[Politics] Is it time for the UK to become a republic?

[Hamilton]

When Her Majesty eventually dies, is that the time for the UK to become a republic and end the hereditary monarch as head of state?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

When Her Majesty eventually dies, is that the time for the UK to become a republic and end the hereditary monarch as head of state?

I vote NO. Not because I give a toss about the Windsors, but because the British public are ****ing idiots, and would vote an absolute **** like Johnson in as head of state.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I appreciate this doesn't help....but my answer is, "I don't know".

The pros list are logical, economical and patriotic reasons

The cons are basically emotional, morale reasons.

It's finely balanced.

 

[stewart_weir]

Back in the 1600s the 'UK' was a Republic. Entitled dysfunctional family now worth billions . Its time to stop subsidising the family. Last year the tax funded Sovereign Grant was £85M. Is the family worth that much? Personally I don't think so.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

No.

 

[Washie]

Back in the 1600s the 'UK' was a Republic. Entitled dysfunctional family now worth billions . Its time to stop subsidising the family. Last year the tax funded Sovereign Grant was £85M. Is the family worth that much? Personally I don't think so.

That didn't go well last time

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

 

[zefarelly]

I vote NO. Not because I give a toss about the Windsors, but because the British public are ****ing idiots, and would vote an absolute **** like Johnson in as head of state.

A very good point

we can't be trusted as a general population.
The royal family aint exactly smart . . . peas in a rotten pod.

 

[beorhthelm]

whats the problem that this solves? with our arrangement of elected government, it doesnt change much in the way of how the place is run. what should the repalcement head of state look like and is it any improvement? unless thats answered, seems little point changing it.

 

[Glawstergull]

NO.
I see very few "Presidents" that i think i could follow with any more affection that i do for the Queen or do a better job.
The cost of the sovereign grant isnt much more than the cost of an elected head of state.
As others have said we would end up with a Trump or a Johnson on a bigger Ego trip.
What does it solve.

 

[ConfusedGloryHunter]

I am no royalist but if someone wants to live in a gilded cage - let them.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

I vote NO. Not because I give a toss about the Windsors, but because the British public are ****ing idiots, and would vote an absolute **** like Johnson in as head of state.

Very much this.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Happy Exile]

I vote NO. Not because I give a toss about the Windsors, but because the British public are ****ing idiots, and would vote an absolute **** like Johnson in as head of state.

Exactly this. Not bothered either way particularly about the royals, but would at times rather an outright monarchy than the system of government we currently have to put up with, let alone having to have an elected head of state.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Back in the 1600s the 'UK' was a Republic. Entitled dysfunctional family now worth billions . Its time to stop subsidising the family. Last year the tax funded Sovereign Grant was £85M. Is the family worth that much? Personally I don't think so.

The £85M comes from the income from the Crown Estates which was £350M which went to the Treasury.

In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the Crown Estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return, the King would receive a fixed annual payment, which until 31 March 2012 was called the Civil List.
About 70 per cent of the Civil List expenditure went on staff salaries (430 people) Only the Queen (and previously the Duke of Edinburgh) gets payment from the Sovereign Grant (previously called the Civil List)

Tax payers pay for the security ie police etc which would also apply if we had a President.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

I vote NO. Not because I give a toss about the Windsors, but because the British public are ****ing idiots, and would vote an absolute **** like Johnson in as head of state.

What a strange reply.


Why is it you feel you are superior to the British public?

Perhaps you should be looking to stand at your next local election and do some thing about it?

What would you do? Cull a few that don't meet your standards?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yes.

What problem does it solve? That society shouldn't be based on hereditary entitlement. The fabric of our cultural and heritage has been built on an antiquated class system that retains wealth and power within circles that only benefit from it not necessarily earned through merit and achievement. The monarchy is the pinnacle of this representation.

There should be no reason a head of state whether a ceremonial figure head or having some executive power should not be able to come from a typical background educated at a state school.

The French royal palaces and history still attracts millions to their economy, Versailles is one of the most visited places in the world. The British Royal family even if abolished would continue to bring millions into the economy. I really don't buy their active retention benefits the exchequer either.

 

[Commander]

Should be an option for "Let's have a chat about it once Liz dies. Until then,wave your union flag next weekend and get sloshed on Pimms in the sunshine".

 

[KZNSeagull]

Depends what powers an elected Head of State would have. Currently the Queen effectively has none so I would assume that an elected HoS would also have none. So what's the point? If you are going to scrap the Monarchy, don't replace it with anything imo, but then you end up with the likes of Boris as your HoS. So keep it as it is.

 

[clapham_gull]

I'm quite happy for the monarchy to stay as long as they dress up in Star War costumes, move out of Buckingham Palace and build a Death Star.

 

[Dave Fishwick]

The argument about French royal palaces etc is so boring. We can already walk around Windsor Castle etc.

I like that we have a visible link to our history

Plenty of European countries who would be seen as progressive nations, great places to live etc have retained their monarchy. Funnily enough France is a divided nation where nobody likes their head of state and he is basically the least worst option. I don’t ever want us to get to that point

 

[lawros left foot]

After the Queen dies there should be a serious conversation about the future of the Royal Family.

Prince Charles has been known to interfere in matters of State, writing letters to Ministers to make his views known on a number of subjects, as King his political input would be seriously undemocratic, as he should have no more influence than you or I. All those who are against a Republic because we might end up with a Trump, or Johnson as President ignore the possibility, that, if the situation had been different, we could have ended up with Andrew as heir to the Throne, and no way of getting rid of him. At least, with an elected Head of State, we could vote them out,if they were arses.
The Queen has been probably our most loved Monarch for centuries, we aren’t going to keep being so lucky with a head of state chosen from one family by accident of birth.
The argument about how bad Cromwells Commonwealth was, is a moot point. It was 500 years ago, compared to Henry 8ths reign, it was a walk in the park.

Hopefully, the whole subject of our democracy, from FPTP , the House of Lords, and the ridiculous rules and customs of the Commons could be addressed and modernised to suit a 21st century democracy, not the sham that masquerades as democracy we have now.