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

[katemiddletonsnudeheels]

Or not?

And what are your reasons? :)

I'd keep them but reform the legal system so they no longer had any powers, and massively reduce the costs and flummery. Basically the model should be the Dutch/Scandinavian monarchies, I'm pretty sure the Dutch heir to the throne doesn't have a servant to put toothpaste on their toothbrush

Undemocratic!*
*
At the risk of being as patronising & condescending as many republicans on this thread, I'll just point out again that we do actually live in a democracy.

The queen is a figurehead, that's all.
Required to be completely neutral politically, and has no input whatsoever into how this country is run.

And I would much rather a Prime Minister than a president tbh.

If there have no input, what is their point?

They are just a shiny bauble on top of actual democracy that we have to pay a shed load of money for.

they not there

"At the risk of being as patronising & condescending as many republicans on this thread, I'll just point out again that we do actually live in a democracy"

Yes, I'm pretty sure most people are aware of that, as you at least acknowledge, patronising comment.

Doesn't change the fact that the head of state is not elected, and merrily lives a life of luxury and privilege at our expense and goes around the world representing us, supposedly, with no democratic mandate at all. Same deal with the house of lords.

Get rid. I don't agree with paying for their pampered lifestyles and I cringe at the thought of being represented by them. I find them a bit creepy too.

MangoMoon she is not just a figurehead. She is head of state. Head of our established church. Commander in chief etc etc.

And if these titles and privileges are just mere baubles, then nobody could object to them being taken away could they?

Keep her as a figurehead if you like. I guess nothing will stop people fawning over them. But I do not wish to live in a nation that is legally headed up by such an anachronistic institution. I do not wish to be subject to anyone.

I'd keep. I love royal history and having something different to most other countries. Also the rest of the world come to see them and spend money on them putting money into the country. Could you imagine having a system like America? President Cameron? No thanks.

It's not like the Queen blocks bills since she's unelected. She could but doesn't and wouldn't. But she is an important figure for relations with other countries. They have so much respect for her and her family.

No-but no need for nastiness towards individual members of the royal family. As Jeremy Corbyn says-respect to the queen for her dedication but that doesn't mean that you have to support the institution.

I'd vote to become a republic, but it's not an issue that's high on my list. I think it's unfair to call Prince Charles a joke though

We'd get the president we deserve. Probably Joey Essex.

I'd vote keep, although I'm not a big fan of them individually I think getting this far we might as well keep them from a history/tradition/tourist pov.
But they need to be massively pared down regarding who gets any dosh, and they all need to do useful jobs until they retire and cut down on the holidays/servants/entitledness.

I'd get rid of them in a heartbeat but of course we don't and won't have a vote on it.

Your MP, elected by you & other constituents, has to swear allegiance to the Queen before s/he can sit in parliament. The government is referred to by the queen as 'my government'; i.e. the Queen's, not the people's government.

I don't agree that we have democracy in this country. With a government elected by a minority of the electorate overall yet with huge powers exercised in the Queen's name, an unelected upper house and an unelected head of state…..we have no business to be looking down our noses at places like North Korea.

No

I think as we continue with more austerity people will get increasingly angry at such glaringinequality.

Why is it OK for some people to live off taxpayers and not work but not others?

Why is one child so much more important and fawned over than others?

It just highlights inequality and is outdated.

Let them self fund or phase them out.

Yes. No question.

Keep, but pass the crown to Princess Anne once Her Majesty pops her gilded clogs. The ideal royal: Frugal, independent, hard worker.
I know someone who once met Zara Philips at a horsey thing- they said she's a lovely girl, real practical grafter, did all the work with tacking up etc. herself. They reckoned that would be her mother's influence

At the risk of being as patronising & condescending as many republicans on this thread, I'll just point out again that we do actually live in a democracy.
The queen is a figurehead, that's all. Required to be completely neutral politically, and has no input whatsoever into how this country is run.
So the prime minister doesn't meet with her to discuss how things are going then? She doesn't have any diplomatic role in meeting heads of state from other countries?

It is not democratic to "choose" our figurehead based on their parents.

We'd get the president we deserve. Probably Joey Essex.

Yep!

derxa Yes I would love to be a fly on the wall when Carol Middleton finds out Kate won't be Queen.
Didn't Kate switch universities when she discovered William was studying at St. Andrews?

As for Joey Essex being President. Talk about stupid scare tactics. I think we can credit the British Public with a little more sense than that...

Exactly. Royalists always seem to believe the majority of the electorate is totally brain dead and will lumber us with someone like Blair or Joey Essex.

But do we end up with Monster Raving Loony party at the General Election? No. A small percentage get for them, but nowhere near enough to actually make a difference.

Monster Raving Loony party at the General Election? No

No we end up with a bunch of cunts that enjoy kicking disabled people, bleeding the poor dry and making working people still sign on and lose the benefits they need to keep a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs.

But that is what the majority of adults of this country decided was best. It was still a rational choice. The protest vote only goes so far and then people actually vote for the party they think will govern the country the way they want.

No, they are an embarrassing, pointless, expensive anomaly. Time we grew up and got rid.

Get rid.
It drives me mad that anyone daring to claim a penny in benefits is vilified, but the biggest benefits claimants in the country get to swan around in gold carriages, own vast tracts of land and have the audacity to sit there in furs and gold and tell us about austerity.
Food bank use has shot up, all our services are being pulled from under us, and I'm supposed to be pleased that this over paid, over hyped drain on resources has made it to 90? Of course she looks great for 90, she has the best healthcare money can buy, and meanwhile old people all over the country struggle on in shit care homes, treated like crap and freeze to death.

I would genuinely like to see them live on state benefits, and their castles and houses turned into old peoples homes and social housing, with the odd one kept for tourism. All her farms and land should be given to the people.

But then I am a hardcore republican and sometime anarchist, so, you know......

Yes, and we get to vote them out if we don't like them, which isn't an option with the monarchy. Just because Liz is fairly inoffensive doesn't mean that past and future monarchs have not been more bothersome. To put it mildly.

There is no justification for a head of state who gets there because her parents shagged and produced a child. None.