The British monarchy should be abolished

Let me start off by rebuttals"Modern democracy is an outcome of individualism. It is a deterrent to tyranny over the people. By enabling all to have a say over who is in power, power is mitigated"-Modern democracy doesn't guarantee that power is in the hands of the people. There are lots of ways to "sneak around". A government can assume power easily by influencing the public opinion of the people, by "buying off" votes, or by other dirty methods. Also if those with power are the majority ones, what about the minority? Are they neglected?-"Democracy enables a natural sort of utilitarianism; its pressures ensure that the concept of the greatest good for the greatest number must be a factor in the decision making of any pragmatic politician"A politician in a democratic system doesn't always consider "the greatest good for the greatest number" in their decision making. If he did, why are so many people in many different "democratic" nations unsatisfied with their politicians and leaders?-"Democratic government enables the most broad canvassing of opinion and ideas"Yet the opinions of the minority are usually neglected because democracy believes in power for the majority.-"Democratic societies promote individual autonomy, and encourage citizens to think carefully and rationally."The ability to promote individual autonomy doesn't only belong to democratic societies, communist and non-democratic societies do too. In fact it is unsatisfactory conditions which encourage citizens to think more rationally and critically.MY REBUTTALS ON THE "A MONARCHY IS DIRECTLY IN OPPOSITION" PART-"There is an inherent contradiction in a state where all are supposed to be born equal with equal rights but has at its head an unelected enjoyer of privilege, to whom deference is supposed to be shown."What kind of privilege does a POWERLESS constitutional monarch enjoy? A constitutional monarch is politically powerless, such monarch only functions as mere FIGUREHEAD, whose purpose is only to represent the nation. Yes the Queen and her family do enjoy financial privilege, but so do presidents and their families!-"The Queen holds weekly consultations with the Prime Minister. These meetings are private, and are exempt from Freedom of Information legislation: the public have no access to what is said."Looks like you sort of "twisted" your source for the purpose of strengthening your argument. Your source says: 'Information is exempt information if it relates to—[F1(a)communications with the Sovereign,(aa)communications with the heir to, or the person who is for the time being second in line of succession to, the Throne,(ab)communications with a person who has subsequently acceded to the Throne or become heir to, or second in line to, the Throne,(ac)communications with other members of the Royal Family (other than communications which fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (ab) because they are made or received on behalf of a person falling within any of those paragraphs), and(ad)communications with the Royal Household (other than communications which fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (ac) because they are made or received on behalf of a person falling within any of those paragraphs), or](b)the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity.'DOES THE SOURCE MENTION THE PRIME MINISTER? By the way let me correct you. According to http://www.royal.gov.uk... 'The Queen gives a weekly audience to the Prime Minister at which she has a right and a duty to express her views on Government matters'. If the public have no access to what is said, as you claim, how can the website know? And how can people reading the website know? How can I know?-"The sovereign (ruling monarch) can declare war, veto bills passed in the legislative houses, dismiss and appoint a Prime Minister, dismiss and appoint other ministers, summon Parliament, command the Armed Forces, commute the sentences of prisoners, ratify treaties, and receive diplomats."HAHA It looks like you are referring to the King of Saudi Arabia, who holds unlimited power. The Queen, as I told you before, is a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH, therefore she has none of the powers you mentioned, apart from the ability to declare war, which presidents also have. Therefore this argument of yours is invalid.-"The Privy council is undemocratic"A council advising a national leader doesn't have to be elected. Is the US cabinet elected by the people? Oh yeah the President chooses its members.-"The doctrine of the divine right of kings belongs to a more gullible age when the people had less opportunity for self-determination. Said doctrine is a Christian imposition, and Britain is a multi-faith state now, including a significant proportion of the non-religious. It is a doctrine that is poisonous to democracy, or any just government; The sovereign is a fallible human being, and some measure of temporal accountability is a necessary check on human ambition."Absolute monarchs rule according to the divine rights of kings, Queen Elizabeth doesn't because she is a constitutional monarch. She has very little power compared to the Parliament and the Prime Minister.-"Monarchy was historically justified in Britain by the notion of parental power. The ruling monarch was held to be a direct descendant of the first father, Adam."Monarchy is accepted in Britain, till now, because it's part of its culture.