And I did explain that I was not doing that. Just pointing out that your opinion may sound good to you when applied to royalty, but is not so nice when applied to people at the other end of the financial spectrum.
you are saying you are not doing it (conflating to completely different ideas), but you are doing it again right there. Why connect the two? My opinion on the monarchy has no bearing on welfare spending. You are the only one connecting the two. you think my position is inconsistent because I happily support welfare (which in fact I don't. I have been jumped on many times here for it), but don't support it for the RF. they are not at all connected.
Some people on here would clearly like to get rid of the monarchy, and I can see why they might want to do that, but why get rid of something that isn't corrupt when you haven't got a plan in place for a sensible alternative?
Just because something lacks corruption (and I didn't say it wasn't corrupt, just relatively not corrupt), isn't a reason to support it. One reason to stop supporting is the cost, but another is the principle that we have one group in this country that has special rights that no one else enjoys. that's just not something that should be supported. So, the cost and immoral principles of the monarchy are two reasons it should go.
As for what to do with buildings and palaces, most are not in fact the personal property of the monarch (that is, Queen Elizabeth does not own Buckingham Palace the way I own my house). They are the property of the crown, which is different. And they are already maintained and supported mainly by the tax payer.
What would likely happen is what happens all over the world: these properties would become national historical buildings and function pretty much the way they function now. everywhere historic buildings are protected - in secular france, many churches are buildings of national importance.
As for alternatives, there are many out there. Canada has a slightly better alternative (cheaper and not based on birthright) but functions essentially the same as ours. But there are better systems out there (I prefer the republican ones). Someone said why would we vote for someone who just opens parliament and gives a few speeches. Well, if that's all our head of state does, let's by all means just get rid of that position. If it's "just a figurehead", just dump it. we don't need it.
If, however, the head of state is a position of importance and power, then shouldn't we choose the best person for the job?