To want a Republic?

[StrictlyOogieBoogiePumpkin]

That it really. I cannot stand this 'joy' at a Royal Wedding that will cost a fortune and all to welcome in someone else who will now never EVER get a real job.

Would is really be so bad to join the rest of the modern world and ditch them? We could have an ELECTED President, we could just have our elected Parliament.

The Palaces would still be there for the tourists. The President can welcome the Heads of State (but only for a fixed term)

Would it be so bad to not pay for her cousins to live in Palaces?

Can we not just give it a go?

I am incredibly heartened to see so many Republicans on this thread - maybe by the time my DC are adults they will have a chance to stand for presidency as they should be entitled to in a democracy .

Yes, the monarchy is an anachronism and yes, if it didn't already exist it would not be invented BUT I think it far better to have one person (and family) representing continuity and tradition and being apolitical than having an elected Head of State.

Either you have a properly elected, empowered President, like Obama etc - and divide the nation as to whether he represents the country or not...OR you have some minor political has-been, (as in Germany, Israel etc) who offends no-one but nor does he/she unite and represent anyone at all.

Let the Queen and co crack on, I say.

Amazing how quickly my optimism can be shattered .

Oh YA so NBU. I used to feel quite equable about the roayl family but they just piss me off now. My idea is to hire actors to impersonate the queen as and when needed. Much cheaper. Let out Buck house and all the others as social housing. Put the crown jewels on Ebay.

Yes, it's obviously best for us all to have one unelected person representing us than a democratically elected one.

Yes, what on earth gives us pituful serfs the idea that we might actually elect our own figure head.

PuppyMonkey - but the Head of State is meant to be above politics. Not someone that half of the country loathe and the other half support in sufferance (USA, France etc).

I think she does a great job and hope she (and her descendants continue for a long time yet - although I concede this is unlikely).

I think she probably brings in more money than she costs, FWIW, although this is hard to measure, I admit.

"Pitiful". The irony!

Half the country loathes The Royals though.

Oh and agree with everyone who has rubbished the tourist argument. They come for the Tower, Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace etc, they never actually see the Queen anyway.

I'm not suggesting burning the lot to the ground, we'll still have them. They be opened up to the public as they won't have anyone living there anymore and will therefore generate more income.

As for President Blair, it would never happen as in this wonderful thing called a democrasy the majority would vote for the person we liked the best. Oh and if we decided they were crap, we could vote them out! Imagine that?! Someone who knew if they were rubbish they would be voted out!

Hhahhaaha guardianreader I said 'pituful' actually which was a typo as the U is right next to the Y... although the I is on the other side. I must ask you to take my word for it

I do.

What was the reason for spelling "democrasy" thus then? Or should I bugger off to the pedants' corner?!

I agree they probably won't be around for too much longer but I think that is a shame and like the continuity that they represent.

Oh God I think I may have to play the 'I'm currently bfing' and only had 3 hours sleep with a 7 week old card I'm afraid DD is sort of in the way of the keyboard but my spelling is hideous I'll admit

But then we would still have to place for the president and the upkeep of the Palace, keep the Queen, what has she ever done to you?

manonamission act as my head of state for nearly 60 years without once seeking my endorsement to do so!

Also I couldn't even begin to count the number of palaces/ castles/ houses that the Queen and her close family have so I think we could still find somewhere for a new president to live whilst opening up the rest as tourist traps.

However, I do kind of think that if we were to become a republic then it would be a bit nicer to do it once the Queen is dead but then I can be a bit of a softy sometimes.

I find it strange (not WRT this thread, but generally) how often it is the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" Tories types who continu to defend the monarchy.

Anyway - let's elect someone as Queen then. I like having a Queen.

Joanna Lumley perhaps. Just her, she can wear a shiny crown and ride around in carriages for 10 years or so. Bit like being Poet Laureate but with better outfits.

I'm staggered at the posters constantly repeating the ludicious argument that a presidency would cost more than or the same as a monarchy.

IT SIMPLY ISN'T TRUE.

And "what has she ever done to you?" What an utterly bizarre argument . Lived off my bloody taxes for starters, but there are many many many other reasons for replacing the monarchy.

They can be found on www.republic.org.uk.

I agree Elephants - it is so strange that Tories tend to like Royalty when they constantly criticise scroungers. The irony is beautiful.

I know a few people who I consider 'aspirational Tories' - they vote Tory because they see a lot of rich people voting Tory and want to be in their gang. Wonder if this is the extreme version?

Either that, or they understand the privilege and inherited wealth aspect of the monarchy and need to keep believing the illusion that their birth wealth can still be viewed as being powerful, when we all really know it means nothing about you as a person.

GiddyPickle - are you seriously suggesting that because a republic 'wasn't a roaring success' in the 17th Century, then it wouldn't be now ?

ROFL at comparisons with Oliver Cromwell :o

If anyone else is as big a history geek as me, you might remember that Oliver Cromwell's son Richard inherited the job of Lord Protector when Funtime Ollie died. Something that I don't imagine most modern republicans would advocate as a way of choosing a new president/leader/thing.

Plus the fact that the Monarch has no real power now, we're not having a civil war in order to kick out the Queen, ooh what else - the fact that there is universal suffrage (just about), we have hot and cold running water...just chucking in a few other relevant and irrelevant key differences between the 1640s - 1650s and the 201?s

Re the Tories, I was trying to work up a steam about David Cameron announcing how excited we all were earlier but I stuggled a bit as he just came across as someone who just loves a good wedding, and like he just can't wait to get tucked into the free bar and have a bit of a boogey

GiddyPickle - I didn't know we needed a monarchy in order to have christmas. Is Prince Phillip really Father Christmas?