300 days since the Queen died: Why has the Monarchy not died with her?

The tears have dried. The black funeral garments have been returned to the closet. The
dust has settled, and normality has been restored. Is now an appropriate time to
discuss the legitimacy and it’s underlying philosophy of the monarchy without
hysteria? I hope so.
The monarchy has been a major point of contention especially in recent months
especially with the departure of the Queen – but for some the Monarchy evokes a keen
sense of patriotism and others the remnants of a antiquated institution built on
imperial endeavours.
Following the departure of her Majesty the Queen, all that anyone could think about
was the monumental loss we had experienced as a nation: this was of course not
through any choice of our own, but through the relentless torrent of media coverage,
business disruptions and performative grief forcefully shoved down our throats.
The fawning deference and unyielding media exhibition was palpable by not just my
astute perceptions, but also by 49% of respondents who believed that media coverage
of the queen’s funeral was “too much” in a YouGov poll.
But this appears not to be the crux of the issue: the idea that another individual is
superior by virtue of birthright – and
But if this piece is anythng, it is not a personal attack on the Queen: her legacy being
nothing but a life of service and dedication to the betterment of this country.
For it is rather that these words are an attempt to analyse if that service translates into
an entitlement to rule over us through birthright and tax-subsidised pageantry