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.

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.

Nice try. I'll give you chutzpah. You clearly haven't the faintest clue what i'm on about.

Here's a starting point ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

I've read with interest.

Caveat: I don't much care whether we have a royal family or not

1 - It's no good pretending that we know that tourists come because of the royal family or because of our historical buildings/Downton Abbey because we don't know. The reality is probably a mixture of the two.
2 - you can't compare to Ireland they have less than a tenth of the population and a completely different position on the world stage (eg G7 membership, commonwealth etc)
3 - I think the Queen does a good job at an age where anyone else would have liked to have retired. Griping that because she's privileged and doesn't clean floors or work down a mine is childish. I'm an accountant and all I do is read stuff and sign stuff and add stuff up - it isn't hard. I'm still rather hoping I'll be doing what I please at 90 not still adding stuff up.
4 - I understand you don't think BP should exist or have any money spent on it but I'm not sure why you think in the absence of the RF that any government would let an expensive national asset decay. The money would still be spent.
5 - your argument would be clearer if you weren't conflating spending money on the upkeep of BP with abolishing the monarchy.

Wikipedia? Really? Bless your little cottons.

I don't think you understand as much as you think you do! You certainly don't seem to understand the one simple question that was asked: When there was a clear opportunity not to have a monarch, why did we just re-jig it and have another one?

See my response to NNchange

There hasn't been a major debate on the abolition of the monarchy for several hundred years because it would actually make very little difference to people practically and although I agree that for many people the idea of an inherited monarchy isn;t ideal, the powers of the monarch are so limited that it's hard for most people to get too worked up about it.

We have been lucky to have had a stable monarchy for a number of years who have helped steer the country through the last world war and for many people still alive that was the time they stepped up to the plate and showed their worth.

If future monarchs do little of obvious public benefit then I think it will be discussed agin maybe even in my lifetime.

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".

I'd have a referendum on only the monarchy.

Brexit is a very different beast, so it shouldn't colour all coming referenda.

Britain exiting the EU is historically unprecedented (or at least rare). Thousands of pages of complicated treaties need to be revisited to reverse the tight integration of nations. It's a complicated unknown abyss. In contrast, we've seen other european countries scale back the role of their monarchies. It certainly won't be as 5 mins of typex to paper, but it's been done many times and been done recently.

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.

In a civilised, democratic way?

Previous changes to the structure have come about through a breakdown in society - not a reasoned debate about the strengths and weaknesses of each model.

We have been lucky to have had a stable monarchy for a number of years who have helped steer the country through the last world war and for many people still alive that was the time they stepped up to the plate and showed their worth.

I wonder how america got through it without a monarch lighting the path.

In contrast, we've seen other european countries scale back the role of their monarchies.

How integrated into the cultural identity of each Country, and others, were those monarchies?

Our Monarchy founded and led an international Empire - the largest in the world. Our history is intertwined with over 20% of the rest of the world. A lot of people have a stake.

When there was a clear opportunity not to have a monarch, why did we just re-jig it and have another one?

There wasn't sufficient political will to do it then? Monarchies were much more common and accepted back then? There are a lot of reasons. I don't understand why that means now is not a good time to question having it, and possibly getting rid of it.

A lot of people have a stake.

Oh, people do have a stake, starting with the monarch and her family. But I imagine other countries couldn't care less, and if they do care to keep the monarchy, well get them to pay for it.

It might be, chili, IF there were an attractive and reasonable alternative. But what would that be?

In a civilised, democratic way? Previous changes to the structure have come about through a breakdown in society - not a reasoned debate about the strengths and weaknesses of each model.

I agree with you that the mechanics of doing it aren't clear. I just wish there was more of a debate about it.

It might be, chili, IF there were an attractive and reasonable alternative. But what would that be?

Depends on who you ask, but if you ask me (and you did), absolutely anything else.

How about the Danish model (scaled back monarchy), or a republic (french, irish, american) or the Canadian model (the GG is the de facto head of state). The Canadian model is in some sense a cheap version of what the UK has: a relatively powerless head of state, who entertains and makes state visits at a fraction of the cost.

I imagine other countries couldn't care less

Psychologically, and politically, it's a huge risk. One nation (us) deciding that the Governance structure that molded and established modern society in another country is no longer relevant.

There is emotional investment in the monarchy by many nations - 'we' have to accept that as part of the consequence of our ancestors establishing the Empire. We can't just say "well, we wouldn't have done it, so we don't have any responsibility for that".

I agree with you that the mechanics of doing it aren't clear.

often trotted out to shut down debate. But, in fact, we have seen many deep changes to government, and it can be done. There were significant changes to the House of Lords under Blair. That couldn't have been that clear, right?

chilli Isn't the Queen the Head of State in Canada?

They'd need to be consulted and take part in any referendum (as would all the other Commonwealth nations) before we could "do away" with the Monarchy!

Psychologically, and politically, it's a huge risk. One nation (us) deciding that the Governance structure that molded and established modern society in another country is no longer relevant.

I think you are really overstating how much people in other countries care about the monarchy, and additionally how much we should care what other countries think about the monarchy. I've lived in at least one of these countries (I am an American living in Britain, but spent some years in Canada). I am willing to bet big money Canada won't descend into anarchy and get through it just fine.

I'm not actually disagreeing with you chilipepper, if you read my posts.

Can't imagine the commonwealth giving a damn tbh.

They'd need to be consulted and take part in any referendum (as would all the other Commonwealth nations) before we could "do away" with the Monarchy!

And which one of our laws says this must happen?

I'm not actually disagreeing with you chilipepper

I know, just making the point.

@ NNchange: yes, the queen is head of state of Canada. That's why I said the GG is the de facto head of state. Most, if not all, head of state duties are done by the GG.

Other countries will be adversely affected by leaving the 'Empire'. That made me chuckle.

The biggest draw for tourists is the British museum. People fly all the way to London mainly to visit the British Museum? I don't think so.