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.

That's just worked out really well for America. Long live Queen Melania!

But seriously, if you can put forward a good argument as to how it would work and how it would be better for the economy and the nation's pride in itself that what we have, go ahead - nobody has yet.

But seriously, if you can put forward a good argument as to how it would work and how it would be better for the economy and the nation's pride in itself that what we have, go ahead - nobody has yet.

Several people have. That's what a lot of posts on this thread have been about (I answered your question of coming up with an alternative directly, which addressed the public cost). There are many ideas out there. The republican website has some.

Long live Queen Melania!

is that her new title? did she get that by birth? does she have an official role? Will she be there forever? Noes all round.

But what if she models a few dresses and supposedly generates a huge amount of wealth? Should americans keep her then?

For me, they are not convincing arguments, sorry. You put forward things that work in other countries, sure, but zero detailed analysis on HOW they could replace what we have here and how EFFECTIVE it would be. You simply listed what other countries do. That's too much of a gamble for me. I don't dislike what we have enough to want to risk it.

Now you want to have an Irish style presidency, because apparently it's ok if we spend a huge amount of money on that

What did you expect I'd suggest. If I don't believe we should have a monachy then of course I'm going to suggest something like that. I can't understand why you'd even mention my suggestion. I've mentioned the Irish presidency purposely to alleviate thoughts that a presidency would have to run on the same limes as in America.

also mentioned it's comparatively cheaper to run than have a monachy, so why say, "it's ok if we spend a huge amount of money on that"? I've just said it would be cheaper so I don't understand what you mean.

Many people have given reasons on here why they think having a monachy is wrong, but you say you haven't read one convincing argument. Well that's so easy to say if you are determined not to be convinced.

So apart from the "tourism" thing have you got any convincing argument as to why we should have an unelected person as head of state. If all you can come up with is the unproven "tourists" and "heritage and tradition" I'll not be convinced in the slightest.

So apart from the "tourism" thing have you got any convincing argument as to why we should have an unelected person as head of state. Yes I don't want yet another nondescript political trougher joining the gravy train. No one has given the name of a respectable candidate either.

your comment implied that they were critical for Britain to get through the war

I'm going to give up after this post because you don;t seem to want a discussion just to say what you think repeatedly.

My post started with:

There hasn't been a major debate on the abolition of the monarchy for several hundred years because...

It was solely addressing the question someone posed earlier about why the question of a republic has not been debated publicly before. I also said they "helped" steer the nation during the war (I don't think you'll find many people around at the time who would disagree!).

Now you can try to turn my post that into a monarchist rant about how we always have to pay for royal family for ever and ever amen if you chose, but I know what I wrote and it wasn't that and it makes you look a bit unhinged. I wasn't even close to saying we should have a monarchy - I previously stated that I didn't much care either way in fact but I'm rapidly warming to the monarchists position if I get browbeaten by the republicans for even pointing out the facts of why we haven't debated a Republic since the war.

Well no. Because I am not necessarily saying we should have the monarchy. I am saying, it works after a fashion at the moment. If you want to Because the one thing everyone can agree on is that we don't want a change for the worst. You've failed dismally so far at providing any sort of proof. All you have done is to whine about someone else's privilege and to dismiss people who like the monarchy as flag-waving idiots, and to throw out increasingly wild suggestions without any valid assessment of how they could be made to work in practice or to persuade the public to go for them.

If you are against paying money for this sort of role, and want a humanitarian future for the historical buildings of Britain, it's daft to say that it would be OK to have a presidency even if it is expensive, so long as it's cheaper than the monarchy. That was the point.

I don;t think the relative costs of Republic vs Monarchy is relevant.

In practice they probably aren't much different because unlike USA or Ireland or Holland etc we have many more historic buildings which need upkeep (or selling if you prefer) than they do.

Surely its a matter of principle - you either believe that a republic is better or you don't. You aren't surely that you prefer it because it's cheaper so if someone can catagorically prove it isn't cheaper then you'll say "OK then, monarchy it is"

Yes I don't want yet another nondescript political trougher joining the gravy train. No one has given the name of a respectable candidate either.
Well if you can imagine that we'd never had a Royal family and the time had come to elect a president, would anyone vote for Charles? probably not, but you're going to more than likely get him as head of state.What a farce.

I tend to view the monarchy as a part of living history. Installation art if you like.

Pragmatically they make little differnce and they cost little in the grand scheme of the nations finances.

I see the argument that a hereditary monarchy isn't "fair" - but just can't get myself worked up about it because as temporaryname says it works after a fashion at the moment and I don;t trust anyone in public life at the oment (in just about any country in the world it seems!) to make a competent job of changing it.

Personally I think change will come naturally with William who will scale down the Monarchy and if not I think public appetite for change then will probably be greater and parliament will probably tighten it up if he doesn;t.

Charles unlikely to "rule" for long and so will probably be irrelevant.

If we abolish the monarchy then the PRime minister should be head of state and will increase the costs of government. It's the most sensible approach.

It works out at £1.34 per working person per year for 10 years. It is funny, most people complaining the most probably pay minimal tax due to being on low salarys so are most likely only contributing pence per year.

Also these buildings will cost money no matter what unless we want to privately sell them. Maybe we could turn them into some nice posh apartments?

In comparison every worker on average contributes ~£3900 per year towards the old age pension. Why not means test that? It will save you a lot more than not repairing some old buildings that the queen has use of occasionally.

It is funny, most people complaining the most probably pay minimal tax due to being on low salarys so are most likely only contributing pence per year.

Where's your evidence for that? I'd say it's the other way round. I, for one, pay tonnes of tax, thanks very much.

That's too much of a gamble for me. I don't dislike what we have enough to want to risk it.

I think that's entirely fair enough Temporary. I get that maintaining the status quo is important to many people and I see that they provide a form of stability.

Well if you can imagine that we'd never had a Royal family and the time had come to elect a president, would anyone vote for Charles? If we'd never had a Royal family then Charles wouldn't have existed at all. However when I think of the actual good he does, we could probably do worse. Dumfries House for instance is an example of a project which provides employment in a deprived area.
There will always be people at the top of the heap. It's the way of the world. Give me an example of a truly egalitarian society with no 'elite'.

Yes it's obscene, of course. That accommodation is mostly empty and could house a considerable amount of homeless people in need of just one home. Greedy, useless, outdated monarchy should be evicted forthwith, viva la revolution!

Of course it works "after a fashion" it's getting millions thrown at it every year. It's an unessesary expense and a burden on a country that can't feed its own people. I find it obscene that so many are going hungry and homeless while the government turns a blind eye while throwing fortunes at this one particular family. If I was the queen I wouldn't be able to sleep at night while so many of her "subjects" cannot have their basic daily needs met.

She's so greedy that she actually had the cheek to apply for a heating grant from the fund that was set up for the old and needy. She actually had to be told that it wouldn't look good to receive any of this money and was rightfully refused. This from a woman with an estimated personal fortune of £ 365 million.

- I previously stated that I didn't much care either way in fact but I'm rapidly warming to the monarchists position if I get browbeaten by the republicans for even pointing out the facts of why we haven't debated a Republic since the war.

i didn't know your comment was in response to that.

Yes I don't want yet another nondescript political trougher joining the gravy train.

but you are happy for the RF to be on it?

Dumfries House for instance is an example of a project which provides employment in a deprived area.

what if we just gave those people part of the sovereign grant?

There will always be people at the top of the heap. It's the way of the world. Give me an example of a truly egalitarian society with no 'elite'.

indeed. but we don't hand over a huge amount of state money over to the other wealthy people.

In comparison every worker on average contributes ~£3900 per year towards the old age pension. Why not means test that? It will save you a lot more than not repairing some old buildings that the queen has use of occasionally.

that's the point. Public finances are so stretched we are talking about doing that. there are good arguments for and against, but there is a debate about how best to spend public money.

If I was the queen I wouldn't be able to sleep at night while so many of her "subjects" cannot have their basic daily needs met.

At what point is your cut off? I'm wealthy in comparison to the young man who I gave £ to at Waterloo this morning - he'd slept there all night when for the cost of my train ticket he could have slept in a warm hotel room and had a good breakfast, yet I'm much less well off than most of the population (and MNers). (Our household is in the bottom 30% of income).

I don't "lose sleep" over people who have less than me - and wouldn't want others to lose sleep for having more than me, either!

what if we just gave those people part of the sovereign grant? So they could do what?
indeed. but we don't hand over a huge amount of state money over to the other wealthy people. I beg to differ. Huge salaries go to all sorts of public servants

well I do feel guilty when I see the homeless in shop doorways and I like to give them something, so if I feel like that I can't imagine how I'd feel if was in a 300 bedroom palace while just down the road people were cold and hungry. I wouldn't sleep at night, but perhaps that'sjust me, (and probably many others like me) the queen probably doesn't care.

So they could do what?

anything. You seem to think it's a good idea to help people out in deprived areas. Why first give it to the RF and let them skim 90% off the top, and they then help people in deprived, when the government could just do that directly?

I beg to differ. Huge salaries go to all sorts of public servants

we give people salaries similar to what we give to the RF for doing as little? Who? Of course, if we are doing as you say, we should think twice about it and whether we are getting value for money.

we give people salaries similar to what we give to the RF for doing as little? Who?
This one for a start.
www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/southport-hospitals-150k-chief-executive-12075945

Huge salaries go to all sorts of public servants

Who interview, prove their qualifications, compete with others for that job they do. Plus will be under ongoing performance management.

Not quite the same for the queen, is it?