I disagree. The existence of a monarchy necessitates the belief that the royal family is ordained by god to rule over their people. It requires you to buy into the idea that these regular people are somehow more worthy than anybody else. I think that by itself is inherently "evil".
Also, I don't see how this is a "republican propaganda" talking point. Online I've seen many conservative pundits celebrating the coronation.
No it doesn't. I am an atheist and I do not believe the King is ordained by any form of deity. I look past that and support the constitutional monarchy settlement on the grounds of tradition/culture, how it provides constitutional checks and balances, how it can be a unifying figure against the negatives of elected head of state populists etc e.g. president Blair or president Farage. I am not saying this is the setup which I would use for any new countries, but it works at least for us. It also works for many countries in Europe.
You don't have to be religious to recognize that this is the stated reason for which the royal family was given its legitimacy. Obviously that is not the sole reason for its continued existence, but (as an outside observer) all of the rituals and ceremony surrounding the coronation seem to further entrench that idea.
But religion was also the stated reason given for the legitimacy of the US revolution. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."
The US becoming far more atheist doesn't undermine the legitimacy of the US democracy, even if the original stated basis isn't regarded as valid any longer. The same can be true of the monarchy.
Mind you, I'm not actually a supporter of the monarchy. Where I'm from, we don't bow to monarchs. I'm just saying that this argument against the monarchy does not seem valid to me.
The US Revolution kicked the British government out of the region that would become the United States, but did not itself create the government that the US operates under. That happened 13 years later, when the present secular US Constitution went into effect.
Nuance there is that the legitimacy in the form of line of succession has been governed by law too (and no doubt conquest historically) at least following the glorious revolution of 1688. It has jumped around.
> It requires you to buy into the idea that these regular people are somehow more worthy than anybody else.
Not necessarily. I'm fairly neutral on the (UK) monarchy: I don't particularly like the idea, but some people do and it doesn't negatively impact me at all.
I can see some (small) value in keeping a historical anachronism around, for the sake of culture and tourism. That view doesn't require any belief that a certain family is ordained by God or more worthy than anyone else.
If they had any actual political power I would feel very differently.
I suppose the part that sours it for me is watching the extreme displays of wealth and decadence at a time when a large number of people in the UK are struggling financially. Quite a lot of countries in Europe still have monarchies, but the degree to which they are visibly celebrated in the UK seems to be much greater. This is where the argument for culture and tourism comes in, but I still think its wrong.
It probably negatively impacts your post-tax income. All of that showy opulence has to be paid for by someone and I'm pretty sure Chuckie Threes hasn't worked a day in his life.
Nor, judging by recent history, one is more prone to infringing civil and human rights than the other.