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.

But to risk meddling with it, I would need to be convinced that the change would be an improvement.

I wish education and the NHS got such light touch oversight. "Unless we are convinced that we can get better value by doing something else... let's just keep the status quo" instead of endless cuts.

How about this. Let's change nothing but just reduce the sovereign grant by some amount, and see if they cope. How's that for a start?

If you looked into the background of these 'guys' I don't think you'd find many 'men of the people' amongst them.

That's an entirely different point. None of them were born into the job.

Yep, I would be on board with that, chili.

It sounds like Brexit because it's a wild chant about how much money could be spent elsewhere without any solid facts about how much and how that money is to be replaced if you take away a big part of the uk as it is, ie EU membership or the monarchy. People like the OP are just banging the same drum without any rhythm or musical ability.

We tried to get rid of the Royals before and it didn't work.

We aren't going to have a republic here ever, I'm pretty sure. A slimmed down monarchy maybe.

I suggest that if certain people hate the way our country is run with Royalty, they move elsewhere to a republic .

And if you are so altruistic that you want to help 'the poor' spend time doing some charity work instead of wasting your time ranting as an anon person on a forum.

We tried to get rid of the Royals before and it didn't work

Only because Cromwell fucked it up. Banning Christmas, fun and all that.

I suggest that if certain people hate the way our country is run with Royalty, they move elsewhere to a republic

Ticks another thing off Bingo card.

Don't like it. Move.

It's a fair point though. There are loads of other nice places with no monarchy and a brilliant free healthcare and educational system and no homeless people, where all the historical buildings are lived in for free by the needy.

Aren't there?

I suspect we will still have the Monarchy because there's no appetite for change and there are people who still like seeing them in the media, looking at their pictures, waving to them on the balcony and saying how cute they are.

They offer escapism. They are celebrities. Democracy takes second thoughts to the adoration some people and the sycophantic media have for them.

Hopefully Charles will piss people off enough when he starts interfering - and people ask why an unelected, over privileged member of the Establishment is interfering.

I wouldn't push it too much, queenie needs lots of us mugs here to work hard and pay tax for the palace and everything else. She wouldn't thank you for sending us off to some far flung republic.

I suspect she'd happily pay the air fare for some whining people!

The thing is - I like living in my country.

I just have a massive issue with an unelected Head of State, a second chamber with people there by birthright, an unaccountable Monarchy which can't be discussed in Parliament. a State Religion, an established church - where the Head of State is also the Head of the State Religion and a National Anthem which asks God to Save the Queen.

If people complain about such things, they get told they are unpatriotic, whining and told to go somewhere else.

Like I said, King Charles will be interesting.

(The Queen) applied for a heating grant from the old folks heating fund

I was just about to write that I hoped you were joking, but I googled instead and apparently this is in essence true

Dear god ...

But ego, those very things are part of the fabric of the country that you like! They have helped to shape its culture, its history, everything about it. You might not like them, but how can you prove that taking them away would make things any better? Just one example: America doesn't have a monarchy to "support" and they don't have the same number of historical buildings to support. But they don't pour that money into healthcare and provide amazing free medical treatment for all, do they? They have a fair few homeless and needy people too, and look at how much it costs to get a college education there. Not having a monarchy ain't going to solve any of those problems here either!

In terms of things like the queen applying for heating or what she pays her staff, I wonder how involved she actually is with those decisions, and how many are done for her by her staff. I have no idea, but when you say "the queen", do you mean "the queen", or do you mean "someone employed by the queen"?

The queen is in no position to be upset with people who object to her.People have a right to object to them. How pathetic to call it whining. If there is any whining being done it's her and her family constantly whining for more.
Her greedy son Andrew was whining only the other week to get his two daughters on the great big gravy train.

But ego, those very things are part of the fabric of the country that you like

Lots of things have been part of the fabric of this country. I bet that people made the argument about slavery, not having women's rights, unions etc etc.

Do you think NOTHING should ever change in any country? Should no country ever change things that have been part of the fabric for ages?

Or should a country just stay still and not change?

It's got nothing to do with the poor and homeless. That's a weird argument and irrelevant.

It's got everything to do with meritocracy. Equality of opportunity.

You might not like them, but how can you prove that taking them away would make things any better

It would make this country just a little bit more equal. Not a lot. But we wouldn't have the notion that 1 family get to 'rule' over us because of birthright.

I think that's a good thing.

Erm no, the OP keeps bleating on about the homeless and destitute, and how they should be given rooms in Buckingham Palace because they are so much more deserving than the queen, who only pushes a pen around a piece of paper.

I don't think comparing the modern day monarchy to slavery is a sensible comparison. I don't think any of the suggestions that have been made would make me comfortable to ditch it. Better suggestions, and I am all ears. What has been put forward so far makes me think we would be at real risk of damaging the brand that makes us a tourist destination. The OP may think people would pay the same amount to gawp at a decaying property that they wouldn't be allowed in eventually because of health and safety, or to see a hospital full of patients, but I disagree.

Fine, but where are the worldwide examples that it works so much better and more fairly without a monarchy? I'm just not seeing anywhere that is so much better than Britain with a monarchy, sorry. Canada, possibly. But we simply don't have the natural resources that Canada has to attract visitors and tourists. And we won't have the historical ones if we don't spend the money on them, which is precisely what the OP doesn't want to do, and this thread does yet another circle!

I don't think comparing the modern day monarchy to slavery is a sensible comparison

Why not? Slavery was something that this country had. We got rid of it - but I bet there were lots of people complaining.

Same for other radical changes. Eventually people realised that the system was outdated.

Eventually, people will realise that about the Monarchy. They will be a historic, irrelevant relic. In many years time, children at school will wonder with amazement that the Head of State was not picked by a vote but because of birthright. They will be stunned that the anthem asked God to save the Queen. They will be amazed that we had a State religion. That the media fawned over these people.

I don't know how many years in the future that will be - but it will happen. The Royal Family are subject to more and more media observation now and can easily fuck things up. More scrutiny. It nearly happened after Diana died.

Future generations will be amazed at how such a family came to be the one family out of 60 million people who had such power.

Fine, but where are the worldwide examples that it works so much better and more fairly without a monarchy

Works better. It has an elected Head of State. That's better than an unelected one. Purely because it's equal.

Should someone have 'the top job' purely because of birthright?

Or should MERIT and being the best person to do the job be the right way to do it?

In terms of things like the queen applying for heating or what she pays her

staff, I wonder how involved she actually is with those decisions, and how many are done for her by her staff
So somethings been said that puts the queen in a bad light but rather than accept it and say nothing, because it's indefensible, you actually imply that that could have been done by one of her staff? You must know yourself that that wouldn't happen. As if one of her staff would take it on themselves to apply for that without the queens knowledge. How could you seriously suggest that.

She actually had to have it explained to her the reasons why she couldn't have it and that it was in a fund for poor pensioners. Oh what a charitable person she is.

Temp most on here agree with me but you keep going on about me in particular, are you blind to other posters who say the same, and yes we are going round in a circle, mainly because of you, blindly defending the royals no matter what is said.

Also I have no objection to historical buildings in general being maintained, I was talking about BP and the cost of it.There are far more important buildings than that, so please don't make statements saying I've said something I haven't.