This is more for to satisfy my own curiosity than anything - would you describe yourself as a Monarchist?

Not any more.

Yes.

No, but I don't want to behead them either. In many ways I think a royal head of state is better than the alternatives.

Don't care either way frankly.

On the whole, yes. In particular I do approve of the way the current monarch conducts herself. Unfortunately the most likely successor to throne is an apple that has falled a long way from the tree and will be very much a disaster.

I become more republican in outlook as I get older.

My argument is this: we supposedly live in a meritocracy, where if you work hard you can climb the greasy pole and live the life of Riley. The thing is, no matter how hard you might graft you cannot become the monarch of the United Kingdom. It just isn't going to happen, because someone in the 18th century decided one particular family got to be Top Dog, and only those who happen to be born in The Family can get to play the game.

Other countries have heads of state who are elected. If you get fed up with them, they can be voted out of office. It's not a perfect system, but then I argue being chosen by dint of which uterus you emerge from isn't better. I find having a royal family getting to select a head of state by accident of birth a rather mediaeval outlook in this day and age, to be honest.

I'm not saying the Elizabeth II hasn't been a good monarch. She has performed the task set her well, despite some setbacks along the way. I hold no animosity to her or her relatives. I just think it's time for the nation to have an adult discussion about whether we want to continue as we have been for a millennia or so, or whether we want to get to choose our head of state democratically rather than genetically.

No.

In this supposed age of equality, a hereditary position is a gross act of discrimination.

+1
Pity we can't have William next.

Yes.

No, but I'm probably more pro than anti.

As I understand it, a Monarchist is an advocate of constitutional monarchy as a form of government, regardless of who the actual monarch is. So, going back to Heather's post, the monarch has supreme oversight of our elected goverment, and the supposed power to dissolve parliament simply by right of birth.

I am in favour of democracy, but it's stretch to claim we have that in our country.

We have parliamentary sovereignty as part of our constitution, the monarch has the power to veto acts of parliament, but not parliament itself only the prime minister can do that for an election.

I don't think that's happened in my lifetime. I imagine some eyebrows would be raised if our monarch started taking an active political role instead of what is now mostly a symbolic one, where one does what is expected of one rather than what one may desire.