Trooping the colour booing

They are also free to protest.

Thanks, I'll look into that. I seem just English but my heritage is half Reid Lichtie.

Depends on when
By the time of James VI (or James I of England) it was hereditary. The laws of primogeniture had applied since David I (11th centur), so for a long time. Plus by James VI the Scottish monarchy was much more like an absolute monarchy than the, by that point, more constitutional monarchy in the UK. This is one of the factors that ultimately led to the Civil War as while James was reasonably laid back his son had inherited the belief in Divine Right of Kings to rule and clashed with parliament.

Before primogeniture there was quite a lot of kings defeating each other in battle and murders. It wasn't a peaceful progressive democracy until those dastardly English forced hereditary monarchy on you

And after James I (during the Scottish restoration) the Scottish tried to do a colonialism overseas like the English were. Unfortunately (or fortunately this depends on your view on colonialism) this scheme failed and bankrupted many of the nobles, helping to bring about the conditions for the Act of Union.

Scottish history is fascinating. But the Scottish could be just as much dicks as the English don't kid yourself.

PS Stone of Destiny is a great movie based on those 4 Scottish students repatriating the Stone to Scotland in the 50s.

Historically the Scots chose their King hence the Stone. Which English Monarchs need to park their backsides on in order to feel validated.

I don't think so, but perhaps you have made yourself look silly.
Please re-read my post. I'm not comparing benefit cost to the cost to fund the Royal Family. I'm referring to that fact that benefit cost is a drop in the ocean compared to the the multinational corporations dodging taxes. We are demonizing the wrong group - many of which are genuinely struggling due to disability and certainly not scrounging.

For the sake of clarity, the individual cost to the tax payer for the monarchy is currently ~77p per person, but this rises to £1.29 to include the building work to Buckingham Palace.

It's a very conservative estimate though, based on the theory that the current cost of the monarchy is ~£86.3 million. The problem with this figure is that, unbelievably, it doesn't account for the amount security for the royals costs.

The £510 million figure knocking around was arrived at by anti monarchist groups who estimate security at £150 million (presumably more if Harry gets his way), and also included the cost to councils for funding /preparing for royal visits, and lost income from the the Duchies of Cornwall & Lancaster.

Also for the sake of clarity, the 2024-25 FY cost of benefits was shy of £300 billion but just under half of this (£138b) was the state pension.

Hardly. They haven't at all. At least some of that goes to people who are actually in need or struggling.

You have just made yourself look a bit silly haven’t you.
Our benefit cost is 333 BILLION
the total cost for the entire royal family is 500 million.

Do you mean like jury duty? You just get a call up for monarch duty for a year or so? “Sorry Linda, you’ll have to find someone else cover my shifts, I’ve got to go host a state banquet.” That would be fabulous!

I think Fergie is the biggest scrounger there is, no?!!
The real scroungers are those at the top who don't pay taxes!!
Benefits are a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of money stolen at the top!
You're looking in the wrong place if you want to blame someone...
Many people on benefits do so because they are disabled and unable to work so I'm offended by your disgusting blanket term of 'scroungers' (and, no, I've never claimed benefits...)

I can think of so many people who would be better that the royals! They really are super dull low achieving and avaricious.

Or even better have it on a 5 years random
rotation. That would be awesome!

The irony here is remarkable.

I calmly questioned a statistic, explained why it doesn't prove the point you think it proves, and provided examples of successful countries without monarchies.

In response you've accused me of being jealous, wanting people to lose their jobs, hating the Royals, supporting scroungers, cutting off my nose to spite my face, and now you've finished with "sweet pea".

That's quite an emotional journey for someone insisting they aren't having a tantrum.

The problem is that none of it addresses what I actually said.

The fact remains that the £1.7 billion figure, even if accepted at face value, does not demonstrate that tourists would stop visiting Britain without a monarchy. France attracts more tourists than we do without one. People visit countries for history, architecture, culture, museums and heritage, not because a hereditary head of state currently occupies a palace.

And no, disagreeing with you isn't jealousy. It's just disagreement.

You'll notice I'm still discussing the argument. You're still discussing the people making it.

That usually happens when someone is struggling to defend their position.

Darling I'm not having a tantrum, I'm not protesting the royals I'm out living my life! I'm not jealous of other people I've got better things to be doing. If they want my 1p in tax for the royals they are welcome to it. I pay more for scroungers that don't put a penny into the economy and don't represent our country on the world stage. Facts are not an insult, it's annoyed you because it does not support your argument to get rid of the monarchy. You'd like to cut off your nose (or rather other people's who would lose jobs) to spite your face just because your jealous. Get a life. What you think is irrelevant to me too sweet pea.

I'm fairly sure they were being sold ironically/as a joke item.

There was talk at the time of memorabilia that bore the original date, 8 April, being 'worth something' after the date was changed to 9 April to allow Charles to attend the funeral of Pope John Paul II, but I don't know whether that's true.

Again for those who don’t understand how elected heads of state are different to inherited titles; a) we’d only get President Blair if the majority of the country chose him and b) we’d have a chance to pick someone else after 4-5 years. The late Queen Elizabeth was the monarch for 70 years, nearly 71, it took her dying to replace her and then we had no choice who she was replaced with. That she did an ok job (not perfect) doesn’t change the fact we had no choice and without a doubt there were better candidates over the decades.

Yes. Let’s have the economy version that seems to work well in multiple other European countries, if we have to have one at all.

I wonder what AMB and Fergie did with their vast amounts of money

Sorry, I got confused with Andy Burnham - AMW, of course!

Yes, why not. I wouldn’t vote for them myself, but it should be a fair vote with various options.

I'd like to see a royal on any list of contenders.

I wonder what AMB and Fergie did with their vast amounts of money from family, Epstein, the Azerbaijani business man that paid over the odds for their house?

While Ferg appears to have spaffed millions (yet still amazingly is apparently hiding out in exclusive enclaves. How?) I am convinced MW still has millions hidden away.

See his enthusiastic use of the BofE shell company created to hide the extent of royal wealth from the nosy plebs (and oh look. There's C3 up to his snout in it too):

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/26/prince-andrew-held-investments-in-shell-company-set-up-to-keep-holdings-secret

As the article notes, particularly of interest given it running alongside his time as TE.

@Futurehappiness And then there is the Royal propaganda which has been pumped out to the public for years & decades, and the reluctance to publish anything remotely critical of them.

The Buckingham Palace lawyers always shut down an question. When Andrew/Giuffre was raised 15 years ago the press was threatened with a case of defamation. The day following the public breaking of the Epstein scandal - the Queen appointed him Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George. A massive reward and honour for Andrew.

@38thparallel
maybe Marcus Rashford
JK Rowling.
Judy Dench…
David Olusoga?
point is it would be a vote . For a finite time in office

Given all these factors, how exactly would a political party go about campaigning to end the monarchy and be assured of a fair and reasonable process.

They could put in their manifesto that they will bring an act of parliament to remove the royal family. If enough people think this is a good idea then the party proposing it will get a lot of votes.
Alternatively if a big enough crowd of rioters stormed the palace then they would succeed - it’s not as if that hasn’t happened before to both royal families and governments.

I think it would be really hard for them to do that given that every MP is compelled to swear allegiance to the monarch before they can even sit in parliament. It is strictly mandatory (if they don't swear the oath they pay the fine and the seat is legally declared vacant).

It was only very recently that a member of the RF was even discussed let alone criticised in Parliament, breaking with long standing convention - Andrew. And he wasn't a Prince any more at the time.

And then there is the Royal propaganda which has been pumped out to the public for years & decades, and the reluctance to publish anything remotely critical of them. That so many people dislike the monarchy despite the relentless propaganda trying to persuade them otherwise, tells its own story.

Given all these factors, how exactly would a political party go about campaigning to end the monarchy and be assured of a fair and reasonable process?