Queen Elizabeth II has died

I left the UK a year or so back and have been pretty anti-monarchist for as long as I can remember, so am probably not the best person to ask about the public mood on succession!

I think there are probably a lot of people like me who, while anti monarchy in general, were not particularly anti-Elizabeth. However now that she’s passed I would quite like the whole thing to be further de-emphasised, de-legitimised and removed from any remaining levers of power, however ceremonial or theoretical, and any remaining state subsidy, palaces and lands to be taken into public ownership etc etc.

How many are of these opinions I am unsure.

> levers of power, however ceremonial or theoretical,

Less theoretical than many seem to think: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...

They do this in secret, to preserve the illusion.

Honestly, I think the US populous really feels the same about this but from the perspective our history. On the other side of the coin, is the UK has been one of longest running allies in the world with a common history born out of the womb of war. The romantic nature of nobility runs from a far, without the struggles of having the institution in that format - though some would argue we do, but in the oligarchy of wealth. I need not go further, as it treads that fine line.

I myself, am in agreement however. If governance of the UK would modernize, the removal of generational status like what a monarch represents would be a step in the right direction. Why one would do that, and loose the history in the process? Not sure if the UK populous is ready for that, since its still a beloved part of the country and outwardly is a hallmark of the country's brand.

I digress. I am probably just speaking ill of the dead to some, but just glad to be in the US for our representation structure of legislation and executive by proxy. Direct Democracy is the red headed step child of mob rule, and I'm content to not have that either.

Not necessarily a bad thing, TBH. Think of it like our Senate in the US. The Senate is a longer view, while the House is the shorter populous public-opinion. Not sure of the Parliamentary influences, but someone who was as respected and revered in an status where one COULD get the longest view on staff (so to say) - why not?

The Senate doesn't pretend they're powerless figureheads who exist for tourism while exercising power in secret.

I think this is a pretty common opinion, certainly among people I know.

What sort of GPT-4 wrote this?

The existence of the US senate is a disaster, making the country practically ungovernable (it’s extremely difficult to pass any law without both parties agreeing). It’s really not a great comparison.

>Think of it like our Senate in the US. The Senate is a longer view, while the House is the shorter populous public-opinion.

Huh? Is a six year term rather than a four year term rally that much longer a horizon. Maybe this view made since when the senate seats were an appointed position. but ever since it became an elected position its ceased to have any appreciable difference from a seat in the house.

Well, originally it wasn't designed to just having two parties. There used to be more ... and there should be more. A two party system just doesn't work.

We already have an upper chamber in the UK, the House of Lords.

House terms are two years, not four.