And there goes the price up ? <| sep |> You mean something like this ? ' s possible to edit html that only you would see . <| sep |> Oh boy . You ' re going to have to forgive me here because I ' m on mobile so I won ' t be able to format my post as nicely as you have . The merits of each system is integral to any questioning of the validity of a hereditary monarchy . The simple fact of the matter is that elected officials are more fair in nature than hereditary ones . That is why I support a Republic system and disavow a monarchy , and it ' s also the root of the shame that I feel for the monarchy . I used the phrase tyranny of the majority because it is a common way of phrasing the divisive nature of democracy , here at least . I don ' t know if that ' s common worldwide . It has a bit of a different meaning but conveys a similar messagepeople are going to be unhappy about the choices of an elected official . However , people are going to be unhappy about the decisions of any ruler . Monarchs are certainly not immune to that . Indeed , I argue that monarchs are more susceptible to being divisive because the method through which they rise to power has nothing to do with how good they are at being a ruler , how popular they are , or what traits they possess . That factthe inevitability of their rise to power simply because they are born into royaltyis the primary reason why I am embarrassed of the monarchy . I hold in high esteem the belief that anyone ought to be able to rise to a position that they are worthy of , and ought not to be handed power simply because they are themselves . You mention concerns with FPTP and I agree . The elimination of FPTP is the next big step that modern democracies ought to take . Canada recently held a referendum to remove it , and though the referendum failed , our current prime minister Justin Trudeau has expressed a desire to remove the FPTP system and replace I with a ranked voting system . I am in favor of that . However , I digress . The fact that officials in a Republic need to worry about being reelected is a good thing in my opinion . The support of the common man is the main factor in legitimizing a government . If I do not agree with what a ruler is doing , then frankly I do not want them to rule me . While a wise and learned monarch may make unpopular but necessary decisions , they may also make awful decisions that the people hate . If a country ' s leader is not making decisions that the people of that country want , then why should they be leading the country ? A terrible monarch cannot be voted out of power , and that to me reeks of autocracy . My point regarding advancement from medieval culture is that ideas ought to be based on their merit , not on tradition . It is was ? I ' m not certain anymore tradition in Spain to abuse Bulls and have people willingly become gored as a festivity . That ' s insane , but is maintained because of tradition . I see British monarchy to be in some ways similar to thatwe maintain a QueenKing simply because our forefathers did so . In reality , we could live just as well without a queen . It provides us no benefit . We simply have one because people in the past had one . Why keep it around if it doesn ' t benefit us ? I mention my personal experience in fighting for equal opportunity because I felt that it underscores the fact that personal merit and equality are my guiding factors in my opinion of how a government ought to be run . Apparently it was not effective . Fair enough . And the princes and princesses definitely live lives of excess . While some have done their part in serving military positions and the like , they didn ' t do so because they had to . It was purely a gesture . I ' m also certain that no princes are sent on death missions , whereas soldiers from poor families are considered expendable in military terms . Why should a prince get to be part of a parade with ostentatious accommodations simply because he is a prince , meanwhile there are aboriginals here living in residual poverty and suffering from an epidemic of heroin addiction ? Why is the prince better than that impoverished addict ? The circumstances of their birth was the primary difference between them . That is abhorrent to me . While I do not suffer delusions that we will soon all be holding hands and living great lives , I do think that the rejection of an ostentatious and functionally null monarchy would be a good symbolic gesture that we are committed to one day achieving equality for all mankind . Further exacerbating things is that those land holdings which pay for the prince ' s lifestyle are in no small way related to the poverty which our aboriginals live in today . I admit that I may have been wrong about taxes , though I think that the Governor General ought not to be a position in our government . Regardless , the entire idea of monarchs as being legitimate rules is entirely backward in my opinion . Canada has no use for it , and it sends a bad message .