To think this is an obscene amount for the queens home.

[heartskey]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/18/buckingham-palace-to-undergo-370m-refurbishment
Its all right for some isn't it. Sod the rest of us, we're just the mugs paying for it. What a bloody burden this family are.

I think the queen has probably done a better job than most of the people we have elected, tbh! Imagine if the choice was Corbyn or May to live there. Just... No. Nobody would want to see that

Do you want King Charles?

What about King Edward? Or King Andrew? That could easily have happened.

You seem to think that people should have no vote in who is their Head of State? That's not very democratic.

Debate required reasoned argument

Yes. I haven't seen many arguments for having an unelected Head of State.

There are plenty of examples of democratic countries who do have an elected Head of State.

Events in our national history and heritage have created the situation in which we have an unelected head of state and church.

If we believe that is wrong, and act to correct it, what other historical "errors" will come up for debate? What other legacies should we "correct"? Unstitching the fabric of society that was established centuries ago is very destabilising.

Unstitching the fabric of society that was established centuries ago is very destabilising

Yet we have Brexit.

Just because it's difficult doesn't mean we can't do it. And yes, we then have the Lords as well.

Arguing that something is destabilising so we can't do it means nothing changes. Luckily many unfair things have changed that people in charge thought would be destabilising.

The Unions
Votes for women
Slavery

Etc etc

The duchy of Cornwall is no more Prince Charles personal income than the Royal estates are the queen's. So he voluntarily g pays taxes on an enormous gift from the state. Whoop de whoop.

This is from Republic

The job would not simply be ceremonial, our new head of state would have very clear and limited powers. Those powers would be non-political, which means that they can only be exercised according to certain official criteria.

Our elected head of state would not be allowed to make decisions based on their own political opinions (much like a judge uses their power according to the law and the facts of the case, not letting their personal politics get in the way).
What sort of powers would the head of state have?

In a republic all our politicians would have to obey a set of rules that are decided by the people (written down in a constitution and voted on by the public). The head of state would be able to stop the politicians from doing something if they are breaking the rules - but not just because they disagree with the politicians.

For example, if the constitution says that new treaties with the EU require a referendum, if the government tried to sign a new deal with the EU without first asking the voters then the president could step in. The head of state wouldn't be allowed to get involved in the debate about the merits of the EU, but would be able to insist the government followed the rules.

Also, if we have another hung parliament where no party has enough MPs to form a government, then the president would preside over the process of deciding who should become prime minister. This would ensure the process was fair and even handed and all parties had the opportunity to have their voices heard.

Our elected head of state would be free to speak out on important issues of the day, but would not be allowed to speak on party political matters or get involved in party politics. The head of state could give a voice to the people's concerns or hopes, put new issues onto the public agenda or support community groups and charities in promoting non-partisan causes.

The rules that would govern politicians would also apply to the head of state - these rules would stop them becoming party-political.

Does anything there cause concern?

Unstitching the fabric of society that was established centuries ago is very destabilising

Yet we have Brexit

Are you really comparing the reversal of a decision made 30 years ago (within many of our lifetimes) with the abolition of the British and Commonwealth monarchy?

Well, they have to hurry up and do it before the Brexit, dont think there are enough builders in all of London to take on this mahoosive job after all the Poles have effed off back home.

Are you really comparing the reversal of a decision made 30 years ago (within many of our lifetimes) with the abolition of the British and Commonwealth monarchy

Why not? Brexit is complicated.

The fact something is complicated does not mean we shouldn't do it.

In actual fact we wouldn't even have to have a president. Rules can be changed. We have a prime minister, a president isn't necessary. Nobody can force us to have a presidency if there was no monarch. The monarchy is or should be totally irrelevant to the running of the country.

I have heard the argument about it being 'complicated' before.

We live in a strange democracy. We don't have a written constitution. Our Head of State is there by birth right. Our second chamber has a lot of unelected peers there. Our Head of State is also Head of the State Religion

Maybe we should have had a revolution. Then we could have got some of this basic democracy stuff sorted like most other countries who have an elected Head of State, elected Second Chamber, a written constitution and no state religion.

I bet the people of Berlin never envisaged the pulling down of the wall. Massive change but all for the better.

I'm on the fence , but maybe a little eBay of a few crown Jules and let's just stick that 360 mil into the NHS .

I'm on the fence , but maybe a little eBay of a few crown Jules and let's just stick that 360 mil into the NHS

I bet those tourists will still come and see the Crown Jewels in the Tower of London.

Or if you were being enterprising, you could send them on a world tour. That should make a few quid.

What would Lord Sugar do?

I find it astounding that we hold the Royal Family in such esteem, merely due to the very fact they were born. It is like a religion we hold them as deity's and bow down to them praise them for their presence

I find it embarrassing as a human, that we have such extremes of rich and poor in the UK.

Many people the same age as the queen will die of the cold this winter cos they cant afford to put the heating on. Yet she is having a £300M refurb on one of her many homes - without having to earn it. The Royals haven't suffered a hardship in their lives

The royals ARE massive scroungers and sorry to those who do not agree, but come back when the royals are doing 12 hour shifts and getting their hands dirty for minimum wage. I think they are worse than benefits scroungers because at least we know where we stand with those they don't pretend to be above and beyond the rest of civilisation

ego It's not the complexity that I was referring to - it's the arrogance that as a society, we can do away with such a long-standing and globally influential phenomenon after centuries. What gives us the right to remove such an established part of our national identity from future generations ?

t is like a religion we hold them as deity's and bow down to them praise them for their presence

Opium for the masses.

(I love an MN Monarchy thread. Probably won't make any difference but hey, it just lets me vent )

What gives us the right to remove such an established part of our national identity from future generations

To make it fairer for them?

The American dream - anyone can become Head of State.

Not so in the UK.

I believe in a fair and equal society where everyone is treated equally and has equal opportunity.

The RF is a massive symbol of inequality.

Have absolutely no problem with subsidising the Queen, but I do have issues with supporting the rest of her family. They should all get jobs - and I mean proper jobs, not these 'going to Dubai for six months to promote British business' kind of jobs, where only 5% of their time there is actually working.

It always amazes me when I see people who are famous for some remarkable achievement being presented to one of the unachieving royal family and looking a bit in awe of themm when it should be the other way round.

After seeing the global elections this year (Duterte, Brexit, Trump) I am not sure democracy is the ultimate system anyway.

After seeing the global elections this year (Duterte, Brexit, Trump) I am not sure democracy is the ultimate system anyway

I do wonder if the 'elite' such as the RF are worried by such things. Mind you - it seems that there are many people who don't want the elite to be in power unless they are the Royal Family.

Sorry but an elected head of state sounds really shit in terms of the functions and events that you are proposing. Britain has a long tradition and history and constitution that you effectively want to wipe out with "britain's got presidential talent". Hey, we could even put it on ITV on a Saturday night, and have people vote at 50p a call! Come on, any such role would be fucking pointless.

Some interesting arguments against but OP in particular has convinced me - I'm in favour of the refurb now, I think. The monarchy is not ideal, but none of the alternatives actually sound better than the status quo, and many of them sound worse. And lots of the arguments just sound bitter about people born into a different financial bracket. What about people like the new duke of westminster, are you proposing getting rid of their titles and taking their land too? Where would that line be drawn? Any inheritance? Presumably any inheritance that's above whatever you've had/are in line for, of course, as that's usually how these arguments go down...

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7914479/Monarchy-attracts-500-million-a-year-from-overseas-tourists.html

Here's some stats on overseas tourists - the queen was rated the third most recognisable British icon. Someone voted in by the public just isn't going to have that same pulling power.

A PP was right when s/he said that only time would tell what the difference would be. I think the money generated by tourism and the jobs created by the RF are too much to risk.

Britain has a long tradition and history and constitution that you effectively want to wipe out with "britain's got presidential talent".

It's an interesting phenomenon - it genuinely hadn't occurred to me that there is a proportion of society who believe they have the right to irreversibly change the fundamental structure of Governance in the UK and Commonwealth, based on nothing more that current social values.
"It's unfair" is such a subjective judgment - what is deemed fair and equal by one society will be viewed differently by another.

As a pp said, if there had been a revolution, constitution etc then that would have formed part of our history.

Democratically deciding to abolish the monarchy strikes me as the height of self-grandiose on the part of the society that does it - not something that is the result of frustration, but borne out of a belief that future generations will benefit and appreciate it.