Royal Family

I haven't had time to read the whole thread, so I'm sorry if someone has already made this point
Personally I'm against having a royal family, but realistically it's not going to be done away with anytime soon.
Ok, so let's say it's decided that we retain the monarchy, fine.
But what seriously disgusts me is why it does it need so many homes - palaces, castles and the like?
I've done a little bit of research and it appears that the King privately owns Balmoral in Scotland, and Sandringham in Norfolk.
But he and his family have many other places they have access to as homes - Buckingham Palace, Windsor, Clarence House, Highgrove House, Anmer Hall, and more, but owned by The Crown.
This is me being totally naive and idealistic, but think of the dent that could be made in the housing crisis if these buildings and land were given over to the government, or the relevant local authorities, to create housing.
It actually makes me angry that this privileged family have so much accommodation at their disposal - much of which must be empty a lot of the time 😡

I imagine it would be car crash hilarious and much more of a fun soap opera than the current lot.

Why though? What difference would it make in real terms?

Charles & Camilla need to go, & William needs to shave his head. Replacing them with Harry & Meg would be far more interesting.

I’d take anything Republic.org has to say on the subject with a bucketful of salt. It’s hardly objective. The cost of changing our entire constitutional system would be massive, it’s harmless and better not tinkered with.

I’m mildly pro the current constitutional monarchy for various reasons but I’m totally open to a republic if there’s a proposal for a replacement system which gives us:

a democratically elected and stable head of state,

a decent replacement for the current House of Lords,

and an bipartisan or independent body to preserve and protect the current Crown Estates, assets and historical archives (future proofed against sale or exploitation from future government hands)

The current members of the royal family aren’t what’s preventing that happening - it’s us ‘the people’ not coming up with a decent alternative that’s attractive enough to vote for.

If you get rid of them entirely, within a generation you’ll be dealing with an armed uprising to restore the monarchy. The best way to get rid is to make them functionally irrelevant and distract their supporters with tea towels and commemorative dinner plates. Which has already been achieved.

Why do people think we will lose our history if we dont have the royals. It's already happened, it won't disappear

Tell France that 😂

you can't just 'get rid' of people because you don't like them, don't approve of them, don't agree with what they do, say or think. It doesn't work like that.

Anyhooo, how do you propose going about this if you get everyone in the country to agree with you???

I don't think it is a matter of some being better than others it is more about some being more capable than others. The diverse nature of humans means that there will always be vast differences in all aspects of life, this isn't something that can be rectified and I'm not entirely sure it should be. Otherwise we are looking down the barrel of a communist society where everyone is allegedly equal, but end up equally poor. I'm very much an advocate for equality of opportunity not outcome.

It's not about what I think. It's about the reality of how the monarchy has always worked. We might say that the hereditary line can't be broken but we know that's not really the case.
I'm just pointing out that what you said to the PP isn't quite accurate. In the unlikely event that enough people died for Harry or Andrew to be next in line, they could absolutely be bypassed in favour of whoever was thought more suitable.

Of course.

But there is a difference in a society that tries to evolve and make it good for all vs a society that has a tacit agreement that some are better than others just because.

They bring in billions a year

How is this actually calculated? Do you mean numbers of tourists coming to the UK to visit Buckingham Palace? It could be kept open as a historic tourist attraction without needing a royal family to be there. Surely the vast majority of foreigners who visit the UK for tourism aren’t actually expecting to see the Royal Family, and don’t. I’m sure events like a Jubilee do generate tourist income, but they don’t occur yearly so it’s not enough to explain the claimed ‘billions a year’.

Even in countries where there seems to be serious political will to change to a republic it doesn’t happen easily.

Australia, Jamaica and Antigua have all declared a wish to become republics.

The Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, created a new ministerial post, of assistant minister for the republic; but he has said a referendum on becoming a republic is not a priority for his first three-year term.

In Antigua and Barbuda the prime minister, Gaston Browne, has said that he will call for a referendum in the next three years.

In Jamaica successive prime ministers have promised to lead their country to becoming a republic, but the process of constitutional amendment has prevented them from doing so: it requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of parliament, followed by a referendum.

Australia has a similarly high threshold, but its 1999 referendum disclosed a further layer of difficulty: how to select the new head of state.

The proposition that a future president should be chosen by the parliament was defeated by 55:45, because most voters wanted the president to be directly elected by the people, not chosen by the parliament.

Define "Landed Gentry".

Do you mean those who have any titles, or anyone who owns more than x acres of land? Or anyone you think is a bit "posh"?

There are titled people with no, or little, land. There are plenty of people without titles who have inherited land. And plenty of people who have bought their country estates with money they have made in various ways, or inherited from rich parents.

A large number of those who do have land rent it out to farmers

Get rid, along with all the landed gentry, thw whole system is outdated & archaic.

Well I say the concept is simple the process would be long and convoluted and make Brexit look like a walk in the park.

This - the monarch is embedded every where in our written and unwritten constitution - of course we can get rid -( and last 1000 years we've been chipping away at the power the monarch holds) just not sure it's worth the time and money yet - they'd have to do something to galvanise I think.

Well if you think we should pick and choose who should be monarch why not scrap the monarchy altogether?

Not quite accurate. James 2nd wasn't killed. Sure, it's rare but it's very possible to put aside an unsuitable monarch should the need arise. There was no precedent in 1936 either or in 1649 (?) But it was done and can be done again.

The idea that the line of succession is unchangeable isn't the reality and not how the monarchy has actually worked through the years.

The last time this happened was in 1936 when the monarch abdicated. So no there is no recent precedent for what to do if an unsuitable monarch is unwilling to stand aside.....in previous centuries they were just killed, obviously no longer an option now.

Keep them but don't give them any money - they have plenty already.

Kate is beautiful as is Meghan. William is meh but I wouldn't kick Harry out of bed.

The children are all very beautiful too.

Princess Anne was a stunner when she was younger.

Well sort of, vaguely, if you include some 2nd/3rd cousins & the like. And some with questionable parentage, including things like unfaithful queens and twice-married kings conveniently "forgetting" or denying first wives. And a few diversions down the female line (which wasn't acceptable in Medieval times, was always males first unless you ran out of them). And "next in line" being determined by religion rather than blood closeness (Hanovarians replacing Stuarts).

They are not as pretty or as good looking as they used to be. Think of young Phillip, Elizabeth and Margaret - stunning (GC Townsend too but not a royal of course).
One now sees the royals photos all the time - but they are not very attractive .
I need good looking royals only. Kate is fine but the others - no.
But I am a very visual person and also very shallow.