Well, we are still part of the so-called Commonwealth countries here, I guess. And for example, to watch in this day and age a mature man dressed like a Christmas tree, riding by in a gold carriage and enjoying his multi-million dollar coronation paid for by the British public while many among them suffer through a cost-of-living crisis...it makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

We almost had another monarch, but he lost the election and the attempted coup. We need to be sure we never have a monarch or a strongman or strongwoman or strongone with everyone subject to his or her or their every whim.

Monarchies probably serve a purpose in uniting a country -- or, in the case of the Commonwealth nations, a group of countries with a long history together.

Monarchies also may give a country an instant connection to their past. The British Monarchy has been around, in various forms, arguably since King Alfred of Wessex. Maybe even earlier? The chain of monarchies were fairly continuous, with a few abherrations (the War of the Roses, William the Conqueror invading in 1066, and the 'Glorious Revolution' which, considering Britain's long history, didn't last too long). And the ruling families changed a couple times, but the English can speak of 1000+ years of continuous existence as an independent country, and their monarchy is a symbol of that long continuance.

What is the alterative to Monarchies ?

Should it be a President ?
Could it be a Statue ?
Could it be a symbol ?
JusCould it be a Prime Minister even ?

What would take their place ?

Republic!

Well if that means a President with clobber, then no. Can't have the likes of that TUMPET over here ! ! !

Trump's policies did more for America and the world that the haters will admit.

I'm not a royalist by any means. I'm also not against the royal family and don't believe that they should be removed.

In some respects they're kind of a safety net. They have the final say as to whether laws are passed and if our country goes to war. They're not involved in the mechanics and are advised by the government. It is highly unlikely that they would go against a prime minister but theoretically they could. If we had a government in power that made decisions that were outlandish and could put our country at risk, they could essentially overrule those decisions.

They do a lot of work for charity and act as ambassadors for our country overseas. They employ a lot of people and bring a lot of money into our country through tourism.

Good luck to them.

The relevance of monarchies nowadays is an interesting question. The answer really depends on how you define the term. A dictionary definition is that a monarchy is a form of government in which a person, the monarch, is head of state for life or until abdication. Such monarchies as those that existed in England in the distant past, where a feudal monarch held absolute power over everybody in his/her realm is definitely not relevant today. Another great example from the past would be the khanate of Genghis Khan, who ruled over, at one time, virtually the whole of the known world. However, most of the modern monarchies tend to be constitutional monarchies, retaining under a constitution unique legal and ceremonial roles for the monarch, exercising limited or no political power, similar to heads of state in a parliamentary republic. i.e. they are usually heads of state and not heads of government.

The old feudal system, where power was gained by force and not through the will of the people is definitely not what should be tolerated nowadays. Similarly, no country with any form of government should allow the people's will to be overturned by anybody gaining or retaining power through force of arms or by insurrection and/or sedition, so some form of government where this is not possible would be ideal.

If we are to suggest that Republics are the most suitable replacement for Monarchies, that term also needs to be similarly defined. The Roman Republic was one of the earliest examples of representative democracy in the world and probably one of the most successful. It lasted for almost 5 centuries before it fell. The modern day republics (e.g. Republic of Paraguay, Republic of the Congo, Peoples Republic of China, Republic of Venezuela, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea etc), apart from being very different to that ancient Roman version, are also very different to each other.

Unfortunately and with due respect to those who hold affection for their royals, no amount of verbiage can deter from the fact that monarchy is an outdated concept.

Why is it an outdated concept? I’ve never heard anyone actually give a logical explanation?

From a cost point of view, will there be a reduction?

From an election point of view, why should a politician be elected (even for a fixed term) that crosses party lines and is partisan.

If you look at UK a lot of money is brought in through the very existence of the monarchy.

Many countries around the world have a monarchy but for some reason it is the British Royal Family that is always what the majority refer to.

There are lots of times where “soft diplomacy” is used by the monarchy against a political party that runs rampant.

I like figure head monarchies with representative democracies. A figurehead monarchy can be an attractive link with the past, and a tourist attraction. Nevertheless, the monarch's duties should be purely ceremonial.

Even a constitutional monarch has enough power to cause problems. At the beginning of the First World War Czar Nicholas II of Russia was a constitutional monarch who shared power with a democratically elected Duma. Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany was a constitutional monarch who shared power with a democratically elected Reichstag.

Nevertheless, they both had enough power to stumble into a World War that could have been restricted to the Balkan Peninsula.

Monarchies just need to go though as ultimately they serve no purpose but their own. Any country still having one (and there are many that do) really needs to look at how to retire it forever.

A heavily bejeweled king Charles III today gave a speech written not by himself, but by also quasi-billionaire Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's government, speaking of austere times present and future, and the paralyzing cost, of living in his country.

Your thoughts?