That's the kind of opportunity which must be seized, not received. The French figured this out but the British probably never will.

Bloody revolution is not really appropriate here, the majority of the House of Lords is already not hereditary - of 780 seats, 90 are occupied by hereditary peers and AFAICT they will no longer pass their seats on.

The issue is whether the leaders of the commons should be able to appoint people to the upper chamber for life, whether the church should have a seat at the table etc. Or whether the upper chamber should be directly elected. It’s a matter of governance and constitution more than embedded privilege.

So as much as “Guillotine the nobs” would be a popular cry, most of them aren’t nobs in the first place.

This kind of cope is why you'll continue to be stuck with them.

I don’t live there, and explaining the situation, which you clearly don’t understand, is not ‘cope’.

I am confident that you have accurately conveyed the British mentality towards their circumstance, and therefore the reason their circumstance will continue.

I am confident you don’t understand what their circumstance is, such that your comments comparing it to the French situation a couple of centuries ago are born from nothing more than ignorance.

Hmm...

French Revolution - 1789.

English Revolution - 1649.

So the English cut off their Monarch's head before the French did. But we them invited the Monarch's back after not liking the republic of the "Lord Protector".

Admittedly the English state, not the later British state, but anyway...