Perhaps, but no hereditary elite put in charge of them can be trusted to put their interests first or even to understand that that is the point of the whole thing. Most hereditary elites seem to take the view – often subconsciously – that "We’re the people and they’re our cattle." That’s why democracy.
What an odd way to phrase this sentiment. It makes it sound as though you would be OK with people worshiping someone who had been the product of a C-section.
The people is only marginally involved in the sham of modern representative “democracy” and not at all in any way that lends it more authority than monarchy.
Oh no?! I think you’ll find an elected government can get away with things a king could never!
The UK is, in every practical regard, just as much a democracy as is the US. If they want to keep the royal family around for sentimental purposes, I can’t see any objection. It’s considerably less silly than our equally-sentimental attachment to a piece of stripy cloth.
On the news at hand, it would be mildly interesting if some of the other titles currently attached to the monarch don’t have their succession rules changed, and so end up eventually splitting off from the monarchy.
Agreed.
You mean, someone other than the King/Queen might become Lord of Man, or Duke of Normandy (and ruler of the Channel Islands), or something?
Or do you mean the monarchy’s actual material income-producing assets, like the Duchy of Lancaster?
And should.
Amazed no one has made a crack about the typo so far! Guess it’s up to me. Yes, I do agree that the Prince of Wales is a tit. 
Either, really. Though I expect they’ll probably go to the trouble of making sure that doesn’t happen with the money-making ones.
The Channel Islands, Isle of Man, and Duchy of Lancaster are all possessions of the crown, not of the (now nonexistent) Duke of Normandy, Lord of Mann, or Duke of Lancaster. The titles get used from time to time, but they’re just affectations and not separate legal entities.
Me? Not at all.
But, as it is so obvious, many people have an innate need to serve, serf, and worship.
It’s part of much of human nature:
That bio-blob came out of that bio-vagina… therefore the bio-blob has to be worshiped! NOW!!
There are no few people who would be glad to fulfill that expectation.
Sad.
Like many another fact relative to the British monarchy, this has a truth value that is neither totally true nor false. The Crown holds the Channel Islands by right of its historical claim to the Duchy of Normandy, though to call them the surviving remnants of that Duchy is truly straining at gnats. Likewise Man was the personal possession of a subject of the Scottish crown, which eventually passed to the Earl of Chester, etc. – ending up a Crown possession. But the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster do in fact have legal relevance – they are the royal equivalent of a landholding trust whose beneficiary does not himself own that land but is entitled to its income. I.e., they’re property held in the usufructuary right of Elizabeth and Charles Windsor separately from the employment that the U.K. has seen fit to place them at.
Not a chance in hell in the UK. The Monarchy has something like 75% support amongst the general public. The uncomfortable fact for British republicans is that if a referendum was held tomorrow, retaining the Monarchy would win in a landslide. The support would be increased dramatically if the papers got to play with the idea for a bit before the referendum. They’d only have to print two words to make the referendum almost unanimous in favour of the current setup: “President Blair”.