Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask you if there were to be a vote tomorrow on whether or not we should become a Republic country, how would you vote?

336 replies

LLDilema · 14/12/2015 14:18

Very long thread title... but just interested to know, if tomorrow it was announced that we all have to vote on whether to keep or abolish the royal family, how would you vote? Yes to keep. No to lose.

OP posts:
redstrawberry10 · 15/12/2015 14:06

Just look at the history of France.

this isn't the eighteenth century. And this isn't france.

redstrawberry10 · 15/12/2015 14:08

Only the queen appears to do any work. Diana had a briiliant work ethic and I don't think we will see the likes of her again.

why would we expect any of them to have any work ethic? That's not how they were chosen. it would be mere happenstance if they did.

MrsFring · 15/12/2015 14:09

No, get rid. They're blandly inoffensive as individuals mind, excepting the philandering, ill-informed thick twat that is Chaz.

FilthyRascal · 15/12/2015 14:13

No - get rid.

However - I WOULDNT mind keeping them if it was changed so they genuinely had no power and were just a symbolic public figure. I wouldn't give them any tax breaks and all their dealings would have to be 100% transparent. No secret letters to government or meetings with the PM.

BitOutOfPractice · 15/12/2015 14:13

OhBehave You did say people wanted it to happen you said: "It was a comment based on my experience of left wing anti monarchist- " [sic]

Neveradullm0ment · 15/12/2015 14:20

Filthy yes that would be a good idea - they should have no power. We do live in a democracy and you can't really have unelected people in such a position of power. I would say they can live in their palaces - but they get no money from the state.

redstrawberry10 · 15/12/2015 14:25

yes that would be a good idea

what's a "symbolic public figure"? I couldn't care less if she continued calling herself "Queen", as long as not state institution recognised the title.

motherinferior · 15/12/2015 14:27

PMSL at the idea of Diana's work ethic. I ran the comms for one of the charities she endorsed and I can assure you she didn't do much. Brought in the odd bit of coverage, obviously especially when she died* but not exactly a nose to the grindstone girl. The posthumous hagiography has a lot of errors in it.

*I am not, obviously, recommending this as a means of getting publicity.

toffeeboffin · 15/12/2015 14:31

'PMSL at the idea of Diana's work ethic.'

Me too, Mother. I'd say she was there for publicity reasons, rather than getting her hands dirty.

Now the millions of carers in the UK who work for free and do get their hands dirty actually deserve credit (which they continuously fail to get)

Lockheart · 15/12/2015 14:35

Yes to keep, because I worry about what would happen to all their tenants who live and farm on Crown / Duchy land.

I worry about all the farms, forests and commercial enterprises on that land and in those Crown properties which, upon being sold (out of interest, who would we sell Crown Land to? The Chinese or the Russians?), would possibly have to lay off employees or cease trading.

Because I would worry about the ~1200 people (and that's JUST the Royal Household staff - what about the military regiments like the guards and Household cavalries, for example?) that the Queen currently employs.

I worry about what would happen to the hundreds (thousands?) of charities that have the royals as their patrons and receive much-needed money from them.

I worry about what would happen to one of the most significant art collections in the world. And how much of our heritage would be sold off. Art, jewels, castles...

I would worry about the impact on our tourist industry and how much money and how many jobs would be lost there. On any trip to London you sell those souvenir stands and newsagents selling everything and anything with Beefeaters, crowns, guards and palaces on. Tours of Royal London. Royal mugs, coins, everything!

You might win an ideological victory by making the UK a Republic, but I think there'd be one hell of a lot of pain first.

redstrawberry10 · 15/12/2015 14:48

We would have the Duchy. If the farming needs government subsidies and we decide to keep them, we could directly pay for them.

Anyone the queen currently employs that is needed later, the government could pay for directly. Art and jewels into the national gallery or something similar.

Charities? Why do we have to send the money first through the royals? Just give it to them directly.

What an odd argument.

SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace · 15/12/2015 15:02

Charities doesn't seem like a good argument. We give them money and they give some of it to causes they like? As Red says - what a crazy and illogical middle-man!

And of course if they're all so independently wealthy that the money they get is insignificant, they can still support those charities which are so near to their hearts, right?

The land would still exist; the jewels would still exist; the art would still exist. If we did sell any of those off, we'd have .... more money! Those castles aren't my heritage or yours - they exist and we're allowed to look at them, but that would be no less the case.

You got me on the souvenir stands though. How do other capital cities flog tacky merch without royals?

redstrawberry10 · 15/12/2015 15:07

You got me on the souvenir stands though.

I didn't see that part. That is a good point. Perhaps I will change my mind about republicanism Grin.

Lockheart · 15/12/2015 15:20

Do you honestly think if the government had the money instead of the royals it would go to charities? Really?

I would not consider the selling off of a internationally important collection of art as a victory; rather a travesty. Should we empty the British Museum and the Tate in order to raise funds too? Confused You could not absorb the Royal Collection into the National Gallery either; believe me when I say museum and gallery stores are full to bursting and there is no way such a huge collection could be subsumed into it. You would need an entirely new National Gallery.

And if you can't see my point about the money the royals bring in via tourism then I can't help you. Royal Wedding gives £2bn boost to UK economy

I'm not really pro-royal or anti-royal to be honest, I'm fairly ambivalent. But if I was faced with the choice I'd vote to keep them as I think the fall out would be too great.

redstrawberry10 · 15/12/2015 15:38

I would not consider the selling off of a internationally important collection of art as a victory; rather a travesty.

nobody said do that. give it to the Tate. or the BM. or the NG.

Do you honestly think if the government had the money instead of the royals it would go to charities? Really?

why the middle man though? I'd much rather we as tax payers decide what is worthy than giving it to people who have too much money to decide. Why should they decide what happens to our money?

You would need an entirely new National Gallery.

sounds good to me.

And if you can't see my point about the money the royals bring in via tourism then I can't help you. Royal Wedding gives £2bn boost to UK economy

you do know that because of RW the LSE was closed, right? That's arguably the world's most important exchange, shut so they could have their precious wedding. That alone wipes out the 2bn contribution. Forget the rest of the loss in the economy.

batshitlady · 15/12/2015 15:39

It seems the public are very much divided over Charles. When / if he becomes king, he knows he can't expect anywhere near the same level of adulation and sycophancy that was shown his mamma. So maybe that'll be the start of the disintegration of the whole institution? I doubt it....But I love to think it might be.

ColinFirthsGirth · 15/12/2015 15:43

No! I think it is wrong to have a monarchy. I would like a system like in Ireland rather than America where we would have a prime minister and a president

batshitlady · 15/12/2015 15:50

woohoo by my reckoning the anti-monarchist, uptight, bloodthirsty, lefties have it!

UnderTheGreenwoodTree · 15/12/2015 16:02

I'm not really pro-royal or anti-royal to be honest, I'm fairly ambivalent. But if I was faced with the choice I'd vote to keep them as I think the fall out would be too great.

That's my thinking too.

redstrawberry10 · 15/12/2015 16:17

if the fallout is too great, doesn't that mean they have too much power?

purplehazed · 15/12/2015 16:18

ohbehave hatred? no it's not hatred, not like they hate us.

SayAGreatBigThankyou · 15/12/2015 16:25

No. President all the way.
Vive la republique.

UnderTheGreenwoodTree · 15/12/2015 16:28

Not really redstrawberry - the 'fallout' can mean the system we get instead of the Royals. Some of us just don't want to be a republic. Some like or don't mind the Royals as an institution. I'm a 'don't mind' myself. I have no problem with being a constitutional democracy. Many non-UK people envy us our Royal family.

Indole · 15/12/2015 16:36

No. Lose them. I can't see any reason to keep them.

jellybeans · 15/12/2015 16:41

Get rid of the monarchy or down scale them. Most countries have. We can't afford it.

Swipe left for the next trending thread