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.

Republic please. How else can we ever hope to have genuine meritocracy?

Google "royal family value for money" and you'll find every single hit tells you they aren't - mostly opinion pieces in newspapers but they generally all include the actual figures. I haven't been able to find a single source to tell me that they are.

No, get rid of them. Bunch of freeloaders. It's absurd that the position of head of state is under the exclusive ownership of one family.

No. The Royal Family are the biggest recipients of welfare of all. Time to remove them from the national teat.

No.

I can't get my head around the concept of hereditary monarchy at all. It's bizarre and, not that he needs my pity, it makes me feel sorry for Prince George who can't grow up to be anything he wants to be (without the might of the monarchy industry coming down hard on his head).

YY to the notion that they are just big welfare recipients. Imagine any other family in the country being handed billions of pounds worth of property and land on a plate for no good reason? It is mad.

No, I am a citizen, not a subject.

Abolish.
Felt really strongly as a teenager but still as an adult - the RF should be consigned to the history books.

Yes, keep them.

Yes to keep

I don't care very much but I wouldn't like to see an elderly couple suddenly made homeless so on that basis, yes to keep.

No

I would even be happier with President Cameron than having a royal family

Ask a year after the queen has died there will be far more no's I am sure

No.

But to qualify my answer slightly, I have no problem with them per se, part of our history etc. But they should support themselves, and should not be head of state/church/government.

Can we vote on becoming a secular country too?

There isn't a single argument for retaining them, other than spurious ones about tourism and 'tradition', and some kind of weird, masochistic forelocking tugging devotion to the queen, with a side-order of tabloidy obsession with Kate Cambridge's haircut and offspring

I voted ges to keep, but sadly for your nasty rhetoric, I don't fit in with any of those stereotypes. No interest in tabloids (never buy), Royal kids, and certainly not interested kn forelock-tugging. As for no good argument - I could say the same, yes they cost money, but not much in the overall scheme of things, there are a lot of things I'd save on first (none of which match the current governments priorities). If you want to see money wasted, bring on the republic!

Yes - they give me a lot more than the 67p of my annual tax budget (or whatever the latest figures are: I know it's less than a £1)'s worth of annual value: and I'm not even a royalist particularly.

Mainly, though, for what gingham said- except I rather think Mr Blair was under the impression he was the President I know we'd end up with the same flip-flopping system as Russia or Turkey, and end up with a permanent Putin/Erdogan, just this four years as President and that five years as PM.

No - get rid. And lose the heridatary House of Lords while we are at it.

I'd vote to get rid in a heartbeat. I cringe every time there's yet another bloody photo of Kate whats'er face.

Get 'em out (and I do not mean her boobs)

I would even be happier with President Cameron

I think I'd even have preferred President Thatcher to a royal family

It's not 'nasty rhetoric', it's my analysis of what the pro-monarchists say every time this topic is debated on here. And you haven't made any argument for retaining the monarchy, other than claiming, on no grounds, that a republic would 'waste money' - why would it?

How much a president/head of state would be paid, how long his/her term was/ what powers he or she would wield would presumably be up for debate. Salaries of elected heads of state vary widely in relation to the GDP of their country, and some are responsible for their own travel, upkeep of residence, some aren't etc - in Ireland, for instance, the president has a capped salary according to civil servant salary guidelines.

No. Can't stand hereditary privilege.

No- Get rid of them!

I would vote no, but it's not going to happen.

More realistically, I would cut the finances given to the Queen to support the rest of her family. Prince Charles and the immediate heirs get the Duchy of Cornwall money, I see no reason why public money should go to supporting Eugenie, Prince Edward and all the rest of them. Surely they've all got estates that pay out to them anyway.

an apolitical centre of military authority are beneficial beyond measure

I'm not sure what this means as I'd struggle to think of a time when this position has been useful? Does the premise that the armed forces serve the Queen, not the government, make them a better armed forces? Is that not just lip service or does it have real weight?

I'd vote to ship them out, because of all the money and privilege. I like her well enough (for a sleb) but the idea that I would somehow be required or even expected to curtsey to Kate Middleton turns my stomach.

I would be interested to hear the political arguments for keeping them as the ultimate arbiter of power though. I do quite like the idea of an apolitical head of state - obviously, Charles is unlikely to be that.

Get rid.