A genuine question for royalists.

Indeed, maybe OP has never heard of the Magna Carta…

I'm not particularly close with my mother, but if I was spending time with someone like Epstein for years, she'd know about it, and have an opinion.

Andrew didn't develop in isolation. It hints at a family which is isolated, sick and delusional. Even if I was a royalist, I wouldn't want my country to be "figureheaded" by this lot.

You don’t know your recent history @LoopedLooped

The wealth of the Windsors has ballooned in the last 50 years

And you may not grasp why it is deeply wrong for a tax payer supported family to charge the essential services the rest of us pay for and rely on but most people do .

From medieval times and feudal power. I know my history

How did they get their "private wealth"?

The Windsors have their own money. If Keir Starmer used his salary to pay for a summer holiday for his children did we "pay for his holiday".

Andrew (I believe) sold a property in Switzerland. They used money from their private wealth which is theirs. They own property. They can use it.

And yes, oh no and behold they charges organisations (public, private or charity) money for rent/storage/usage costs. It's minuscule compared to the crown estate of which HM treasury get the whole money. They operate as commercial estates. They voluntarily pay income tax on the surplus. It doesn't bother me. We get a good deal from the crown estate anyway.

Fair do's my misunderstanding.

But the Parliamentary Standards Act would kick in for an elected official here unlike a royal surely? See e.g. Mike Amesbury.

I like this idea. We could keep the pomp and pageantry but ditch the archaic hereditary monarchy.

It isn't a job, it was a role artificially created by George the whatever number he was, to preserve wealth and not end up like the Romanovs.

Arguably she was also a crap mother and a very bad embodiment of what British people stand for.

Agree with 1 and 3.

I'm not a raging Royalist, but I don't see it as inferior to other attempts to solve the problem.

I am not talking about any direct replacement. My response is within the context of the OP talking about the monarch vs elected politicians, and the poster I was replying to talking about Andrew and bar being low. It has nothing to do with the tangent you are going off on. Anything else?

This thread is more entertaining than the new Spitting Image off to Tesco's to get the popcorn in

Ok a few thoughts -

A coup is underway. Under what specific circumstances does a monarch intervene and how precisely do they intervene?

If a law is illegal, as happens from time to time, the courts strike it down not the monarch. Monarchs given Royal Assent to illegal legislation and never once blocked a single illegal Act. As I said, Royal Assent is merely feudal frippery. Parliament is sovereign and doesn't need a rubber stamp.

Why do the armed forces need a monarch as their head?

The Foreign Sec received ambassadors pretty much every day. The monarch doesn't really.

Dissolving Parliament to head off a coup?
Signing legislation into law, or indeed NOT signing it if it ain't ahem, legal!
Being head of the armed forces, see coup above re Parliament
Receiving Ambassadors
And so on.

A non executive figurehead to represent us. That we can get rid of if we want. Can't do that now.

Why would you need an elected official to replace the monarch though? If the monarchy were abolished tomorrow what exactly needs replacing?

You'd need a mechanism to determine who gets to be Prime Minister after an election. That can be fixed procedurally like in basically every other parliamentary democracy.

You'd need to replace Royal Assent but that is basically just feudal frippery.

Anything else?

Boris never tried for absolute power and was no even slightly close to it. It’s hyperbole to suggest otherwise.

trump is concerning but hopefully there are enough checks and balances in the American system.

generally I find out constitutional monarchy far preferable to a president trump or president Johnston or president sturgeon.

Trump is still president, and a convicted offender. So I don't see how being an elected official would make any difference. To be honest it seems like there's a better chance of parliament intervening in case a monarch is a sex offender, than there is of getting rid of Trump.

I just feel at this stage that my reserves of respect for the RF is largely gone now. No matter what actions they take re Andrew, not much will change overall to any of their lifestyles including Andrew. He will be paid a sum for relinquishing RL, he will get a stipend, he will keep his security detail, and won't be in a one bedroom flat afraid to put the heating on and eating beans on toast every night, or driving a second hand Skoda (like me). Great car BTW!

You really would have to be a die hard sycophantic fan to want to see any of them performing their PR designated duties. Ugh.

That's it, no respect. I have no personal animosity and wouldn't wish any ill on any of them, but respect is earned.

Sure, let’s have a child rapist for King. The bar for the Royals is so low now, I’m not sure anyone would be surprised.

It's a matter of continuity and a figurehead that is apolitical that citizens can rally around. All countries have something along these lines, like Americans saluting the flag which serves as a rallying point during crisis, mourning etc., and having this mythical "Uncle Sam". The monarchy is the embodiment of the nation which carries on, and provides a sense of steadiness, no matter what the political situation is.

I'd be in favour of a system like Ireland's Presidency. And would you believe that country also has PR/SVT system which means that a gang like Reform could not be elected despite the fact that the opposition parties amongst them got more votes overall. Yes it can result in coalition governments but it is what it says on the tin - representative.

Time for a big change methinks. Although I must admit no system is perfect.

And would people please refrain from comparing a possible Presidential system to Trump/Macron. They are executive presidents with political power as we can see. A non executive constitutional president doesn't. Similar to the monarchy, exept WE decide who becomes HOS.

You can stand for election. You can't stand for monarch.

Not wishing ill on anyone, but I do wonder if the country might not be better off, were some terrible stroke of fate to cause the line of succession to take a side-step.

Guess what? It doesn't work like that. We know who the next two kings will be. You have no say and they could be the worst people in the world, worse than Andrew.

I agree with all those, who believe that an elected head of state is not the way to go.
I think the late Queen was so good at her job precisely because she was not born into the immediate line of succession. She followed the example of her late father, who assumed the role out of a sense of duty.
Sadly the late Queen ascended the throne far earlier than she could have expected, and it was her sense of duty that made her reign so remarkable.
Unfortunately, I am not so impressed by those born into the immediate line of succession. There is a definite air of entitlement.
Not wishing ill on anyone, but I do wonder if the country might not be better off, were some terrible stroke of fate to cause the line of succession to take a side-step.