Why abolish monarchies?

[Suburbia]

Stop.

Yes, monarchies in the 21st century may not be relevant socially. But they are seen as the figureheads, tradition and tourist attraction.

What is Prince William or Prince Edward going to do if there is no monarchy in Britain anymore? What will they go by? Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor, like the lesser known royals?

[Suburbia]

What is Prince William or Prince Edward going to do if there is no monarchy in Britain anymore?

Edward had a tolerably successful career in TV production, so would probably be alright even if the family's assets were expropriated. William would probably have to depend on the rubber chicken circuit, but I don't think he'd starve.

Won't they still be British socialites? They will still be rich, they will go to London or Manchester nightclubs and hang out with rich Brits like the Beckhams, Jack Grealish, etc.

Nightclubs are where middle class and lower class commoners hang out to drink and have a middle class life....

[Suburbia]

European elite circles are full of various people claiming descent from this deposed family or whatever; of all the arguments to claim in favour of the monarchy the idea that Princess Eugenie will starve is not really a credible one. (Indeed, by far one of the most annoying things about a monarchy is the entourage, so I doubt many would give a crap.

I am a soft republican because I oppose hereditary positions for, y'know, enlightenment reasons, but it's hardly one of my big passions in life.

Princess Eugenie won't starve.

Her uncle, Charles, Prince of Wales, wants nothing to do with the other royals when the Queen dies. Charles downsized the already declining British monarchy....only Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, George, Charlotte and Louis will matter.

Harry and Meghan will end up like Eugenie, Beatrice, Peter, Zara and Prince Edward's children....they will have to work in the private sector.....

[Suburbia]

I'm joining the chorus of "soft republicans" in this thread with the addition that, as someone who lives in the first republic to be founded in modern times, I've recently noticed hostility to random foreign monarchies coming into vogue as a way for young Americans to sound like radical leftists without actually focusing on the US's own problems. These days I have a reflexive distrust for the motives of any American who focuses like a laser on the evils of the House of Windsor rather than more relevant issues.

The House of Mountbatten-Windsor is still relevant, that is why
Britain is still a superpower, in a sense

[Suburbia]

I'm joining the chorus of "soft republicans" in this thread with the addition that, as someone who lives in the first republic to be founded in modern times, I've recently noticed hostility to random foreign monarchies coming into vogue as a way for young Americans to sound like radical leftists without actually focusing on the US's own problems. These days I have a reflexive distrust for the motives of any American who focuses like a laser on the evils of the House of Windsor rather than more relevant issues.

There are a lot of peculiarities of US political discourse that I find insufferable (I mean, As You Know) but I always found the dogged (and yes, largely performative) distaste for monarchy to be one of its saving graces. No, it doesn't really matter as such, but it displays the right instincts.

If anything, the lowest of the low are Americans who simp for the British monarchy. That is truly pathetic on multiple levels.

Monarchy is fascinating to a lot of people. America has it's own monarchies: The Kennedys, The Trumps, The Kardashians, The Hiltons, The Steinbrenners

[Suburbia]

If anything, the lowest of the low are Americans who simp for the British monarchy. That is truly pathetic on multiple levels.

Is it right to think these will be disproportionately big Trump supporters?

I don't think this is right at all. The right-wing media embarrassed itself recently (or at least would have if it were capable of embarrassment) with its passionate defense of the British monarchy following the Oprah Winfrey interview earlier this year, but that (like everything) was based on the belief that it would in some way be owning the libs, not out of any ideological commitment to the British monarchy. While I find this sort of base anglophilia contemptible, I don't think it has any strong relationship to partisan politics. There is, I guess, an element of feeling that Britain is more sophisticated and thus better than America, and I would associate that with liberals.

Doesn't conservatism correlate to "hierarchy", so Tories worldwide will support them, even 1776 rightwingers?

I think American rightists like Queen Elizabeth II and her service to her nation. They admire her apolitical behavior, her sense of duty and her reign, despite the fact that Americans don't care so much for royalty. Yes, it is fascinating, but most Americans don't care for it. American rightwingers respect her sense of duty.

1776 rightwingers don't like Duchess Meghan's behavior and they feel that she has emasculated Harry. From a bad boy drunk soldier to a beta male, this is what I hear from Candace Owens, etc.

Leftists worldwide don't care for the monarchy and find hierarchy bad, when they view themselves as morally superior....the irony and hubris of that.

[Suburbia]

From a leftist perspective, accepting the existence of a ruling class with more privilege and worth than anyone else, no matter how symbolic, is wrong.

Well, the Windsors are extremely wealthy---they are the British ruling class. Commoners, even rich commoners like Kate Middleton are seen as commoners because they don't have titles. However, the Middleton family has ties to gentry and Baroness Airedale......

Self-made fortune

Others here are wincing at the notion that a young woman whose family’s self-made fortune is larger than many in the landed gentry is being so strongly defined by her bloodline in 21st century Britain. It shows, observers say, that despite the rise of mega-rich commoners such as Richard Branson and J.K. Rowling, this is still very much a society where status is measured in birthright and breeding.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/kates-a-commoner-but-a-wealthy-one/

[Suburbia]

From a leftist perspective, accepting the existence of a ruling class with more privilege and worth than anyone else, no matter how symbolic, is wrong.

But if there is a rich family that is rich, why is that a problem?

Shouldn't people aspire to be rich?

[Suburbia]

From a leftist perspective, accepting the existence of a ruling class with more privilege and worth than anyone else, no matter how symbolic, is wrong.

But if there is a rich family that is rich, why is that a problem?

Shouldn't people aspire to be rich?

So you think under a monarchy, every family should aspire to become the monarchy, with all the powers and luxuries that entails? How does that work? Strongest family wins? No wonder they keep gun laws so tight over there.

Not aspire to be the monarchy, a lot of men and women probably would like to date royals, but when you marry into royalty, you have to know what you are getting into.....Lady Di, Sarah Ferguson, all faced that....