinely prospered since giving up the Monarchy.
Even Australia, a much more modern and progressive nation currently wants to retain the Monarchy.

Yes the Monarchy is not relevant in a modernistic way, the King doesn't go into battle like they used to.

So in effect my argument is to keep the status quo based on nothing more than a reluctance to change when there really is no need.
I definitely think it needs reforming, scaling down to just the first family getting a duchy.
Andrew should be put on trial and every one outside the King's Son and his children should earn their keep and Harry has proven how easy that is.

But i concede, at least on this forum I am the only sane, pro royal. (though its a shitty straw poll with only a handful of contributers to this debate)
Though my sanity is or has been for another forum to debate

Harry has proven how easy it is to get masses of cash from the press by whining to them about how harshly he had it in one of, if not the most, privileged upbringings in the world. He hardly "earns his keep" - he doesn't, as far as I know, actually work a job. He doesn't contribute to society in any meaningful way.

Out of interest, are you in favour of keeping the House of Lords?

The coronation yesterday cost £100m - that's enough such that every foodbank in the UK could have £40000 in extra funding, feeding lots more people who are starving and impoverished. And there's "no need for change".

It's how you phrase the question - if you surveyed people and said "would you rather every foodbank in the country got a £40000 grant, or an extremely rich man got a £100m ceremony?", I think you'd find that even a lot of monarchists would be in the former camp!

[Marc Meakin]

Well we should be taxing the fuck out of the rich 49% for high earners over £100,grand a year.
I think if you are looking at helping the poor I think there are better ways than abolishing the Royal family.
Every unoccupied house or empty office in london should be used for the homeless.
Energy companies and Oil companies should also pay huge taxes which should be used for the poor.
We only need to get rid of the tory government to have a chance to achieve this.
Ironically a good deal of poor are actually in favour of the Monarchy compare to bring a tory voter.
Though with photo ID being used to vote then a lot of the underclass and impoverished probably can't vote.

A or the House of Lords, I agree its antiquated and serves no purpose.
I also think the judicial system needs a shake up with the wigs and gowns to go.
Yes it's hypocrisy, life peerages should be looked at too.
Like I've said a scaled down Monarchy is what I want not a revolution.
Anything associated with the word republican I'm against

[Gavin Chipper]

You equate getting rid of the monarchy with revolution and communism and like it would be the end of life as we know it. Almost like you're scared of it. But you're against most other entitlement establishment things. You just need to let go and embrace the inevitable (one day).

[Marc Meakin]

You equate getting rid of the monarchy with revolution and communism and like it would be the end of life as we know it. Almost like you're scared of it. But you're against most other entitlement establishment things. You just need to let go and embrace the inevitable (one day).

The Monarchy going is a huge probability but not in my lifetime and unlikely to happen in yours.

[Gavin Chipper]

I suppose I'm just surprised at how defensive you are about the monarchy, like you really care about it rather than just on balance think we should keep it. Based on other opinions I've seen of yours I struggle to get my head round it.

[Marc Meakin]

I think its because I'm getting older and more reflective.
Also anything that pissss off Liverpool supporters I'm all for.
Also the yanks are jealous of our monarchy

[Elliott Mellor]

I think its because I'm getting older and more reflective.
Also anything that pissss off Liverpool supporters I'm all for.
Also the yanks are jealous of our monarchy

So basically you're in favour of anything that annoys groups you dislike, even if that costs hundreds of millions a year in a Britain wracked with a cost of living crisis. Glad we cleared that up.

[Marc Meakin]

I think its because I'm getting older and more reflective.
Also anything that pissss off Liverpool supporters I'm all for.
Also the yanks are jealous of our monarchy

So basically you're in favour of anything that annoys groups you dislike, even if that costs hundreds of millions a year in a Britain wracked with a cost of living crisis. Glad we cleared that up.

I think you are targeting the wrong establishment forget Buck House how about the residents of Downing Street.
The Royal family are deluded but the Tories know exactly what they are doing to the poor and don't care

[Elliott Mellor]

I think its because I'm getting older and more reflective.
Also anything that pissss off Liverpool supporters I'm all for.
Also the yanks are jealous of our monarchy

So basically you're in favour of anything that annoys groups you dislike, even if that costs hundreds of millions a year in a Britain wracked with a cost of living crisis. Glad we cleared that up.

I think you are targeting the wrong establishment forget Buck House how about the residents of Downing Street.
The Royal family are deluded but the Tories know exactly what they are doing to the poor and don't care

I don't see why it has to be one or the other. Why not both?

[Jon O'Neill]

I think it's pretty obvious all along here that Marc is playing a bit of the devil's advocate and many of his comments are tongue-in-cheek or deliberately slightly provocative so to get triggered or call him defensive is a bit weird. He's not one of the many royalist nutters in this country.

Anyway, obviously the monarchy is totally mental. It goes without saying. The only interesting question is whether or not it is a net generator of revenue. I suspect it's pretty hugely in the positive (£1.8bn by this 2017 report - I can't find much else from a quick Google) and if we were to liquidate all the assets, give back the stolen diamonds, cut off all the allowances and security and travel etc. that it would be a very short-sighted decision economically. Would be interested to see further research on this though.

[Marc Meakin]

I'm surprised no-one else hasn't used the stolen wealth, or going further with the pillaging and taking assets from most Commonwealth Countries and wealth as a reason to get rid of the monarchy.

Yes I have been largely flippant with my comments as The Tories are the bigger out dated waste of space in this country and I don't think they give or generate any wealth to the real people, though maybe the fat cats

We should give back those Elgin Marbles though.

[Fiona T]

I think it's pretty obvious all along here that Marc is playing a bit of the devil's advocate and many of his comments are tongue-in-cheek or deliberately slightly provocative so to get triggered or call him defensive is a bit weird. He's not one of the many royalist nutters in this country.

Anyway, obviously the monarchy is totally mental. It goes without saying. The only interesting question is whether or not it is a net generator of revenue. I suspect it's pretty hugely in the positive (£1.8bn by this 2017 report - I can't find much else from a quick Google) and if we were to liquidate all the assets, give back the stolen diamonds, cut off all the allowances and security and travel etc. that it would be a very short-sighted decision economically. Would be interested to see further research on this though.

Yeah I did some googling on cost/benefit too. Generally it seems to be accepted that it is positive but also that it costs over twice what the next dearest monarchy costs. As someone who's not that bothered, it'll be interesting to see how it all pans out, assuming I'm around to see the next change of monarch!

[Gavin Chipper]

Anyway, obviously the monarchy is totally mental. It goes without saying. The only interesting question is whether or not it is a net generator of revenue. I suspect it's pretty hugely in the positive (£1.8bn by this 2017 report - I can't find much else from a quick Google) and if we were to liquidate all the assets, give back the stolen diamonds, cut off all the allowances and security and travel etc. that it would be a very short-sighted decision economically. Would be interested to see further research on this though.

I've not read that whole report (and I'm not going to) but it doesn't read like it's neutral. Plus how can you tell how much difference the monarchy makes to tourism? The error bars would be enormous.

In any case, I think we agree that it's not just about money, or evenly primarily about money. The monarchy is indeed totally mental.

[Elliott Mellor]

The reports of how much money they generate don't ever seem to factor in what percentage of that is due to actually having a monarchy vs people who want to see the historical sites. You wouldn't suddenly get zero revenue if you abolished the monarchy. You'd get swathes of people still coming to see the buildings and history.

[Jon O'Neill]

Anyway, obviously the monarchy is totally mental. It goes without saying. The only interesting question is whether or not it is a net generator of revenue. I suspect it's pretty hugely in the positive (£1.8bn by this 2017 report - I can't find much else from a quick Google) and if we were to liquidate all the assets, give back the stolen diamonds, cut off all the allowances and security and travel etc. that it would be a very short-sighted decision economically. Would be interested to see further research on this though.

I've not read that whole report (and I'm not going to) but it doesn't read like it's neutral. Plus how can you tell how much difference the monarchy makes to tourism? The error bars would be enormous.

In any case, I think we agree that it's not just about money, or evenly primarily about money. The monarchy is indeed totally mental.

No, but in a time of economic crisis (or any time), to make a decision that would take money out of the public purse for no benefit other than to appease anti-royal dogmatists would be absurd.

But we need more research into the numbers. I suppose the Palace of Versailles still puts up good tourism numbers despite the lack of an active monarchy.

[Gavin Chipper]

I'm surprised the Tories haven't thought to privatise the monarchy and sell it to one of Boris's mates or some Chinese company.

[Marc Meakin]

3 words that make make me totally pro Monarchy.
'President Boris Johnson'

[Marc Meakin]

I've just been on the UK Republic website.
Im not impressed

[Adam Gillard]

This is a good point. The UK is a majority atheist society nowadays, and swearing all manner of allegiances and oaths to a god that, in my mind and that of a large number of others, is purely fictional isn't really something that people can get behind. As Mark said, the ceremony yesterday seemed extremely culty (at least, the bits I caught from my mum having it on did).

Is the UK really majority atheist? I'm not sure it is. Less than half said they were Christian in the census, but no religion was only 37.2%. It can depend on how the question is asked though. Some people identify as the religion of their parents without necessarily actually believing the actual truth of it. This site reckons 52% of British people have no religion, but even that's not the same as atheist.

I'd say so, yes. You can't take census results as being necessarily accurate because a lot of people will be coerced to put the same religion as their parents put. Out of all the people I know and associate with, I'd say people who are genuinely religious (even very liberally) make up less than 10%. Most people just won't use the term "atheist", even if for all intents and purposes they are. "Some people identify as the religion of their parents" is quite an understatement - virtually every child is indoctrinated to follow the religion/beliefs their parents do.

Even if you aren't going to accept the UK as majority atheist presently, it certainly will be in 10 or 20 years time - attitudes change, and the most religious group in society are those who are elderly, and who are dying off at a much faster rate than the younger generations.

I don't buy this. One person's anecdotal opinion based on the people they know has no validity compared to a nationwide census. People tend to know and associate with people who are in a social group they can identify with, be that race, religion, etc. If we're going with personal social groups over a census, then I could similarly assert that over 90% of people are "genuinely religious (even very liberally)" and that the census is a load of tripe.

Moreover, I reckon a child of committed atheists is as likely if not more likely to be "coerced" into atheism as a child of religious parents is to be "coerced" into religiosity.

[Matt Rutherford]

Is the UK really majority atheist? I'm not sure it is. Less than half said they were Christian in the census, but no religion was only 37.2%. It can depend on how the question is asked though. Some people identify as the religion of their parents without necessarily actually believing the actual truth of it. This site reckons 52% of British people have no religion, but even that's not the same as atheist.

I'd say so, yes. You can't take census results as being necessarily accurate because a lot of people will be coerced to put the same religion as their parents put. Out of all the people I know and associate with, I'd say people who are genuinely religious (even very liberally) make up less than 10%. Most people just won't use the term "atheist", even if for all intents and purposes they are. "Some people identify as the religion of their parents" is quite an understatement - virtually every child is indoctrinated to follow the religion/beliefs their parents do.

Even if you aren't going to accept the UK as majority atheist presently, it certainly will be in 10 or 20 years time - attitudes change, and the most religious group in society are those who are elderly, and who are dying off at a much faster rate than the younger generations.

I don't buy this. One person's anecdotal opinion based on the people they know has no validity compared to a nationwide census. People tend to know and associate with people who are in a social group they can identify with, be that race, religion, etc. If we're going with personal social groups over a census, then I could similarly assert that over 90% of people are "genuinely religious (even very liberally)" and that the census is a load of tripe.

Moreover, I reckon a child of committed atheists is as likely if not more likely to be "coerced" into atheism as a child of religious parents is to be "coerced" into religiosity.

My view from various church activities (limited, being in one area east of Birmingham-limited, but still something) is a general apathy towards religion rather than active opposition from the population, but it still has a vital part to play through the varied activities it facilitates. Religion's role is changing, adjusting perhaps, to the evident drop in numbers-but it won't be going anywhere particularly quickly. This is the case for Christianity as well as other faiths

On that note, an interesting take that basically sums up my own view here-https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/ ... o-the-king

Along with the other main arguments as listed by others, a hearty helping of idolatry means that the monarchy vanishing would be a good thing

[Marc Meakin]

Genuine question.
Which nations that formerly had a Monarchy is doing the best economically.
I guess China is one but that can't be attributed to getting rid of the monarchy.

[Marc Meakin]

I'm all for reforms like a new national anthem maybe Jerusalem if only as an English one for sporting occasions.

[Marc Meakin]

Having had time to digest being triggered by the 'Not my King' brigade I think it's because Charles has always been an environmentalist, promotes healthy eating and my daughter benefitted from The Princes Trust and his declaration to serve and not be served is a nice touch.
The late Queen didn't get the same hatred from, UK Republic

[Fiona T]

I'm all for reforms like a new national anthem maybe Jerusalem if only as an English one for sporting occasions.

It is a fantastic song and we all love belting it out, but if we're going to change the National Anthem, let's go for a non-religious one

[Matt Rutherford]

Having had time to digest being triggered by the 'Not my King' brigade I think it's because Charles has always been an environmentalist, promotes healthy eating and my daughter benefitted from The Princes Trust and his declaration to serve and not be served is a nice touch.
The late Queen didn't get the same hatred from, UK Republic

Charles also promoted homeopathy, and with the billions he's sitting on, he could do an awful lot more.

In addition, it's not 'hatred' so much as political opposition. Those two things are not the same. Opposing something is possible without having active hatred towards it.

[Fiona T]

Is the UK really majority atheist? I'm not sure it is. Less than half said they were Christian in the census, but no religion was only 37.2%. It can depend on how the question is asked though. Some people identify as the religion of their parents without necessarily actually believing the actual truth of it. This site reckons 52% of British people have no religion, but even that's not the same as atheist.

I'd say so, yes. You can't take census results as being necessarily accurate because a lot of people will be coerced to put the same religion as their parents put. Out of all the people I know and associate with, I'd say people who are genuinely religious (even very liberally) make up less than 10%. Most people just won't use the term "atheist", even if for all intents and purposes they are. "Some people identify as the religion of their parents" is quite an understatement - virtually every child is indoctrinated to follow the religion/beliefs their parents do.

Even if you aren't going to accept the UK as majority atheist presently, it certainly will be in 10 or 20 years time - attitudes change, and the most religious group in society are those who are elderly, and who are dying off at a much faster rate than the younger generations.

I don't buy this. One person's anecdotal opinion based on the people they know has no validity compared to a nationwide census. People tend to know and associate with people who are in a social group they can identify with, be that race, religion, etc. If we're going with personal social groups over a census, then I could similarly assert that over 90% of people are "genuinely religious (even very liberally)" and that the census is a load of tripe.

Moreover, I reckon a child of committed atheists is as likely if not more likely to be "coerced" into atheism as a child of religious parents is to be "coerced" into religiosity.

The question in the census was recognised to be leading ("What is your religion?") - this has been recognised by the ONS.

The Annual British Attitudes survey differentiates between identity and belief, and in 2020 52% of British adults belonged to 'no religion'. It's an interesting read.

https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/3929 ... ligion.pdf

[Gavin Chipper]

Genuine question.
Which nations that formerly had a Monarchy is doing the best economically.
I guess China is one but that can't be attributed to getting rid of the monarchy.

America had the UK's monarchy before independence. They did OK afterwards. (By some measures anyway.)

[Mark James]

Genuine question.
Which nations that formerly had a Monarchy is doing the best economically.
I guess China is one but that can't be attributed to getting rid of the monarchy.

Eh, the USA.

Also, apparently Ireland had the fastest growing ecomony in Europe last year, (although admittedly the forecast for continued growth is only cautiously optimistic.)

But anyway, what has the monarchy got to do with the ecomony?

[Elliott Mellor]

Is the UK really majority atheist? I'm not sure it is. Less than half said they were Christian in the census, but no religion was only 37.2%. It can depend on how the question is asked though. Some people identify as the religion of their parents without necessarily actually believing the actual truth of it. This site reckons 52% of British people have no religion, but even that's not the same as atheist.

I'd say so, yes. You can't take census results as being necessarily accurate because a lot of people will be coerced to put the same religion as their parents put. Out of all the people I know and associate with, I'd say people who are genuinely religious (even very liberally) make up less than 10%. Most people just won't use the term "atheist", even if for all intents and purposes they are. "Some people identify as the religion of their parents" is quite an understatement - virtually every child is indoctrinated to follow the religion/beliefs their parents do.

Even if you aren't going to accept the UK as majority atheist presently, it certainly will be in 10 or 20 years time - attitudes change, and the most religious group in society are those who are elderly, and who are dying off at a much faster rate than the younger generations.

I don't buy this. One person's anecdotal opinion based on the people they know has no validity compared to a nationwide census. People tend to know and associate with people who are in a social group they can identify with, be that race, religion, etc. If we're going with personal social groups over a census, then I could similarly assert that over 90% of people are "genuinely religious (even very liberally)" and that the census is a load of tripe.

Moreover, I reckon a child of committed atheists is as likely if not more likely to be "coerced" into atheism as a child of religious parents is to be "coerced" into religiosity.

Yeah sure you've got a point that there probably is a bias in there but it's no coincidence that in the past few years, two churches in the local area have closed due to lack of members, and the others seem to also be struggling for numbers. My parents both go to church (and occasionally I'll venture there because it does run some pretty good events - I also was made to attend for the best part of 16 years of my life), and it's quite noticeable how it's gone from "brimming with members" when I was young, to "has a few dozen members who are largely over the retirement age". The Sunday school used to have 20-30 kids each Sunday, and now it's lucky if it gets five. Religion is a majority amongst the elderly and a minority amongst the youth, and you don't have to be a genius to figure out which of those groups is going to survive the longest.

We are straying a bit from the monarchy topic, but I'm happy to engage on the designated religion topic if you so desire.

[Paul Worsley]

Charles also promoted homeopathy,

You've convinced me. The Monarchy has to go.

[Fiona T]

Charles also promoted homeopathy,

I mean plenty of people believe in things with little or no evidence....

[Mark Deeks]

When the Queen died, I happened to be at my parents' house, because it was near to a comedy gig I was going to and I still blag free dinners like a teenager. The news greatly upset my mum - I didn't really know why then, and I still don't really know why now. As best I can tell, it was a combination of the fact it reminded her of the passing of her own late mother, who identified with Liz quite a bit (almost identical in age, almost identical in appearance, completely opposite voices), but also, the fact that it represented change. Born in 1955, she had only ever known one monarch, and there was a comfort to that, especially having been raised in a time when they were essentially beyond reproach.

We have obviously moved away from that time, but perhaps there is still something to be said for the quiet authority of it all. Not in a legislative sense, but in the ability to still summon 50 million heads of state or whatever it was for what was essentially a rather culty indoctrination event. The monarchy might not have any impact in our day-to-day lives, but at least it represents continuity in an ever-changing world. Perhaps some take solace from that, in the same way that they may do religion. Particularly those of the older generations, who feel as though the world is leaving them behind. How that feeling of continuity holds up now that the Queen's unbeaten streak is over remains to be seen.

The whole monarchy thing is largely pointless, an archaic relic of a system that you would never draw up from scratch. It's a historical accident, and it's pomp rather than power. But, it drives revenue and seemingly makes people feel safe for whatever reason. As national identities go, you could do worse - see also, America's military. Despite the very very very fair arguments about there being more important uses elsewhere for the money, if £100 million gets spent on a ceremony that has a tangible if anecdotal effect on helping to reunite a broken Britain, that isn't wasted money. Optically terrible, and why TF we are making new crowns each time is madness, but there's at least benefits to it, however difficult to measure they may be.

That said, as best I can tell, all but one of the contributors to this thread is a white British person. At the same time my mum was crying into her baked beans back on that weird Thursday evening in September at the fall of London Bridge, a group chat I was in - filled almost entirely with Americans - was talking about it. This chat included second-generation Americans of Latin origin, and they were....not afraid to state a very different position about what the monarchy represented. (The phrase "we're only talking about it because she was important to some white people" was used, which I felt was a pretty heavy-handed allusion to the idea that I only care about white people, which would be an innately racist position for anyone to take. It got heated. But anyway. We resolved it.) There is an importance on hearing the international perspectives of what the monarchy represents outside of Britain, especially since we wield it as some kind of international representation of what Britain is and was. C4C isn't well-placed to do that.

Where it goes from now will be interesting to watch. Everyone did a bang-up job over the weekend at pretending we hadn't been ripping on Charles for 50 years, and an unsubtle heaping of praise on every facet of his personality was in full effect. So be it. But despite the PR, Charles never had and will never have the reputation of, and thus will never engender the feelings of, security and diplomacy that his mum had/did. He is set up to fail simply by virtue of how long she lasted. You never want to be the first guy after "the guy". Be Mikel Arteta, not Unai Emery. Charles, then, is doomed to fail, even if he is completely inoffensive and plays a solid hand from here on out. Which history suggests he won't do anyway.

I do also think that the coronation ceremony will have been its own counterweight to the aforementioned argument of unifying national spirit. That thing was equal parts decadent and drab. It was really boring, did not do much for the idea of the separation of powers (the Prime Minister reading a prayer at the coronation, come on now), and ultimately served no functional purpose beyond outmoded ideals of jingoism and a heavy self-indulgence. Charles was already king. The whole thing was just a beatification. And this is a very religiously apathetic country now. We don't do stuff like that any more.

In short, don't end the monarchy. Demand accountability, but don't get rid of it. Let the passage of time continue to dilute it organically. And whatever happens, happens.

[Marc Meakin]

Genuine question.
Which nations that formerly had a Monarchy is doing the best economically.
I guess China is one but that can't be attributed to getting rid of the monarchy.

America had the UK's monarchy before independence. They did OK afterwards. (By some measures anyway.)

That statement got old after Obama second term

[Marc Meakin]

Genuine question.
Which nations that formerly had a Monarchy is doing the best economically.
I guess China is one but that can't be attributed to getting rid of the monarchy.

Eh, the USA.

Also, apparently Ireland had the fastest growing ecomony in Europe last year, (although admittedly the forecast for continued growth is only cautiously optimistic.)

But anyway, what has the monarchy got to do with the ecomony?

I don't think the Irish people chose to have a Monarchy and then got rid of it.
Quite the opposite but yes in a hundred years of independence it is doing rather well now

[Mark James]

Before the Anglo-Norman invasion, Ireland had its own collection of high Kings and kingdoms that the people "chose". Henry II assumed contoll of Ireland around the 12th century. For 800 years or so we "chose" to have the British Monarchy. Then, in the early part of the 20th century we decided not to have the British Monarchy any more and instead chose to the kick the shit out of yis until ye left, with moderate success.

[Marc Meakin]

Before the Anglo-Norman invasion, Ireland had its own collection of high Kings and kingdoms that the people "chose". Henry II assumed contoll of Ireland around the 12th century. For 800 years or so we "chose" to have the British Monarchy. Then, in the early part of the 20th century we decided not to have the British Monarchy any more and instead chose to the kick the shit out of yis until ye left, with moderate success.

Apart from the bit at the top

[Marc Meakin]

I was thinking of compiling a list of pros and cons of the British Monarchy.
Pros
1) Good for tourism
2)A fair bit of respect from around the world is commanded because of the Royal family
3) Tradition

Cons
1) Expensive
2)Outdated
3) divisive
4) undemocratic

[Mark James]

2)A fair bit of respect from around the world is commanded because of the Royal family

While I think it's cute you think that, what are you talking about? Everyone thinks they're an over privileged, badly dressed, sex crazed laughing stock.

https://youtu.be/RhR4eeVek2Q

[Gavin Chipper]

Regarding tourism, it's not as if people are coming here expecting to see Charles. He would be more accessible if Buckingham Palace was turned into a music and his head was put on a spike as an exhibit.

[Marc Meakin]

2)A fair bit of respect from around the world is commanded because of the Royal family

While I think it's cute you think that, what are you talking about? Everyone thinks they're an over privileged, badly dressed, sex crazed laughing stock.

https://youtu.be/RhR4eeVek2Q

I think the amount of dignitaries from other countries that came to the coronation implies a level of respect from the heads of state anyway.
Apart from Biden but the yanks didn't send their president to the last one

[Phil H]

One of the best ways I've seen of putting it - having a monarchy effectively means being governed by fictional characters, and "fictional characters are no basis for a system of governance."

(Original tweet - https://twitter.com/unsub_press/status/ ... 5563249664 )