Should we abolish the Monarchy?

She has great credibility and gravitas. No republican is talking that sort of time scale. I do think Charles will do serious damage to the monarchist side, he's an idiot.

Yes.

Such positions should be based on merit.

He's arguably one of the most industrious, motivated, and hard-working public figures in Britain, and will make a perfectly adequate King.

Don't assume all us monarchists are ultra-Tories. In fact I think it's safe to say it's completely wrong to assume even most of them are. The monarchy appeals to people of all classes, races and creeds, and that's its strength - the diversity and breadth of its support.

Class and social immobility are not symptoms of having a monarchy. They are a byproduct of the prevailing socioeconomic system, but there are republics that have it worse and monarchies that have it way less. The most socially mobile states in the world are the Scandinavian monarchies, after all. Removing the monarchy wouldn't do a jot to improving British social mobility.

Election is not a meritocratic mode of appointment.

Well, I don't assume you are ultra conservatives, 'ultra -Tory' isn't the same thing, ( but I assumed that the former was what you really mean, people seem to confuse the modern Tories with being conservative which they are not, they are simply 'economically liberal' which I take to mean right wing, and serve to deepen inequality, again, not particularly conservative) the Tories are only conservative in terms of preservation of white upper class power and monarchism. Plenty of monarchists are into mass immigration, social liberalism, destruictive economic policies, have no problem with black friday, authoritarian police forces, guns on the street etc. Cannabis legalisation etc. In fact, if we could have a republic and left wing economics with social mobility at it's core, grammar schools and the removal of private school privilege, excellent national services, closer to the French model, (not to mention multi-racialism without multiculturalism) I think I would be a very conservative patriot. I am still a patriot, that is a matter of my heart that I cannot change, and I have suffered for it. It really irritates me that the sole way patriotism is defined is to be in the monarchist and class obsessed camp. Seemingly anyone who believes in anything changing, (or anything other than obedience to received wisdom), apart from in the ways permitted, like mass immigration or EU membership, is loathed as a traitor and moral degenerate. Is this the case, that anyone concerned deeply enough to really want to change things is such? Or is it, (given I and may others such people know the degree of patriotism I/we have), that this is a sham, and a load of moral hypocrisy, it's the type of patriotism referred to by Johnson as 'the last refuge of the scoundrel', and merely the path of least resistance, since when did opportunism and blind obedience to authority become the hallmarks of what made this country great and what it is to be patriotic. I'm sure there are individual monarchists with their own reasons who are good people, loads, but the reason I resent the institution and the fans of it as a demographic, a collective, is of because what it encourages and perpetuates, this nasty totalitarian fervour, beloved by right wing newspapers, where debate is reduced to triviality, and it's basest level, and anyone who doesn't think like this is abused, the press can't wait to use it against Corbyn, well if we are such a free thinking democracy stop haranguing the guy like a infantile mob over whether he is bowing and scraping appropriately to the monarch, when he is a republican anyway, what do they want from him, hypocrisy(and they would have called him out for that too) ? If they(and I know it's generalised) were remotely adult and of substance, they would only debate in policy terms, and recognise that if he's a republican that's what he did. My argument is that intellectualized justifications are for monarchy may be well and good, but to separate them(and the institution) from a base, mob mentality linked to socially damaging right wing papers, that wants to trivialize debate, seek non conformist but principled scapegoats('cranks ' probably)and is profoundly anti-intellectual and at the fundamental level anti-change, is disingenuous, it's impossible to separate them in my mind and they are all part of damaging things that hold our country back.

Yes there are monarchies that are more equal and republics that are less so. Though France, one of the two most famous republics, has always had very strong socialist ideals. You can't really compare Scandinavian monarchy in terms of wealth and power, it's just a different league, my Dad's met the queen of denmark ffs.

it's a heck of a lot more meritocratic than hereditarianism - the voters would be unlikely to vote for an incompetent person if there is a competent politician running, and, bear in mind, presidential elections in parliamentary republic are less politicised

He's not very intelligent. It happens, being inbred.

Which is why Donald Trump is doing so well among Republicans, right

Most presidential elections in parliamentary republics are actually appointments made by the legislature - they tend not to be directly elected.

And heredity has the advantage of meritocracy through longevity - they can train and prepare for the job for decades and be well-skilled in it through experience, rather than coming out of the blue.

1) "yes" - he has some qualifications for running for office, whether you love him or despise him. especially given the comparison to his competition.

) "most", but not the obvious ideal that republicans favour.

3) by technicality, but the initial appointment has nothing to do with that. we could, technically, have a monarchical republic whereby we elect a king based on their merits, and then they serve for life, like in the old roman monarchies - that owuld be better than what we've got now, accounting for the obvious presuppositions like political neutrality

That main 'qualification' seeming to be simply bombast and telling people what they want to hear, and being pretty impatient of criticism and constitutional niceties.

If most republics have non-elected presidents, then most republicans must favour that...

Hmm, except part of that merit is through spending many previous years preparing for the role. Charles has had 60 years, his mother had about 20, and so on.

that's a skill in a democracy, for better or for worse. more people liking you = more chance of victory for the candidate

that's like saying "most muslims countries have sharia law, therefore, they must favour that"...

what do you even think the queen had to do to "prepare" for her role? did she take serious monarchy-classes or something? or did she just follow her daddy around all day,

and ignore him when he said nazi-esque things?

That's not really meritorious, though, is it? It may help for being a national figurehead, but it's hardly helpful when you're meant to be making major decisions on the economy and defence.

Hmm not really, the republics that are parliamentary are mostly democratic, and sharia is not remotely universally applied in muslim states.

The latter, actually. Observing, as well as participating as she was (from 1944) a Councillor of State. And being educated on her future role, the constitutional heritage of the position, and hammering in awareness of the enormous responsibility she has.

Her dad said Nazi-esque things?