I've got no great love for the Queen but the attack on her symbol thing is just silly.

It seems to me like the recent appointment of Liz Truss is much more consequential than the ascension of Charles.

I get celebrity, pomp, lifetime appointment, whatever. Certainly, the UK goes through PMs like Leo goes through barely legal girlfriends, while its' monarchs last as long as temporary government programs.

But in modern day Britain, Prime Minister is closer to quarterback, while the monarch is closer to England's mascot. They might be on all the merchandise and currency, children might enjoy their zany inbred antics and intrigue, but at the end of the day they sort of just hang out with the cheerleaders while the clock is ticking rather than move the ball down the field, yeah?

"She may not have wielded power and been directly responsible for it, but she was a symbol of Britain, the British Empire is bad, and therefore she was bad."

Her reign was the last 70 years. If she's a symbol related to British Empire, wouldn't she symbolize the dismantling of that Empire? The sun finally setting on it? I mean, the decolonization and decline of the thing was essentially from the end of WW2 to the end of the 20th century, yeah?

I mean... I'm not sure she would have had the power to undo the monarchy. But stepping down?

I don't like monarchy. But had I been born into a life of unimaginable wealth, where all I really had to do was an occasional ceremonial task like conferring a title or hosting a party or recognizing someone already elected?

I think it would be ridiculously hard for anyone to step down on pure principle from that arrangement, and it's likely that anyone who would replace them would be worse for wanting the power more.