Queen Elizabeth II dies

For sure, but many things within the UK could be deemed 'undemocratic' then, including the House of Lords. You could definitely make the case that it is a less democratic country than most republics in Europe, but 'it is what it is' so to speak.

There you go doing it again. Can't help yourself, can you? If you had more confidence in the argument in your posts you wouldn't need to be so condescending.

This post for me sums up the view of most monarchists, particularly British ones.

I find it strange to judge the success of an institution or country by its ability to put on military pageantry and parades. Other countries can do this too. USA is good at it but so is Russia and North Korea so what does that say?

Calling her Elizabeth the Great? Why. What was really so great about her? Yes she had a job to do and she was diligent and dutiful but what did she actually achieve that has any legacy. Please list them for me as all I can think of anything apart from longevity.

I also think that the number of people watching it has been greatly exaggerated not only in Britain but also in the rest of the world as I think most people yesterday just lead their normal life with little interest in the event

As for your comments about what you get with a president I really find that quite illogical.

A non political head of state’s role, like the president here is to protect democracy and the constitution. It’s not to become a world celebrity. They also don’t require loads of castles, staff, jewellery or equipment. I would argue that the Queen and her family have brought a lot of embarrassment to the country and I didn’t hear any interviewee on Mourn-Hub (aka the BBC) over the last 10 days talk about the money she gave to Prince Andrew for his sexual deviances and acquaintances with convicted paedophiles.

The heads of state of places like Ireland, Germany and Italy are well known in their own country and that’s what’s most important They are also in the role for a limited time, so they generally don’t die in office so their deaths would not be as big news and they do not pass the role onto their children.

It’s the office they hold that’s more important not the person or their celebrity. Celebrity should never be the measure of success of country but Britain is always worried about appearing to be the biggest and best in the world (look at the lies in the last year of fastest vaccination program, quickest out of lockdown,fastest growing economy in G7 etc) so putting on a pageant and having soldiers marching to music that they think no one else can do serves that purpose well.

The monarchy being supported by people are propping up an elitist system , based on medieval feudal practices,that keeps the wealthy getting richer, and who can deny the wealth of the British royal family whilst poverty increases amongst their “subjects” who blindly support them.

i feel the system is unfair and dated and will eventually change like it has in most of the world and then countries can measure their success by wealth distribution, poverty levels and equality rather than marching soldiers or funeral coverage.

The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer isn't unique to the UK. Neither are many of the other problems you mention, or unique to monarchies. Neither is looking back at post glories. Ireland the land of saints and scholars rings a bit hollow here these days.

I'm not sure why the death of some other countries head of state sparks off so much muck raking in people.

Ireland and UK have a lot of shared unhappy history. Time to move on. But without forgetting it at the same time.

The rich getting richer is entirely systemic. That's the whole point.

The rest of it is complete hypocrisy and strawman arguments.

If it takes 100+ thread pages trying to prove the irrelevance of something, you've already lost that argument.

... and she's not even in London.

But why let the fact that Windsor (which is 50m ASL) will hardly be bothered, as far as rising sea levels go even with the projected rise of ~33cm by 2050, get in the way of incredulous arguments?

A level of knowledge about par for these threads (somewhat lower than sea level, maybe?).

But royalty as a concept is severly flawed in my view

How do the House of Lords have a higher power than the House of Commons?

Most monarchies have usually fallen or been replaced by means of revolution, major defeat in a war or outbreak of civil war. Given that Britain has seen none of these in the last 200-300 years, it explains how the UK monarchy has survived and even remained strong.

The UK is definitely a bit of an outlier compared to most countries in Europe - many archaic and old fashioned structures and practises, even with things like the honours system and peerages and so on.

A lot of the European monarchies were weakened by war or invasion and sort of faded into the background (and in quite a few cases were completely removed). The fact that Britain faced no form of social upheaval or revolution or military defeat ensured that their own monarchy remained strong (around 1900 we actually had the sight of competing powerful monarchs such as the Tsar of Russia and the Kaiser, not just the British one).

I'm45. I heard that kleptomania joke when I was in primary school.

Even then it was old.

For sure, though I think defeat in WW1 or WW2 or invasion at any point could well have seen the end of the UK monarchy (as such events would have caused huge social upheaval within Britain itself, leaving the monarchy very much at risk).

They probably dodged a bullet too when Edward VIII abdicated, paving the way for George VI and then Elizabeth. Having a rumoured Nazi sympathiser and Hitler fan on the throne during WW2 would have been a nightmare.