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

[clapham_gull]

The argument about French royal palaces etc is so boring.

It's only boring to those who still fall for the myth that The Royal Family attract tourism. They clearly don't.

 

[Swansman]

Marcelo Bielsa is available

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

No. There may be a time, but the midst of celebrating her majesty's platinum jubilee certainly isn't it.

When the Queen dies she'll be replaced by King Charles III, or more probably King George VII, and he'll continue the traditions that, in practice, work very well.

I don't think anyone really believes that birthright is a sensible way of choosing a nations head of state, but in reality we do it pretty darn well, all things considered, at this point in time. Because it's not the person we look to lead us, it's the crown and all that signifies. The person is a vassal for the crown. We could choose someone by popular mandate I suppose, but it would be a hell of a risk to believe they could do it better than someone who has had a lifetime of training for the role. I don't want politicians on the throne.

 

[stewart_weir]

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.

Royal family receive money from Crown estate (owned by us) and then in turn receive an income from that income. The question Ive always had is why is the Queen so wealthy in her own right when that money could/should be used for the benefit of the country and not one family. I want to keep the Royal family BUT they should pay for themselves from their own efforts and not get what is a tax payers subsidy.

 

[beorhthelm]

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.

when considering these issues, the selection of head of state is way down the list.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Royal family receive money from Crown estate (owned by us) and then in turn receive an income from that income. The question Ive always had is why is the Queen so wealthy in her own right when that money could/should be used for the benefit of the country and not one family. I want to keep the Royal family BUT they should pay for themselves from their own efforts and not get what is a tax payers subsidy.

The Crown Estates do not belong to us, any more than farms or houses paying rents in the Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall belong to us. You can debate how they acquired that land and housing but you cannot say they belong to the population. Much of the land has been acquired by marriages and accumulated wealth via inheritances. William the Conqueror built Windsor Castle so has been in the family for 1200 years. It doesn't belong to the public.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Voted yes extra points if we go as far as putting in place a written constitution.

 

[GT49er]

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.

Yes, for little more than ten years - and it was a f***in' disaster.



.......and even then the 'republicans' simply tried to create their own dynasty - one dictator (Oliver Cromwell) passing on the top job to his son.

 

[BBassic]

I like that we have a visible link to our history

The visible links to our history:

The palaces
The castles
The jewels
The warships
etc etc etc

would all still be there.

Abolishing the monarchy wouldn't then mean tearing down all the castles as well

Plus, "our" history means very different things for different people. One man's story of a glorious empire on which the sun never sets is another man's story of violent imperial colonialism. But that's an entirely different argument.

 

[beorhthelm]

Voted yes extra points if we go as far as putting in place a written constitution.

funny thing this comes up, we have a written document the Act of Settlement that determines we have a monarch and how they are chosen. and written amendments to that since. we have written constitution, its just not in one single document.

 

[nicko31]

Definitely warrants a conversation after the Queen goes.

 

[Barnham Seagull]

Keep the Monarchy but with diminished responsibilities and profile

 

[stewart_weir]

The Crown Estates do not belong to us, any more than farms or houses paying rents in the Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall belong to us. You can debate how they acquired that land and housing but you cannot say they belong to the population. Much of the land has been acquired by marriages and accumulated wealth via inheritances. William the Conqueror built Windsor Castle so has been in the family for 1200 years. It doesn't belong to the public.

Here lays the issue.. peasants vs the elites. How did the family acquire its wealth? Through history they took it

 

[Cheshire Cat]

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.

Or alternatively....

 

[Eeyore]

It's all very silly and most folk, I suspect, don't care much for it.

But I would imagine it has economical benefits, the Royal Family are irrelevant really. A business outlet for the country. Most folk are concerned about what goes on in government.

I won't be either celebrating or hissing next week. Although I do admire the Queen. Folk say how wealthy she is, but footballers have as much luxury. 70 years in that gig and an exemplary representation. I will raise a glass to her. I wouldn't fancy that.

 

[Blue3]

It’s a no from me Clive as what are the options the Kardashian’s or something akin, plus the great British public voted for Brexit would you trust them to not vote for some ckid

 

[jcdenton08]

No. Absolutely not.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I've changed my view on this over time and am becoming more sympathetic to the republican cause, especially in the last decade where we have seen Brexit and a Tory Government living by a separate set of rules to the rest of us.

I think a sense of superiority and entitlement runs through England, the feeling that we are better people than the rest of the world. It is ultimately what led to Brexit, what enables voters to put up with Tory excess. The 'Little Englander' mentality is alive and well.

For me I hate all the royal titles, the Meghan / Harry / Andrew bullshit, the tax havens, the loopholes, the Old School tie network, hereditary peerages, the privilege, the toadying and the sycophancy, the deference, the inequity and the rights bestowed on so many simply by birthright.

I think the Queen is an amazing person but we've seen with other members of the Royal Family there are plenty of duds there, and sooner or later we'll get landed with one as King or Queen. It's no way to source a Head of State.

On balance I am therefore in favour of a republic although it would have to be done properly and not some half-arsed affair where nothing changes.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I've changed my view on this over time and am becoming more sympathetic to the republican cause, especially in the last decade where we have seen Brexit and a Tory Government living by a separate set of rules to the rest of us.

I think a sense of superiority and entitlement runs through England, the feeling that we are better people than the rest of the world. It is ultimately what led to Brexit, what enables voters to put up with Tory excess. The 'Little Englander' mentality is alive and well.

For me I hate all the royal titles, the Meghan / Harry / Andrew bullshit, the tax havens, the loopholes, the Old School tie network, hereditary peerages, the privilege, the toadying and the sycophancy, the deference, the inequity and the rights bestowed on so many simply by birthright.

I think the Queen is an amazing person but we've seen with other members of the Royal Family there are plenty of duds there, and sooner or later we'll get landed with one as King or Queen. It's no way to source a Head of State.

On balance I am therefore in favour of a republic although it would have to be done properly and not some half-arsed affair where nothing changes.

This by the bucket load. I'm looking forward to [MENTION=232]Simster[/MENTION]'s contribution too.

The whole head of state argument - 'we might have Boris' - but at least we voted for Boris! We could have Boris or a whole lot worse simply due to a birth as head of state. We only just dodged having a Nazi sympathiser on the throne. We just lucked out that we've had a monarch who has been great for 70 years. No reason it couldn't have been a Boris - imagine that, George had had a Boris first and upon his death we had King Boris for 70 years. Imagine. Jesus. VIVA LE REPUBLIC!!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

She seems a completely useless and weak leader-figurehead to me, so exactly what is the point of her?

She’s sat on her throne and watched the Tories risk breaking up the UK with a Scottish referendum, leave the EU, put a border down the country, completely trash the economy, provide fuel to Scottish and Irish independence and had the PM lie to her and party until 4am the day before her husband’s funeral. Some leader.

Get rid.