Should the UK have a Monarchy?? Yes or No?

Nowhere. But, lack of a requirement to consult people doesn't protect the government from the harshest public criticism when it comes to light that they knowingly mislead us over the impetus for war.

no, we should have democracy.

We do have democracy.

Surely democracy is based around a system of government by the whole population. The last time I checked, we, the general British nation, have never voted a Queen or King in to power. Why a particular blood line of people, such as the 'Royal Family' feel that they are superior to any other "family" is beyond me. Why on earth our monarchs feel that the British population must be subservient, so much to the point that they feel that they deserve extortionate wealth which everybody else must contribute to, astounds and frankly horrifies me. The whole idea that anyone with such a twisted view on fairness and equality is in such a postion of power highlights how unjust the modern day hierarchy has become.

I have no numerical values to provide evidence towards my personal view, but I would be very much surprised if the money brought in to the nation that benefits society, is greater than the money that the royal family receive to live their spoilt lives...

Surely democracy is based around a system of government by the whole population.

The last time I checked, we, the general British nation, have never voted a Queen or King in to power.

Why a particular blood line of people, such as the 'Royal Family' feel that they are superior to any other "family" is beyond me.

Why on earth our monarchs feel that the British population must be subservient, so much to the point that they feel that they deserve extortionate wealth which everybody else must contribute to, astounds and frankly horrifies me.

The whole idea that anyone with such a twisted view on fairness and equality is in such a postion of power highlights how unjust the modern day hierarchy has become.

I have no numerical values to provide evidence towards my personal view, but I would be very much surprised if the money brought in to the nation that benefits society, is greater than the money that the royal family receive to live their spoilt lives...

Why a particular blood line of people, such as the 'Royal Family' feel that they are superior to any other "family" is beyond me. Why on earth our monarchs feel that the British population must be subservient, so much to the point that they feel that they deserve extortionate wealth which everybody else must contribute to, astounds and frankly horrifies me.

The Queen doesn't feel superior to her subjects. We are not subservient to her, she feels subservient to her people and has served her people without any selfishness, fatigue or delusions of her own importance since she came to the throne. Most people admire the way she's given her life to serve us, you're completely out of touch. There is no oppression of the masses, only the consent of the masses for her to serve an impartial, sentimental role in cultural and charitable matters.

No oppression, but SUPPRESSION of the free choice for an elected high chamber and a head of state for a limited or determined period of time. Don't give me that Germany thing again, there is a polar opposite difference there. Ask the German citizens before you express 15th century illusions here. But, wait, let's see Scotland, Australia and later Canada doing it and you decide next

The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.

The research, led by David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments.

As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them. On top of that, "very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don’t have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is," Dunning told Life's Little Mysteries.

If it came to a free choice, they'd go for the monarch. On the subject of the Upper House, most people don't care.

If the British people at any time changed their minds on this, we'd have a republic in days. Simple. It's not suppressed at all.

You're implying a lot of things which aren't true.

Just as I always said - Elections are not meritocratic: http://news.yahoo.com/people-arent-smart-enough-democracy-flourish-scientists-185601411.html

The republicans greatest weapon is Prince Charles. When he becomes king and does some massive un-PC **** up then public support for the monarchy will nosedive. But until then they have the masses brainwashed and are pretty solid in their current position.

British people are manipulated since young ages. Everything is controlled in the UK, including mass media, One can't go on TV with anything against the monarchy. You know it serves the structure at the best. It happens to study the theories of systems