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.

The same applies to the argument of, "but they STOLE the land." It wasn't seen as stealing at the time; you can't go back and judge it retrospectively by today's standards. Unless you are prepared to unpick an awful lot of things that make Britain what it is today. Which is far from perfect, but it's a pretty good place to live in the world in 2016, and I am not seeing any compelling arguments for ripping that apart and starting again!

A lot of sense being spoken, really gives me hope that there are people who see that family for what they are and how wrong our value system is.

You can't have have took much convincing then temporary if it was down to my "arguments". Some of the arguments on here have convinced me more than ever that I'm right.They only go to show how easy it is to dupe people. Rather than look at the big picture of the abhorrences of having an unelected person as head of state which includes supporting not only them but their whole family, they're prepared to believe only what the royal PR machine spins out.

As for that Telegraph article, it doesn't convince me in the slightest. There's no way 500 million visitors a year come to Britain because of the royal family. I'd love to know where that writer got his information from, absolute nonsense. Those visitors who come from overseas would almost certainly come with or without the royal family.

And you've got that from where? The amazing weather? The lovely indigenous people?! No - They come for the very same history that YOU don't want to pay to keep up. The crown is probably part of that, but we can't prove it reliably.

The elected head of state has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese. How much would the election cost? How much would they get paid? Inevitably they'd be a politician - and I'd far rather have even Charles than any one of the politicians we have. What happens when their tenure ends, they go back to what? It's just a bizarre concept. So is a royal family and divine right, but at least that has a lot of history behind it, and a lot of popular support. Even if you do rudely dismiss the hundreds of thousands of Brits who line the mall at royal events.

They only go to show how easy it is to dupe people.

That's what I don't understand. Your confidence that our society are the first to 'see through it'. That 'we' are the first generation to be aborred enough to actually DO something.

Why so little respect for the generations that have gone before us? Were they so naive, or ignorant, that they couldn't consider the issue?
Or, if they did, yet decided to retain Governance with an unelected head of state - how can you be so sure you are right?

As I've said I don't believe for a minute that tourists come because we have a Royal family. The biggest draw for tourists is the British museum. In France it's the Palace of the Versailles. I think that says it all. BP is way down on the list of tourists hot spots.

A presidency would cost less than the cost of the monarchy if it was run the same as in Ireland. Their presidency costs two and a half times less than what our royal family do.

Charles can't be compared to what our politicians are like, he'd have no say in running the country. We have bad politicians now, having a royal family hasn't prevented that, but at least politicians can lose their seats and are accountable to the people, they had to strive to get to where they are. Not so with the royals, they just get it handed to them on a plate and are accountable to no one.

The lack of a solid replacement is what worries me. Let's rip up the fabric of our society and replace it with - what? I don't have hugely strong feelings about the key royals; I'd happily bin off Andrew, Edward and co from the public purse. But they are more appealing than some ghastly elected politician or allowing the history to deteriorate.

Oh ok, so you're now saying we should replace the monarchy with a cheaper but still v expensive political presidency (that would definitely not bring in tourism or promote us abroad because who gives a shit about someone who is elected for a few years). And they will probably be shit but let's do it anyway.

I take it you've given up on the hospital or the homeless hostel ideas in favour of the new president then?

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

It never ceases to amaze me that those most in favour of our monarchy appear to know least about our history.

We did have a revolution, it fundamentally changed the role of monarchy, the constitution and leadership of the country.

To answer another point raised, in the longer term it was the opposite of destabilising as it's widely believed that a shift from absolute to constitutional monarchy was part of what protected UK from the extremities of the French Revolution.

1688. Go educate yourselves.

Change as a response to 'current social values' is baked into our history.

The tourism argument is a) an irrelevance b) lazy and c) ridiculous. The USA and France get the highest numbers of tourists in the world. They got rid of their expensive and unnecessary monarchies many years ago. Versailles anyone?

I don't understand the logic in the moaning tbh.^

She's our Queen.

I'm British born and bred but she ain't my fucking Queen. Their is no place for monarchy in modern society. It's an outdated and frankly ridiculous idea. If they had any morals at all they would all step down from their positions.

Yes, but what happened a few years after the revolution? why did our ancestors resurrect the monarchy if Britain was so much better without it?

Would anyone admit that if they were a member of the royal family they wouldn't feel at least a little embarrassed about their inherited extreme wealth and privilidge. I honestly don't think these people have any morals.

Jeez Temporary, if you're going to take people on on the internet, find out what they're talking about.

The Glorious Revolution did not dismantle the monarchy, it fundamentally changed it from an absolute to a constitutional monarchy.

Google will help you out if you want more details.

temporary you're stuck on this tourism nonsense,
Show me proof that tourists come here because of the royals and I'd agree with you. But once again you choose to ignore the fact I mentioned about the Palace of Versilles being a massive tourist draw for France even though they got rid of their royals hundreds of years ago. Your argument just doesn't stand up.

You dismiss as nonsense my explaining how the cost of running Ireland's presidency is two and a half times CHEAPER than the cost of the Royal family, and say it's very expensive. So if that's expensive, by your reckoning the royals must be extortionate.

No why would I give up on the idea of a hospital or a hostel? you think it sounds ridiculous? well not as ridiculous as a 300 and odd bedroom palace for a "queen" to potter around in. If we ever did get a president I'm sure he wouldn't want to live in a huge palace. The president of Ireland lives modestly, no reason why it couldn't be the same here.

I understand that perfectly Laurie, as I have a degree in history, but thanks for the patronising! I merely asked from a political perspective, if we loved being without a monarch so much, why have another? Because people must have wanted it, is the simple answer.

The Glorious Revolution did not dismantle the monarchy, it fundamentally changed it from an absolute to a constitutional monarchy.

Buy why? If the monarchy is so abhorrent, and should be dismantled, why has the opportunity not been taken in the past?

How can "we" as a society be so confident that "we" are right, when previous generations over hundreds of years have chosen not to?

You clearly don't understand it Temporary as at no point did I reference a revolution that left us without a monarchy.

Would anyone admit that if they were a member of the royal family they wouldn't feel at least a little embarrassed about their inherited extreme wealth and privilidge. I honestly don't think these people have any morals.

It's entirely relative. Do you feel embarrassed about your relative wealth and privilege when compared to those who have much less than you?

OP, you do have the most amazing ability to read what you want from posts. It's like the equivalent of posting on the internet with your fingers in your ears and saying lalalala.

First you don't want to spend money on BP.

Then you want to spend far more money converting it into something else, but have no idea how that would be funded now or going forward. But apparently that's ok because it's better than having it used as a symbol and a home for many staff and the queen to sleep in it occasionally.

Now you want to have an Irish style presidency, because apparently it's ok if we spend a huge amount of money on that, even though you have demonstrated precisely zero benefits that would come from it, because it's still cheaper than the monarchy. The monarchy that you think makes no money and no tourists despite your beloved google showing just as much evidence for that as for your own argument that it doesn't.

I'd be in favour of a referendum.

I'd tick the 'Get rid of the bloody lot of them' box

Laurie sweetheart, if your posts aren't clear, it's perhaps you who doesn't understand as much as you like to think you do...

Buy why? If the monarchy is so abhorrent, and should be dismantled, why has the opportunity not been taken in the past?

My point, NNchange is that our idea of monarchy and our approach to the leadership of this country has adjusted and changed (very significantly) over time.

The fundamental structure can and has changed. Revolution has happened. There's no convincing 'this is how it's always been' argument for keeping the monarchy in its current form. In the 17th/18th century in particular, we thrived because we had the courage to change things radically, significantly curtail the monarchy's power. That helped us in the long run.

The 21st century equivalent may be to get rid of them all together. I would argue that's what a modern thinking, grown up nation would do.

I find it embarrassing that we're not ready to do that.

I'd be in favour of a referendum.

A referendum for what, though?

Getting rid of the monarchy and replacing with an elected head of state? Political or non-political?
Disposing of the nations historical assets like Buckingham Palace?
Stepping back from the world stage and not hosting Heads of State and other foreign dignitaries in the manner that other countries do?

Because PP on this thread have expressed support for some, none and all of those things.

We need to learn our lessons from the Brexit Referendum and be very clear what exactly "abolition of the monarchy" looks like before asking "the people".

Blimey, the uncertainty about what we'd do instead would be even worse than the Brexit leave camp!

Isn't there a sue townsend book where the royal family move into a house in Coventry or something like that?