How is the Royal family financially or constitutionally bad for Britain?

[Dandyman]

As a Christian, and not an Anglican:
1. I would gladly see the Church of England disestablished, as would many Anglicans.
2. I would abolish the unelected Upper Chamber anyway
3. In what way do your taxes pay for religious propaganda
4. I think you will find that it is taught that most Christian festivals are based on pagan festivals etc etc.Most Christians are aware of it, and what is wrong with that anyway?

Church haters might be as bad and as intolerant as Royal haters

1. Good and I agree that a growing number of Anglicans as well Dissenters take this view.
2. Agree, again.
3. My taxes pay for religious schools and for the requirement for a daily act of worship of a mainly Christian nature in all schools, for religious broadcasting and for the Bishops in (2) above.
4. My objection was to NV's sneery little insult.

My Covenanter forefathers had little time for either Bishops or Royalty.

 

[Hugh'sDad]

I've yet to meet a Republican who can provide a compelling explanation on what form of "institution" will replace the current Monarchy?

Will we have the executive President via the US/French model or merely a head of state like the Irish model?

If you could sell your vision on purely the financial and constitutional benefits without offering anything beyond "off with their heads class bigotry" maybe some anti-Republicans will be prepared to buy it?

Debating what should follow is a challenge, for sure.
The fact that monarchy in the 21st century is an anachronism in any any form of system that pretends to be a 'democracy', is beyond doubt.
Monarchy is a self serving mechanism for the elite, and a fool's fairy tale for the rest.

 

[cunning fergus]

The difference is that we can vote on politicians ability to do their job, if we think they are only in the position because of their parents we can vote against them, it's our choice in democracy. We don't have that option with Charles or William. Nice to see so many on here sticking up for the Palace though.

Can we?

When did you vote for the likes of Manuel Borroso, Martin Shultze or Herman Van Rompouy?

 

[cunning fergus]

Debating what should follow is a challenge, for sure.
The fact that monarchy in the 21st century is an anachronism in any any form of system that pretends to be a 'democracy', is beyond doubt.
Monarchy is a self serving mechanism for the elite, and a fool's fairy tale for the rest.

Fact is though till the Republic movement presents the new order, all we have is angst about the status quo.

Its funny, I feel the same way about the "political classes" that you do about the monarchy. In my mind it is a delicious irony that the democratically PM still has to account to a non elected non political head of state............like a kind of non exec Chairman................how that must grate on their egos.

The elite have changed, they used to be the aristocracy 100 years ago, but now it's politicians, serving themselves and their families..........take the Kinnocks, they are like the new Hapsbergs. To think he stood for election twice as PM and on anti EU ticket..........utterly shameless.

 

[cunning fergus]

A secular society means the separation of state and religion, it applies to all religions. It does not, on the other hand, prevent anyone from following their faith.

I was referring to your comment concerning the re-education of Christians so that they understood the genesis (pardon the pun) of their religion. You would surely do same for those who are following other religions too right?