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?

[LLDilema]

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.

You could have fooled me, strawberry - Charles, at least, seems to have no problem at all saying exactly what he thinks ... endlessly

he says a lot of things that fall into that category, but none about anything important (policy, government etc).

A few years ago she applied for some money from the pensioners heating fund

What "pensioners heating fund"?

Is this true?

The English are very dewy-eyed about the monarchy because the Queen has been a fairly inoffensive example of the breed, and has done her job modestly, quietly and competently for an extremely long time (although she has an extraordinarily unhappy family of offspring, which never seems to be brought up?).

Then they get dewy-eyed again about William and Kate, who give off the vibe of doing royalty Scandi-style and living a relatively normal life, all things considered.

But seriously. Windsors live FOR EVER, as we have seen, and who's next? The Queen is getting slowly more elderly and passing her duties and eventually her crown to Charles. He is only 67. The UK is looking at something in the region of THIRTY YEARS of monarchy from this meddling, cantankerous very-near-future King, DEFINITELY not modest, DEFINITELY not quiet and who knows about competent yet?

How are you all going to feel about this wonderful tradition then?

A presidency is cheap, finite, open to ALL CITIZENS. You, reading this, would have the right to lead your own country, whether or not you choose to pursue this right. How on EARTH could you prefer a single family with absolutely no proven merit or measured public support to hold all that power, all that expense, all that wealth, all that religious weight, all that military weight and more to a democratically elected leader?

'The English' are not some homogenous mass. A lot of us are neither dewy eyed at the Queen nor her lazy offspring and graceless lazier offspring. Please do not speak for me.

I apologise tiggeryoubastard - I was addressing myself to the people supporting the monarchy on the thread, not the republicans among us! Sorry - I should have specified.

Fair enough, icant it's just a bit of a touchy subject.

Ican't I just think there are very much more serious issues about the lack of social mobility in this Country. I wish people felt so strongly about the barriers to becoming Prime Minister. I think bickering about the monarchy distracts us from the real issues.

What "pensioners heating fund"? Is this true?

I wasn't sure which link to choose, wasonthelist ... anyway, this is from the BBC:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11403544

No from me.

"President Blair, anyone?"

What does that mean? That if we hadn't had the queen, we would have got Blair?

But we DID get Blair.

(Charles) says a lot of things ... but none about anything important (policy, government etc)

Eh??????!!!!!!!!!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28066081

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-charles-the-15-page-contract-that-reveals-how-the-prince-of-wales-tries-to-control-the-media-a6756541.html

I agree up to a point was but the idea that the best person to be the bead of state is the first born son of the incumbent is so absurd and says so much about the sort of country we are that it becomes important for totemic purposes.

A few pages ago I defied anyone to come up with a sound and rational argument as to why the head of state should be decided on this basis and as yet no one has. There is absolutely no sound intellectual basis for an unelected hereditary head of state.

Thanks, puzzled I didn't know about that.

Compos You need to justify change, it's not for people like me who advocate dealing with other issues first to dance to your tune. If we abolished everything there's "no logical reason for" a lot of things would change (and not all for the better). I am not a daft flag-waving royalist, nor a celeb-obbsessed tabloid reader, but I am wondering why so much ire is reserved for what by any measurement is a figurehead role with zero actual power.

Zero actual power? You're joking aren't you? From the Queen's cack handed intervention in the Scottish independence referendum to Charles haranguing government ministers they've proved they have weilded power in an unaccountable manner.

Ican't I just think there are very much more serious issues about the lack of social mobility in this Country. I wish people felt so strongly about the barriers to becoming Prime Minister. I think bickering about the monarchy distracts us from the real issues.

isn't questioning why we should give the wealthiest family MORE state money part of that dialogue? Privilege, money, class are all wrapped up in that question.

I actually think social mobility has to be more difficult if you live in a country that is so clearly not a meritocracy. The head of state is there because of an accident of birth and, in the Queens case, an abdication. The various hangers on and the Queens distant cousins who litter the land living in inherited stately homes that they can't afford to heat now that they actually have to earn a living from their limited talents. How can you then complain about the lack of social mobility and then say its fine that Prince William, on his £30000 helicopter pilots salary and sahm wife expects to have a choice of 2 grace and favour homes, and a full staff of nannies, butlers and housekeepers?

4m pounds on their kensington flat. that's our taxes at work.

Yes although I wish enough of them would abdicate to make Harry king

No - lose them.

Then they get dewy-eyed again about William and Kate, who give off the vibe of doing royalty Scandi-style and living a relatively normal life, all things considered.

I must have missed that vibe completely.

No - lose them. The whole concept of the head of state being an inherited job is a complete anachronism.

People argue that the queen does a wonderful job. I'm sure she does, but that is beside the point. Whether the monarch does a great job or a shit one, we're stuck with them because we didn't vote them into the job and we can't vote them out.

Republic all the way. If Charles wants to be head of state, he can stand for the job and people can vote for him. Or not.

An Australian here. I, for one, love the Monarchy. But our leaders want us to become a Republic.

I believe that once Queen Elizabeth has gone, that Australia will have a referendum, and I think results will then to become a Republic.

Although if Prince William were to become King, I think it would be a different matter.

Yes to keep.

I think the queen has been brilliant, but William and Kate, no, I think they can carry on with a private life in Norfolk and give us all a break. I'm not overly keen on a president either, but if there were strict rules on the type of person who could stand (ie no ex/wannabe politicians/trump characters) maybe candidates who had to prove genuine charitable or philanthropic behaviour or something - I don't know what and how, but there must be some way

Yes. I would hate to live in a republic. Our Royal family is unique and bring in business and envy around the world.