If you had a choice, would you vote to keep the monarchy?

[katemiddletonsnudeheels]

Or not?

And what are your reasons? :)

I would definitely vote to keep the queen but not sure about future generations. King Charles or President Cameron/Blair/Whoever? Neither is appealing.

Of all the people in England we are represented by that dull bunch What about the other countries in the UK?

Of all the people in England we are represented by that dull bunch What about the other countries in the UK?

That's a good idea sue51 - maybe someone like Camila Batmanghelidjh - as they're all white as white!

This is tongue in cheek surely 🤔

Camila Batmanghelidjh Ha ha ha!

I would want to know how much revenue is generated by them compared to the money spent on them. That figure will make me decide. I don't think there is much need for them though. They represent a time that is long gone. I don't see their need anymore specially if they are taking up money from the tax payer.

A vote to keep. They are a tradition and tourist attraction with no real power. I don't have a problem with them. Heck, I don't even think about them. Got my own life to lead.

Get rid.

Wait til Liz dies, since she does have a lot of goodwill across the UK and since she'll most likely be dead in less than a decade, then don't crown another.

Turn Buckingham Palace into an even more gigantic moneyspinner by opening it up like Verseilles (or the Winter Palace in St Petersburg, or the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul, or lots of famous palaces in former monarchies). People visit for the architecture, history, art, and culture associated with the Palaces - not the living bodies that are sometimes resident inside.

Write down the bloody constitution for the first time ever so there's a complete and single source of constitutional law in the UK. In it, specify the rules and qualifications necessary to become president (disbar former prime ministers? no problem) and clearly delineate powers so the UK has a proper system of democratic checks and balances for the first time ever.

Breathe a sigh of relief.

Funny how lots of monarchists seem to think they're winding up republicans by saying they want to keep the monarchy. Hardly - it's not exactly a surprise that some people like Queenie. We just think you're wrong

MangoMoon, as you don't mind being patronising I'll be equally patronising - you can have both a PM and a president, you don't need to choose. And the queen and royal family have far too much influence over how the country is run, Prince Charles particularly throws his weight around all the time.

And just as a general point to any poster who mentioned the 56p figure - it is BOLLOCKS! I don't know how the royal family get away with peddling this crap. It costs us much much more than that to have a RF.

I believe the 56p figure doesn't include their security costs.

I have a grudging respect for the Queen and am quite fond of the tradition that goes along with the monarchy - but loathe everything else. Given that the future of the monarchy appears to be Charles followed by the wastrels that are the Cambridge's then I'd probably vote to get rid of them.

In Lady Windemere’s Fan, Oscar Wilde had Lord Darlington quip that a cynic was ‘a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

That would be a brilliant point except that, for example, Mary Robinson us a person whose achievements put 'can smile and do small talk' where they belong.

Keep them but stop paying them. They get paid for appearances, I'm pretty sure they'll cope.

eightbirds The only ones we pay for are The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. The Queen gives the rest of her family any money they get- and only those who carry out public duties eg Princess Anne. Prince Charles has his money from The Duchy of Cornwall.

I don't think they get paid for appearances eight do you think when they go to a charity gala as Patron they get paid? I'm sure they don't pay for their tickets, and refreshments but not even expenses.

I keep reading about how we could get rid of a crap president and we could elect one we wanted.

And remind me how the last GE went?

The only ones we pay for are The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. The Queen gives the rest of her family any money they get

And from where does she get the money that she donates to her family?

I'm leaning towards get rid, although I'm curious to see how much Charles slims things down(if he does).

So can I wait & see how Charles does?

Can def get rid after that!

They own Balmoral, Sandringham, Highgrove & Camilla's got a place, hasn't she?

They'll all have somewhere to live!

I read somewhere that Frogmore has been mothballed for Price Philip in case he outlives the Queen.

Jeez! It's not as if none of his kids have got a spare wing that he could fit in!

And from where does she get the money that she donates to her family?

That comes from the income generated by the property and land she owns. Known as the Privy purse or Duchy of Lancaster.

Lulu, we pay for all working royals. That goes as far down as the princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. I'm sure we're all delighted that we're funding their holidays great work for the country, rather than say services for the disabled.

The duchy of Cornwall is the same deal as the civil lists. It does not belong to Charles but rather is made available for the prince of Wales. If the monarchy was disbanded in the morning, Charles would have I rights to it, it would revert to the state.

That should say Charles would not have rights to it. Damn phone.

Seeyou, she doesn't own it. It is the property of the 'crown', given over for her use by parliament. The practice goes back to Norman times.

In no way is it Windsor family money and if we got rid of them tomorrow it would revert to the state.

Apart from sandringham and balmoral, which are Windsor family estates. But they are a tiny proportion of the whole.

Get rid.

I would absolutely vote to get rid. The royal family has no relevance in my life, and I have no interest in them. I find the whole concept of monarchy abhorrent and outdated, and we have a lot more to offer visitors in terms of history and sight-seeing. Even if they were raking in money for tourism, I don't feel it has any bearing on the moral argument.

King Charles or President Cameron/Blair/Whoever? Neither is appealing.

I hate the conservatives, but would take president Cameron over the queen in a heart beat. He has actually done something to earn his position. Cameron is distasteful to many (me included) because he actually has to make some tough decisions. Any PM, no matter how noble and good, will alienate a good portion of the population on account of the job. It's unavoidable.

When your job consists of waving at crowds and wearing eccentric hats, however, it should be really easy to stay popular. All that you need to do is avoid saying silly things about tampons (I'll give the queen credit - she's done that!) and the people will continue to love you.

There are lots of models out there. the Canadian or Australian one would be the most similar to ours, without a queen. While the queen is the official head of state, functionally the GG is head of state, and requires substantially less overhead.