J Tyran said:
I wasn't referring to the Monarchs position as head of the Church of England, I presume your family is Catholic though.
Actually, I was referring to the persecution of non-Anglicans in general, which continued until the 19th century. Half my family is Quaker though, so it's slightly more directly relevant in the sense that the Quakers, from very early on, held a religious principle that everyone was born equal and that there should thus be no kings.
And I don't see how "both sides aren't blameless" works. When Catholic monarchs established Catholicism, non-Catholics were persecuted. When Anglican monarchs established Anglicanism, non Anglicans were persecuted. The problem is the establishment itself, which is essentially the root of the monarchy. We raise these people up because they are supposedly chosen by God to rule, and that inevitably means their God, not necessarily yours.
That divine right is what a monarch is. That is all that makes a monarch a monarch. It is what was affirmed when Elizabeth II was anointed at her coronation, and it's the same thing that will be affirmed when Charles is anointed at his coronation.
The fact that we are willing to deny it in our everyday lives doesn't make it any less the basis for the monarchy.