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

[katemiddletonsnudeheels]

Or not?

And what are your reasons? :)

Yes - don't want war criminal Blair as president thanks.

Well don't vote for him then (what makes you think he'd stand anyway) that's the beauty of an elected head of state, you can pick whoever you like and then when you get bored of them or work out they're a tosser, you can vote them out. Nor do you have to fund their grandchildren and great grand children nor do you have to listen to their children's views on architecture or homeopathic medicine.

Nor d

They ARE taxed like everyone else!!

I would vote for the Queen. I was not much of a fan of hers when I was younger but I have great respect for her now. I would have no respect for Charles and I wonder why she has not abdicated... I would love to see William as King. Overall a definite YES. Our royalty is a huge part of our history, our heritage and the character of our country, which I love.

Get rid. They stand for inherited privilege pure and simple - they're in their roles through accident of birth. Even the phrase 'senior royals' has me spitting blood. Seniority should be earned, not given by birth order. And all that bowing and scraping is abhorrent.

I vote for Esther Rantzen as our new head of state.

No. I find the whole royal thing stomach churning. Bowing/curtsying to someone? Because they happen to have been born into a particular family? Hah. It's be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

MangoMoon I am not arguing that there is a direct connection but a poster above joked about republicans getting cross….I was pointing out that there are reasons for this, my personal circs are just an example.

But my DC situation is not the reason I want a republic. I oppose the monarchy for principled reasons as explained in my post above, I think democracy is preferable to alternatives and therefore we should have a democratically elected head of state. TBH I think monarchy represents the very worst of our country; inherited privilege and huge and growing class and wealth divisions.

And if we don't want them I am absolutely certain that one of the 14 countries of which she is also Queen would be delighted to have them move there, with all their Personal wealth and property (not of course the Crown property).........

Bin them. After the queen.

Can't stand Charles. Plus 100years at least of rich white dudes as head of state, hardly representative of multicultural modern Britain.

I think they're totally anachronistic and all the turning up at public functions is offset by some seriously blingy holidays if you're wills and kate.

I don't think Charles should be allowed to be king because a) he's a nut b) he's a meddler and tries to influence public funds for his own pet causes (farming etc snore) plus c) he has conducted himself abominably in his life and I don't see why he should be allowed to be a figurehead of Britain. Just because if was a long time ago doesn't mean he should be allowed to forget that he screwed around on his young wife and children. Boo hiss!

Wills seems like a decent sort. I probably wouldn't mind if they skipped a generation. But it would have to be a stripped back monarchy and rest could go out and get jobs!

Nope. They are not value for money.

Keep them. I love the Royal Family. I think that the Queen is wonderful and just watching her on TV from her Coronation and she was so young and breathtakingly beautiful.

Wonderful to see Charles, Anne, William and Harry watching the old home movies and laughing at things they did.

I look at the presidential elections in America and thank God we don't need to go through that bullshit.

Get rid. Selecting a head of state on the basis of who their parents were is wrong, corrupt, and frankly embarrassing. Nothing against them personally well not most of them but a system that validates privilege based on birth has to go.

The Queen could stay but that's it. Open up the houses give the land back let them generate an income and become self sufficient.

I would vote no.Not to have em.

The problem is we don't have a vote. Never have had and (it seems) never will, whoever is next in line gets to be our head of state and we are not allowed a say. It's not clear what the op's views are but frankly if you are a monarchist there is no point even asking the question.

It is only a matter of time before we get someone really dire as monarch, and as things stand we are stuck with them for life.

Living, I don't know what my views are.

I used to be a staunch republican but seem to be mellowing and getting quite fond of her majesty! :)

So I wondered about others.

What powers / responsibility / pay are we giving this elected president? The Queen has a lot in theory but few in practice. I can't imagine any serious person putting themselves forward for a job where they are unable to express their opinion in public, unable to negotiate with other leaders but just shake hands with people.
If they have power, how does that interact with the prime minister and parliament?
The US president was designed to be equivalent to an elected king with no power and fully controlled by the House of representatives and senators - see how well that worked.

Plus 100years at least of rich white dudes as head of state, hardly representative of multicultural modern Britain.

The succession laws were changed in 2011 so that first-born daughters of a monarch are first in line to the throne. So at some point there could be 100 years of women as heads of state.

These lists are dominated by white men too...

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministerswww.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">UK Prime Ministers

Presidents of the European Commission (scroll down for gallery of presidents)

Sorry, link fail - here it is again:

UK Prime Ministers

The succession laws were changed in 2011 so that first-born daughters of a monarch are first in line to the throne. So at some point there could be 100 years of women as heads of state.

That's such a step forward for feminism. Brilliant that all our daughters could one day be head of state. Oh, wait...

A4 document I was basing my estimate on a rounding up of how long George could potentially live, he's only wee. I reckon we're sorted for the best part of a century between Charles, Wills and George.

I'm sure the government will privatise them before long.

Yes, vote to keep. She works so hard in a role that most of us would find tedious and stressful.

Or rather, put the role of royal family out to tender. The royals for the 2020s will be employed at minimum wage, on zero hours contracts, after a competetive tendering process by Serco. Their work will, of course, have a seasonal element to it, so they can forget any idea of earning enough to make ends meet during January and February, when most tourists are too nesh to give a shit about quaint British customs.

She works so hard in a role that most of us would find tedious and stressful.

None of us have the opportunity to find it tedious or stressful because we weren't born into the right family. I like the queen but I hate the anti democratic nature of the role.

I think I'd rather have a ceremonial Head of State, as they have in Ireland, where they choose to be Head of State, are not necessarily politicians.The Queen has been great. I'm not sure how great Charles would be, or William. If they are terrible, we have no choice but to live with it. A president could be voted out.