How do UK atheists feel about the Monarchy?

[drfuzzy]

Just musing.  I was watching "The Crown" to escape the hideousness that religion and stupidity have foisted upon Amurikka.

I respect Queen Elizabeth II - seriously.  The woman has borne a huge burden with class her entire life.  Sure, she never has to worry about
where to live and picking up groceries for dinner, but she didn't get to choose.  She isn't actually "free".

And she has that role because she - or at least the system - is built upon the idea that the sovereign is literally chosen by god.
AND she is defender of the faith!  (Why Henry VIII's actions didn't create an atheistic country is a bit of a puzzle.) 

She doesn't actually RULE.  She's pretty much ceremonial.  It's gorgeous, absolutely, but . . . 

So my questions for the day (primarily to UK friends) is:  Does your atheism impact how you view the Monarchy?  Do you think that the Western European
trend toward atheism will eventually abolish the Monarchy?  What changes do you see coming?  (Whatever atheism will change over here in 'Murikka can't
come fast enough.)

Fuzz

[account_inactive]

Does your atheism impact how you view the Monarchy?

I used to be quite anti-monarchy but It doesn't really bother me that much anymore.

Do you think that the Western European trend toward atheism will eventually abolish the Monarchy?

No.

What changes do you see coming?

None.

[vorlon13]

Not British, but as my atheism has flourished, the religious underpinnings of the monarchy are starting to grate my sensibilities, as they say.

And while not on par with Mormonism, Church of England is a hideously false religion, and yes, I realize the monarchy extends back into a catholic era as well.

[vorlon13]

and I don't see 'atheism' as a threat to the monarchy, it would be entirely possible to continue with no religious underpinnings at all, and it probably will as long as the folks in Britain manage the monarchy so as to be a net positive for cash flow on the balance sheet.

They won't follow the monarch so much as follow the money, IOW.

[Napoléon]

I like the ginger one that's about it.

[vorlon13]

BTW, I think the royal family desperately needs a big LGBT 'thing'. Prince Charles does a Caitlin Jenner would fill the bill.


Or Camilla does a Chaz Bono . . . .

[I_am_not_mafia]

I would like to see the Royal Family meet La Madame Guillotine. Seriously. And then start feeding it everyone who boasts about being in-line to the throne.

People can't help who they were born to, but they can resist making a claim to the throne.


You can see the Royal Family in two ways. As people who just happened to be born into a certain position.

Or the human face of the Establishment which seeks to exploit the common person while denying them any opportunities and which gives only as much democratic power as it can get away with. If it wasn't for the Royal Family then we wouldn't have the unelected House of Lords for example.

So yes it isn't fair on the royals to have their heads chopped off, but nor was it fair for them to get all the privileges. When you're talking about government, life isn't fair. Instead you need to do things for the greater good.

We need rid of the Royal Family. Permanently.

[Mr Greene]

The Royal family has infinitely more credibility than any politician, the connection to the Cof E is merely a hangover from Tudors that should be discarded.

[vorlon13]

As we've discovered in the US, Mathilda, is there seems to be a fairly deep seated yearning for a national soap opera of sorts, hence the popularity of the Kardashians, for instance.

So lopping off heads, while satisfying, isn't going to eliminate the issue, it will just mutate it into something else you'll be stuck with.


And it might even converge all the way around and a media whore (Trump, for instance) will wind up running the show.

[zebo-the-fat]

The royals are a parasitic irrelevance. They have zero impact on my life in any way I can detect (a bit like gods in that respect!)