I have made clear my feelings about monarchy many times in the past I think that even a symbolic monarchy goes against every principal that a democratic country stands for.
The reason is quite frankly simple, lets take a look at the preamble in the Declaration of Independence,
Now the key phrase I'm looking at is, "That all men are created equal."
Now I think we can all agree that's something that's a noble sentiment and its the very principal that a Democracy is founded on, one man, one vote, that is literally the basis of every free society.
Now even a symbolic Monarchy and Nobility, completely goes against that.
Sure the Monarchy of the U.K is symbolic but that still means the figurehead makes literally everyone else a second class citizen, and the Nobility with the House of Lords actually has some power and they are unelected which is also antidemocratic . That takes away from, one man, one vote. The vert idea of it goes against everything that I as an American am supposed to stand for, its against the principals that my ancestors fought for, The idea of a Queen or King being chosen as being better than everyone else because god willed they pop out of the royal vagina is insane to me, which brings me to my next point.
Clarence was with me as concerned the revolution, but in a modified way. His idea was a republic, without privileged orders, but with a hereditary royal family at the head of it instead of an elective chief magistrate. He believed that no nation that had ever known the joy of worshiping a royal family could ever be robbed of it and not fade away and die of melancholy. I urged that kings were dangerous. He said, then have cats. He was sure that a royal family of cats would answer every purpose. They would be as useful as any other royal family, they would know as much, they would have the same virtues and the same treacheries, the same disposition to get up shindies with other royal cats, they would be laughably vain and absurd and never know it, they would be wholly inexpensive; finally, they would have as sound a divine right as any other royal house, and "Tom VII, or Tom XI, or Tom XIV by the grace of God King," would sound as well as it would when applied to the ordinary royal tomcat with tights on. "And as a rule," said he, in his neat modern English, "the character of these cats would be considerably above the character of the average king, and this would be an immense moral advantage to the nation, for the reason that a nation always models its morals after its monarch's. The worship of royalty being founded in unreason, these graceful and harmless cats would easily become as sacred as any other royalties, and indeed more so, because it would presently be noticed that they hanged nobody, beheaded nobody, imprisoned nobody, inflicted no cruelties or injustices of any sort, and so must be worthy of a deeper love and reverence than the customary human king, and would certainly get it. The eyes of the whole harried world would soon be fixed upon this humane and gentle system, and royal butchers would presently begin to disappear; their subjects would fill the vacancies with catlings from our own royal house; we should become a factory; we should supply the thrones of the world; within forty years all Europe would be governed by cats, and we should furnish the cats. The reign of universal peace would begin then, to end no more forever.... Me-e-e-yow-ow-ow-ow--fzt!--wow!"-A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court- by The Greatest American Novelist in History, and one of if not THE greatest novelist in history, Mark Twain.
The whole thing is completely and utterly founded in unreason, no one is above the other by some right of birth, to quote Monty Python, Strange Women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for government. The whole thing baffles me.
Will probably edit this tomorrow
Most Helpful Opinions