To ask you if there were to be a vote tomorrow on whether or not we should become a Republic country, how would you vote?

[LLDilema]

Very long thread title... but just interested to know, if tomorrow it was announced that we all have to vote on whether to keep or abolish the royal family, how would you vote? Yes to keep. No to lose.

[abbsismyhero]

yes

[ginghamcricketbox]

Yes, because the alternative would be worse. President Blair anyone?

[duplodancer]

Yes

[MephistophelesApprentice]

Yes. I support the right of indigenous cultures to maintain roles and rituals of historic significance. Having a constitutional 'reset' button and an apolitical centre of military authority are beneficial beyond measure.

[wasonthelist]

Yes keep no good reason to change

[zeezeek]

No. At least with a President we have a choice. Will be interesting to see how much more popular the Republican movement becomes when we have Charles as King.

[LBOCS2]

Yes to keep.

[dinosaurkisses]

No to lose

[angelos02]

No. It is so out-dated in this day and age and in a democratic country, I can't quite believe we still put up with it.

[TattyDevine]

Yes I would keep them.

[Floisme]

Lose. At least if we ended up with President Blair it would be because people had voted for him. Plus there would always be the chance of voting him out.

[MrsBungle]

No - to lose them.

[wasonthelist]

Hang on, are we talking about a like-for-like? i.e. a figurehead president with no real power? IMHO the last thing we need is more mud-slinging party politics and illusory democracy.

[RNBrie]

No - I am fond of them, but they cost the country a fortune (it's a myth that the cover their costs through revenue raised via tourism etc). Given the austerity measures currently being imposed on the majority of "normal" people in the country, I am genuinely surprised that anyone considers the Royal Family a justifiable expense.

[CastaDiva]

It's like Godwin's law any time someone brings up this perfectly sensible question - someone bobs up to say 'the alternative would be worse - President Blair, anyone?' Blair was the Prime Minister, not the president/head of state figure who would replace the queen if the country became a republic and abolished the monarchy. The only similarity would be that a non-monarch head of state would be democratically elected, like Blair, unlike the queen. For a finite term. And unlikely to have executive political power, unlike a prime minister.

[LLDilema]

RNBrie Do you have a source / link for that because that's what I've always thought - that the 'yes' team would counter with 'well they more than pay their way with tourism' and assorted things.

[CastaDiva]

And of course the monarchy should be abolished. There isn't a single argument for retaining them, other than spurious ones about tourism and 'tradition', and some kind of weird, masochistic forelocking tugging devotion to the queen, with a side-order of tabloidy obsession with Kate Cambridge's haircut and offspring.

[CastaDiva]

The traditional (and quite rational) comeback to the 'we need them for tourism' straw man is to point out that Versailles doesn't lack for tourists.

[LLDilema]

CastaDiva Godwin's law tends to end the debate though. I.e. a race to the bottom (Hitler). But it is perfectly acceptable, in my view, to suggest that Blair was democratically elected.

[OldCrowMedicineShow]

No. Get rid.

[hownottofuckup]

Yes - although I think the sensible answer would be no

[AnnPerkins]

No.

[Littleonesaid]

Yes, yes, YES! to keep

[LLDilema]

CastaDiva RNBrie, Just to add that I'm firmly in the No camp as well but I can't fathom why here we are in 2015 with a 'Royal' family.