[Politics] Royal Family: In or Out?

[Lincoln Imp]

I don't understand why people think that the removal of our symbolic monarchy would change our democratic constitution as it currently stands. The Queen only performs ceremonial duties, there is no reason we would need to replace the house of commons or our Prime Minister. The Germans operate with a Chancellor and an elected largely symbolic President.

With a ceremonial head of state and an elected government surely the British system is the same as most in the developed world?

I may be wrong but in the current EU I think only France has an executive head of state. In the wider 'west', only the USA does.

 

[Insel affe]

I don't understand why people think that the removal of our symbolic monarchy would change our democratic constitution as it currently stands. The Queen only performs ceremonial duties, there is no reason we would need to replace the house of commons or our Prime Minister. The Germans operate with a Chancellor and an elected largely symbolic President.

I am not advocating a need for a president as such, but thought (I am just a simple surf) if we remove the monarchy we would still need a head of state such as a president, I am willing to be educated on this matter, it just might go in one ear swim around for ten seconds and fly out the other though...

 

[Bold Seagull]

Keep. I can see the role gradually becoming more presidential though and certainly a lot less "god save the"

In a society where we have youtubers, love islanders, Big brother wannabes, I can't get remotely worked up about the more modern royals who primarily do excellent charity work and visit good causes for their day to day roles. To me, that's the way the role should go.

Scrap the honours list for celebs and sportspeople. Just recognise amazing charity work each year.

In my mind it would be a huge shame to lose the monarchy. We happened to be staying near Buckingham Palace on Saturday night and walked over to it on the Sunday morning. Caught the changing of the guard. It was brilliant and the levels of excitement by tourists made me wonder why you would ever want to lose that.

It needs modernisation, sure. But certainly don't scrap it.

£100m per year from the public purse despite their huge wealth and land ownership? They do a bit of charity work. Wow, that's good of them.

 

[beorhthelm]

I don't understand why people think that the removal of our symbolic monarchy would change our democratic constitution as it currently stands. The Queen only performs ceremonial duties, there is no reason we would need to replace the house of commons or our Prime Minister. The Germans operate with a Chancellor and an elected largely symbolic President.

it shouldnt necessarily change much, so begs the question why change? what is it that we actually dont want, or what is it we want to change to? as the monarch is there by act of parliament, it wouldnt need a revolution, just needs some consensus of what next.

 

[SollysLeftFoot]

At heart I'm a republican, but i hold no real hatred towards the royals. I just believe we need to move on from the fairy tales of the past.

 

[Wellesley]

OUT - I disagree fundamentally with the concept of a Royal Family, but I don't agree with a lot of the vitriol aimed at the individual people.

'cept Andrew obviously. He's a wrong'un.

What ' e said.

 

[Hamilton]

I don't believe in the whole idea behind hereditary entitlement, so it's a no from me. But a reluctant one. I really can't stand the thought of politicising the head of state. I actually like the fact that our Queen says nothing.

In fact, when you think about it, what we do to that family is now cruel. We rob them of any rights to freedom of thought and expression. I'd hate to be born into the firm.

 

[Bold Seagull]

it shouldnt necessarily change much, so begs the question why change? what is it that we actually dont want, or what is it we want to change to? as the monarch is there by act of parliament, it wouldnt need a revolution, just needs some consensus of what next.

Why change? Because I don't think hereditary privilege, wealth and status is something that should be at the head of our state and certainly not representative of a dynamic progressive democratic society.

 

[shingle]

Yes.

Liz has never put a foot wrong, when she passes it will be the end of an era. The Royal Family should then be slimmed down and Charles should be by-passed in favour of William and Kate.

The rest should get day jobs.

 

[beorhthelm]

Why change? Because I don't think hereditary privilege, wealth and status is something that should be at the head of our state and certainly not representative of a dynamic progressive democratic society.

good enough for other progressive democracies, Dutch, Swedes, Norwegians. the point is what do we want the head of state to be instead. unless that is answered, the current model seems to work fine.

what has prompted the question though? presumably Megxit, which has very little to do with the actual monarch/head of state position and everything to do with obsession of minor celebrity and media making news to fill space.

 

[Blue3]

States need a figure head you either have an elected head or one ordained by God we have the latter, should we go down the republican route well it fits with the overall plans of Russia after all they had a large hand in the Brexit vote which has given new life to Scottish indipendace and Irish unification which if that were to happen would leave a very small kingdom for Prince Charles to inherit.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I really wouldn't be that surprised if this finished 52-48...

 

[Chicken Run]

Once Elizabeth II has passed and finished her fine reign as our Monarch, should she be the last of this country's Royals? It would certainly be ending on a high note.

We then look to reforming the House of Lords, and an elected ceremonial President along with an elected 2nd house. Prime Minister and the commons to remain unchanged. Royal property to be given over to the state, National Trust, English Heritage etc.

No.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

£100m per year from the public purse despite their huge wealth and land ownership? They do a bit of charity work. Wow, that's good of them.

They could choose NOT to do charity work.

I don't get what your point is. They didn't choose to get born into that family.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

£100m per year from the public purse despite their huge wealth and land ownership? They do a bit of charity work. Wow, that's good of them.

£100M from the £385M given to the Treasury from the Crown Estates. The £100M is for the upkeep of the royal residences (some of which like Buck House are owned by the state not HM) and payment of their staff.

 

[Giraffe]

100% yes, but Harry and Megan can clearly do one. Oh they have already. We are resigning, well you're sacked, you cant we have resigned, well you're still sacked.

 

[French Seagull]

Keep, they bring in a lot to tourists and mainly do a fairly good job. Especially as a figure head for a great many charities and and for GB plc.

I wouldn't want a system more like America, which probably costs more to run.

The house of Lords needs to change but I'm not sure how, some of the 'wise' people appointed do a good job most of the time stopping extremes either way, the two house in USA is often strange

I guess that we will always have people with different opinions, most will say that the Queen has done a good job and has worked hard over the years. Charles does do a great deal of good work as well, that many people do not know about. I am not sure how many are paid from the government. If they were not there the properties would be given grants I'm sure and a president has paid for security. There should not be too many who are supported though I would agree

 

[Clive Walker]

The royal family don’t generate money and don’t boost tourism. This has been proven time and again by visit Britain. The houses/palaces and changing of the guards etc do but no tourist ever came to the uk to spend money on physically meeting a royal

Look at Paris. Got rid of the monarch, turned the palaces into museums and art galleries. They get triple the tourists London does and generates money from historical buildings.

The royal family are simply not needed.

 

[Hamilton]

The royal family don’t generate money and don’t boost tourism. This has been proven time and again by visit Britain. The houses/palaces and changing of the guards etc do but no tourist ever came to the uk to spend money on physically meeting a royal

Look at Paris. Got rid of the monarch, turned the palaces into museums and art galleries. They get triple the tourists London does and generates money from historical buildings.

The royal family are simply not needed.

Surely, without the royals the whole changing of the guard malarky wouldn't have happened in the first place?

Even if we turned Buck House into a museum - which it is for 3 months a year - then that's not going to boost tourism.

Where are all these stats about Paris coming from?

Also, Paris didn't get rid of the Monarch, the middle classes did for their own nefarious reasons, not to help the working class. Then they got an Emperor and look where that got them!

 

[Bold Seagull]

Surely, without the royals the whole changing of the guard malarky wouldn't have happened in the first place?

Even if we turned Buck House into a museum - which it is for 3 months a year - then that's not going to boost tourism.

Where are all these stats about Paris coming from?

Also, Paris didn't get rid of the Monarch, the middle classes did for their own nefarious reasons, not to help the working class. Then they got an Emperor and look where that got them!

There are lots of traditions dating back hundreds of years that the military observe that serve no purpose. Changing of the guard as a symbolic act of our history could still take place. And only a small part of Buckingham Palace is open for 3 months.

7 million people visit Versailles per year. The most visited museum in the world is the Lourve which gets over 10 million.

Buckingham Palace, under a million per year. The royal residences together including Windsor Castle get under 3m per year in total.