Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

278 replies

katemiddletonsnudeheels · 21/04/2016 18:59

Or not?

And what are your reasons? :)

OP posts:
Samcro · 21/04/2016 22:36

yes the idea of scameron and his awful wife being like the president is bad.
I would always vote to keep the queen/king

VashtaNerada · 21/04/2016 22:36

We definitely don't need them! I probably wouldn't go so far as dusting off the guillotine... but I'm sure we'd be better off if they all just went off and were rich somewhere and left the decision-making to elected officials.

GoofyIsACow · 21/04/2016 22:37

I would keep them, i think they are all utterly fabulous, especially the Queen.

WakeUpFast · 21/04/2016 22:37

Keep them. They help tie relationships with other countries without the politics. We need them to keep friends.

ilovesooty · 21/04/2016 22:39

Get rid once the Queen dies. They have no place in a democracy and most of them as individuals seem pointless. Andrew and his brood in particular.

KyloRenNeedsTherapy · 21/04/2016 22:39

Get rid and replace with an elected head of state - they're ah outdated anachronism that are anti democratic and keep us in the dark ages.

All the sycophancy and forelock tugging today has been utterly nauseating.

VashtaNerada · 21/04/2016 22:39

Genuinely surprised how many people on this thread would keep the monarchy! I'd kind of assumed we all thought they were a bit shit but were too polite and British to do anything about it Grin

A4Document · 21/04/2016 22:40

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

No, I wasn't claiming it to be a great feminist leap forward! Just that presidents are the alternative to royals, and Presidents of the EU Commission, and Prime Ministers of the UK, haven't been any less dominated by white males than the Royal Family.

misskelly · 21/04/2016 22:42

Get rid of them. I find it baffling that so many people are against the idea of a democratically elected head of state. Plus, the idea that the Royals have no political influences is nonsense. They own vast, vast amounts of land around the country and this has a huge political impact.

I also find it laughable that one reasons to keep them is due to them bringing in tourists, yes, let's not encourage real democracy for the sake of tourism. It's not as if she puts them up herself or invites them in for tea. Plenty of countries still bring in tourists even though they have abolished their Monarchs.

Coffeecreamers · 21/04/2016 22:42

Keep. They create a lot of interest in our country, bring in tourism and make more money in than they take out. I have no interest in them myself although I have to confess to fancying Harry a little bit.

gingerboy1912 · 21/04/2016 22:42

Keep them

gatewalker · 21/04/2016 22:45

No. There's a part of me that wants to say "Yes" because of history's sake - as in, "But how can we get rid of an integral part of our rich history?" - but imperialism has done its worst, and we all bear the burden.

So no.

(I come from a titled family, and I see the damage it has wrought in every which way imaginable.)

BirthdayBetty · 21/04/2016 22:47

No. Tourists would still come to the UK regardless.

WakeUpFast · 21/04/2016 22:48

Even if you stripped them of monarchy, their names wouldn't change. They are an elite family and that wouldn't change either. People would still flock to see Buckingham palace. Paparazzi would still follow them around. They've invested money in loads of places and would remain a very very rich family even without "our hard earned taxes".

They're part of the country's history. The country is run democratically, so I don't understand that democratic comment. You can't strip a family of its heritage. Unless you want a royal family to be voted in every 5 years.

WandaFuca · 21/04/2016 22:52

I have mixed feelings. In one way, it’s good to have a figurehead that’s separate from the government. The armed forces and, I believe, the police forces swear allegiance to the Crown, rather than Parliament.

On the other hand, apart from the Queen, the rest of them seem to be not much more than celebs. Though William does try to do something useful in his air ambulance work. The recent royal visit to India didn’t seem to be much more than a couple of 30-somethings go abroad and have fun.

As a whole, they don’t seem to live in the real world. The Queen seems fixed into the pattern laid down by her parents, and continues with some anachronistic views, even down to when Camilla curtseys to Catherine or vice versa even when in private, and the several required changes of clothing when the family is “on holiday” at Balmoral. The traditional robes of the Order of the Garter are bizarre if you look at what gets tied around their necks. I can’t see Charles being any different.

They don’t seem to be very well educated/intelligent. And I don’t recall much focus on science and engineering, which is what actually made Britain great.

I suppose that ultimately the question is: What is the monarchy for? Is it to represent the country to the outside world, or to represent us to ourselves? Pomp and circumstance would do for the former; some obvious realisation of ordinary daily lives would do for the latter.

They, and we, could do with looking at other constitutional monarchies, because some of those seem to work better than the system we’ve got here.

And as for a Presidency: we’ve already seen what the elections for the Mayor of London can be like – lots and lots of money thrown at campaigns fronted by celebrity-type people. (So, not much difference there.)

The best thing, I think, is for the Monarchy to gradually fade into the background, but retain their figurehead role. I think the Queen’s Speech at the opening of Parliament does have a useful role – though preferably without the robes and crown – because that’s a reminder that the government-of-the-day doesn’t (and shouldn’t) have supreme power to do what it likes. Even a majority parliament doesn’t speak for everyone, and the presence of an “outsider” signifies that.

Charles, of course, will continue with the robes and the crown, because he seems to like that sort of thing.

I don’t think anything will change much during Charles’ reign. I do have some hopes for when it’s William’s turn, because he does seem to have more of a clue than his father and grandmother about real life. And, of course, he’ll have mixed feelings because of his mother.

Lalalili · 21/04/2016 22:52

At the moment I'd vote yes to the Queen. Charles, William etc. no.

If it was a pared down monarchy (say, one palace/home in each country, only the monarch and heir on the civil list, and all royals taxpayers and subject to the same laws as the rest of us) then I would vote yes with few reservations.

LuluJakey1 · 21/04/2016 22:53

Yes, on the basis the only one we pay for is the monarch. They can support the rest of them.

ilovesooty · 21/04/2016 23:02

They don’t seem to be very well educated/intelligent

I perceive the Queen as well read, culturally aware and intelligent. She speaks fluent French and has some diverse skills and interests.

I reckon most of the others are pretty thick.

Seeyounearertime · 21/04/2016 23:06

There is no such thing as the civil list any more, it was replaced a while ago.

The monarchy costs each taxpayer, including themselves, around 56p a year, so a little over a 1p a week from each of us.

www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0

PurpleDaisies · 21/04/2016 23:08

I would much rather my 56p went to support disabled people. 56p per tax payer adds up to a significant amount of money.

EnthusiasmDisturbed · 21/04/2016 23:09

No

And we pride ourselves on being a democracy Hmm we have no choice and that is wrong

Things will change once the queen is no longer head of state

We will still have our history and all
our pomp and ceremony

EnthusiasmDisturbed · 21/04/2016 23:10

And the 56p thing is bollocks

Their security alone costs us millions

MagratGarlikAgain · 21/04/2016 23:13

Get rid, but then I'm a Republican through and through.

It never ceases to amaze me that in this country, people who have worked hard for what they have or achieve are "bragging" or "being pretentious" if they show any/many signs of being successful, whilst at the same time celebrate a family that live a life of more privilege than any of us can dream of by accident of birth.

PirateSmile · 21/04/2016 23:14

I don't see why there couldn't be a referendum on the monarchy.

If the public voted to abolish it, I'd love to be a fly on the wall when someone tells Carol Middleton her daughter isn't going to be Queen after all...

PirateSmile · 21/04/2016 23:15

A penny a week from all of us paid to one single family adds up to a hell of a lot of money.