zlacker

>>xd+(OP)
I was born in the UK, in 1963. Because of my step-father's love of first-wave UK punk, the first thing I did on hearing this news was to play the Sex Pistol's "God Save the Queen".

It is remarkable how much the Queen's standing has improved during the time since that song (1977). My (UK) family are (as far as I know) staunch republicans, but the last couple of decades have seen all of us soften our disgust with the monarchy as Elizabeth represented it. We might still want the whole concept destroyed, but there is nothing close to the vehemence of Johnny Rotten (Lydon)'s lyrics from that song.

Nevertheless, that is how a bunch of people felt in 1977, and as our memories become even more gilded and rose goggled now that she has died, it may be worth remembering those feelings too:

God save the queen / The fascist regime / They made you a moron / A potential H bomb / God save the queen / She's not a human being / and There's no future / And England's dreaming

These days, I think even us staunch republicans/anti-monarchists would begrudgingly admit that "She could have been worse" and that she actually was a human being.

Maybe Charles will have the guts to end it all, but it doesn't seem likely.

>>PaulDa+db
Not to dive into politics particularly; but there are advantages and disadvantages to every form of government. What are the particular disadvantages your family dislikes? Is it the principal of it or something in particular?

One clear advantage of monarchs that I can see, are that they have an incentive to grow and expand their tax base. That typically means long-term planning (but doesn't ensure it, which is a disadvantage the UK parliamentary system seems to mitigate).

>>citili+om
Here's an analogy: in a democracy, first-past-the-post voting is, in a vacuum, about the worst voting system that exists. But the reason that it was adopted in so many places is because it has one advantage: its sheer, utter, bone-headed simplicity. In a context where most constituents are illiterate and unfamiliar with the notion of democratic government, it behooves you to pick the simplest solution that can possibly work, even if it leads to worse results than more complex systems.

Hereditary absolute monarchy is the same thing, but for selecting heads of state. Who's in charge? The guy with the biggest army. What powers does he have? All of them. Who succeeds him when he dies? His firstborn. It's dead simple to implement, which made it an attractive solution in times before any semblance of mass communication. But in practice it means the quality of your head of state is totally detached from their actual talent at serving as head of state: the first guy in line was just good at leading an army, and the rest of his descendants are just randos who won the birth lottery. It's not a good solution unless you're willing to make loads of sacrifices in order to have the simplest system possible.

(And yes, of course, the UK is not currently an absolute monarchy, but you appeared to be asking in a general sense.)