A genuine question for royalists.

They do. They meddle with laws all the time behind the scenes to get themselves nice little exemptions from things like environmental and equality legislation. Us plebs just aren't told about it.

I don't think there would be much difference if the country became a republic. The royals hardly interfere with everyday matters so they.

I think we forget the powerful effect our monarchy has in other countries which helps us out. The way Trump views the monarchy is useful to us for example and King Charles used that recently to assist good relations with them on his recent visit. Look at how just how much the Queen was regarded and mourned worldwide.

They are an asset, we can't always see that because we are too close them But they have this global effect.

I love that we have a royal family - we've had Kings and Queen's going back to Saxon times, this is our heritage and history in front of us and part of our national identity.

Nobody has given a single good argument for the Monarchy. I hope to see it gone in my lifetime. Bunch of mediocre grifters.

What on earth does Princess Catherine being (in your opinion, not mine!) 'gorgeous' have to do with anything!?

I think there are some very good points here.

If we were starting from scratch, a monarchy is not what I would expect us to come up with, but we are not starting from scratch and, on the whole, I think our present arrangements do us pretty well.

I feel a similar way about The House of Lords.

That's a weirdly rude and lazy assumption to make about my post.

What I hate is when it's reported as 'Charles will pay for Andrew to be moved to Sandringham' for example. I always think - 'Urrr... No, WE will'.

That is for government to sort out, not a reason to abolish monarchy.
Lobbying should be ignored, tax rules tightened, Duchy estates abolished, etc.. All within parliament's power.

If a monarch is considered totally unsuitable, they can be "forced to abdicate" by parliament, e.g. Edward 8th.

Which is why having a hereditary monarch and royal family is great - as long as they don't actually have any political power.

It stops anyone else getting into the role of head of state and trying to exercise power (e.g. Cromwell).

The advantage of the separate head of state is that it means the prime minister is not it. It keeps the PM out of the 'top' role. It keeps grubby self-serving politicians out of the dignity and ceremony of state occasions.
People who want power and status are usually the least fit to have it.
Yes, not all politicians are "second-rate", but we don't want a politician in what is essentially a non-political role.

Charles is already on his 3rd Prime Minister. If he reigns for 10 years (2032) he looks likely to see at least 1 more. If Reform win that means the government would have seen three different parties in power during his reign.

So whatever your political views the monarchy is for sure more stable.

But they do hold a level of consistency and continuity for the country. The Queen for example was the consistent through 15 prime ministers.

This is a bit disingenuous given Charles is not likely to be on the throne for more than a decade at most.

Because if we didn’t, we might end up with either Simon Cowell or Tony Blair ( voting British public ) - not sure who would be worse!

I used to think the Irish used to choose. Presidents well but the latest was much more political and I don’t like her politics or gender views . Don’t think you can really get a non political president tbf.

I think as a Brit it is easy to underestimate how the royal family and the monarch is viewed by the rest of the world. We sort of take for granted the soft power that they hold. The monarch holds next to no power politically and are neutral. But they do hold a level of consistency and continuity for the country. The Queen for example was the consistent through 15 prime ministers. Whilst being politically neutral she was the consistent confidant throughout. I don’t think the power of that symbolically should be underestimated.

Because it is the status quo in this country and no-one showed them anything substantially better for this country (yet).

That true I think for monachists - it's what they know and apparently love - and true for many more people like me not really royalist but very much not republicans.

This might be slightly off topic but why are we waisting money we could be using to help Gaza and to feed starving children on tearing down a perfectly fine part of the White House. People are DYING for reasons that could easily be fixed if Trump actually cared about this country and being president wasn't just some game for him. Poor babies are starving and he's building a ballroom because "Trump says the White House needs a large entertaining space" this just isn't nessary infact its the opposite, its harmful.

we were told last week that Andrew’s honours and titles couldn’t be removed because of the political upheaval.

Also don't know who told you that becuase it doesn't have any poltcial implications at all - and it has sort of been done before - with Letter Patent of 1917 though this does go further and frankly is a very welcome development and I wish if it's true William wanted it done from the off they'd listened to him more.

We need the monarch - that's the bit we actually need. That the bit that has a role in our government.

Wider royal family is not really needed at all - they do "charity" roles and support the monarch but honestly we could easily do away with them. TBF Anna and Edward have refused titles for their kids and Willaim floating idea titles may be only start being used for working royals - so think getting rid of wider family roles is slowly happening anyway.

The logic of Chesterton's Fence says that you should not do away with a law, practice or social custom without first considering why it exists ie is it doing something useful and is the thing replacing it better.

So yes I'd like to know what actually is the altervative - how much it would cost - not look there's a squirrel - or it will be fine.

The reason I mention Brexit clearly not becuase of the referendum - it becuase no-one wanted to say exactly what the outcome was or look at costs and downsides and it has cost us. Though I image if you want to change how the country governed in such a huge way a referendum or a huge vote for a party clearly saying that's their main prupose - would be the way to go as voting public should get to have a say.

But we can clearly do it get rid of the monarch bit- we did once already - Interregnum - where as I mentioned we ended up with a worse system - with even less oversight than before to point we invited Charles II back to be our King.

So I'd like to know what is better and why and why it's worth the upset and cost - have a convincing argument there and most people like me who are well it's okay at the moment there are worse systems might actually get on board with a republic.

One reason they need to be above reproach - not guaranteed in their family as we have seen recently, but the chances are better in a hereditary monarchy with a high reputation, than they would be with an elected head of state with who-knows-what skeletons in their closet that could bring reputatonal ruin to them and disrepute to public life

How on earth are the chances better?

As a Brit, I like the UK system over ones with political head of state because it is untested in democratic times.

That is, the King can sack Parliament, and at the same time, Parliament can sack the King. But the King can't sack Parliament and take over.

So it is potentially a system in tension in the event of any dangerous scenario. If either side oversteps the mark, there is a panic button that can be pressed.

And this is untested because we do not have a written constitution. Although the late Queen did sack the Australian government once (without knowing apparently), and a few others.

It's untested because we do not actually know the limits of power, because , again, no written constitution. The Brit Armed forces, police, court, civil service etc, pledge allegiance to the King, but it is Parliament who run them, and more importantly, fund them. But at the same time, all is done in the name of the King.

And I think if this was tested to the max, it would result in a total collapse,. It is just too dangerous for either side to push too far.

It is, to me anyway, a pretty solid ultimate check and balance.

Both sides only have legitimacy because of the other.