Poll: Why do we need a Queen? Is it time for the UK to become a republic?

You make the mistake of believing democratic republicanism actually reflects the will of the people. The monarchy prevents dictatorship because the army are automatically on their side but there would be international outrage if they ever actually tried to be dictatorial themselves. If we had a partisan president we were changing every 5 years that would be more prone to dictatorship because most other countries believe a "democratically elected" (ha!) president has a mandate to rule so he gets more leeway. Also the monarchy already has its power, it doesn't feel it needs to seek more like a greasy-pole-climbing, back-stabbing professional politician would do.

Of course it's far from perfect, but it's stupid to get annoyed at the monarchy just because it's openly an elitist system. Supposed democracy is just as elitist and it causes a lot of damage when people assume democracy is actually fair.

You certainly got a very interesting point there. I never looked at it this way. However, I am sure that there are other methods to secure democracy. If we had a president and a prime minister, then usually the president would have very little power. As long as we don't allow one person to have all the power, we can protect our democracy. Furthermore, free press has a similar role in protecting democracy. Right now, according to the constitution, the Queen has the right to remove the Prime minster and appoint her own. I know she will never do it but something needs to be done here. It is just stupid.

QFA

Yeah I know but the thing is the Americans and the French were making a new country from scratch, they had to build stuff in to divide power up and checks and balances and stuff. It's the only way to do it when you've got a massive gang of power-hungry people with a virgin racecourse ahead, champing at the bit waiting for the starting gate to open. The problem though is that any system which isn't undergoing constant revision gets co-opted by the elites over time as they work out how to game the system, so that while no one person holds a huge amount of power, as a whole they are still oppressing people with it, even without necessarily trying to.

Unlike the French and Americans we have the force of tradition on our side, it gives us stability, we can be sure that the Queen won't do anything too crazy because the monarchy is so old and entrenched and it has a long-term view, the Queen could seize power but she knows it would be at the expense of the family as a whole. The filial bonds and the weight of history mean she doesn't want to be the reckless one who buggered it up for everyone else. I understand how it's bad that she could do stuff like seize power or dismiss the government or use the army against the people, but in the few centuries since the democratisation of politics and the legal system, we think sufficiently complicated rules will make a system perfect and fair, we've forgotten that every system requires some element of trust or social contract to uphold it. It's like if someone decided to put cameras on the front of every building in the country to fine you if you dropped litter, just because there was no effective way of ensuring the litter-dropping enforcement system was watertight. But no, it's cool, the odd sign, bin, street sweeping and a sense of civic duty combine to form an unwritten but good enough social contract that people don't abuse it en masse.

OK you can argue about the extent of specific powers and say maybe she shouldn't be able to just dismiss the prime minister, but in the long term it wouldn't change anything other than to limit the candidate pool of prime ministers to people the Queen (and other powerful people who influence her) already approve of. Also looking long-term the power of the monarchy has been in decline ever since the civil war and the various constitutional crises that followed, so it's not like this is an active threat.

You didn't include a poll option for

You didn't include a poll option for