Abolishing the Monarcy.

[Helendee]

Good or bad idea and reasons for your opinion?
I don’t feel strongly either way but I am curious about what aspects of becoming a Republic are more beneficial than the UK’s stable current system.

re what happens if Charles dies before Elizabeth. It's debatable that William would inherit from Charles what Charles never possessed - the throne.

The Duke of York would arguably have a claim.

There is a fixed line of succession which is:

Charles (and assuming he has no further legitimate kids...)
Willo
Willo's kids and descendants
Harry
Harry's kids and descendants
Airmiles Andy
Andy's kids etc
Edward
Edward's kids etc
Anne (whose position was not affected by change to female succession)
Anne's kids etc
Then we get into Margaret's kids and descendants, Queen's cousins and so on.

So Andrew would have to bump off a lot of people (or convert them to Catholicism) in order to catch the crown. No doubt he's given this plenty of thought

Probably swayed by my royal loving nan but I'd like to keep. None of us really take them seriously as a power, because frankly they are not. However they bring in billions in tourism each year, at quite a minimal spend to our treasury. Each working person pays in around 65p a year to the Royal household, but they bring in billions. So I say keep them as our shop front, much like the Harrows window display to bring the punters in

That is such an ill informed post from Anita I am embarrassed for whoever posted that

Love the queen but since the whole Markle fiasco, think I’m a republican now.

Honestly, the idea that some perfectly ordinary American can assume a ‘duchess’ title and we are then expected the view her as somehow better than us? And curtesy? No.

However they bring in billions in tourism each year, at quite a minimal spend to our treasury

No they don't. The trappings of royalty do, but you can keep that very nicely without the actual royals. Look at Versailles. And minimal spend to our treasury definitely gets a from me.

What like some perfectly ordinary girl called Kate born in Reading can become HRH Duchess of Cambridge?
No different.

Absolutely fine to keep the monarchy subject to them paying for themselves. They can certainly afford it

So abolishing the monarchy would feed the poor and right all wrongs?

No one has said that. It's quite heartening to see that most of the arguments against abolishing hereditary monarchy have to invent stuff like this, though.

@KeflavikAirport

"Look at Versailles"

I've looked at it, it's beautiful. What's your issue with it?

It brings in millions of visitors a year despite not having actually had any royals in it since, ooh, about 1789.

@KeflavikAirport

'It brings in millions of visitors a year despite not having actually had any royals in it since, ooh, about 1789.'

So does the Tower of London, Stonehenge, Hadrians Wall, and The Cutty Sark - your point is?

@CountessFrog

Love the queen but since the whole Markle fiasco, think I’m a republican now.

Honestly, the idea that some perfectly ordinary American can assume a ‘duchess’ title and we are then expected the view her as somehow better than us? And curtesy? No.

How is Kate any different?

Really, I'd love to know.

@MrsTSwift

"That is such an ill informed post from Anita I am embarrassed for whoever posted that"

To which post do you refer and why do you think it 'ill-informed' ?

Another vote for abolition, although to be honest I don’t think it’s a massive priority. When the current Queen dies it should be quietly phased out.

The Monarchy has its place. I don't think it should be abolished

The curtseying is a bit shit.

I agree. Kate is no different in theory, but she is at least respectful of the idea of monarchy.

The two are miles apart, and if you can’t see that, I’m astonished.

I think there may be a middle ground between having a monarchy and being a communist country or one ruled by a dictator.

I'd say abolish. The fact that an elected government needs to seek permission from the reigning monarch (who was born into the position, not earned through merit) means that the country is not Democratic. Just because the Queen typically signs off doesn't mean it isn't an issue. What happens when a future King or Queen disagrees with the government and refuses to sign?

@AnitaB888

Oh dear, Have non of the anti-monarchists on this thread ever heard the expression 'nature abhors a vacuum'?

If monarchy ceases to be - for whatever reason - then something needs to replace it. This may not be a better deal.

The Russian Royal Family were all shot at the beginning of the October Revolution in 1917, which then installed Lenin as a leader of a communist government. If you think communism improves the rights of the 'man in the street' and makes everyone equal - forget it.
People were still starving while Lenin had a Rolls Royce ( I've seen it in the Lenin museum in Moscow).
They had pseudo-democracy with elections with only one candidate standing.
For years Communist Party Members had 'perks' right up until the USSR was disbanded.

So all of those who whinge about the privileges of the monarchy, suck it up, the alternative could be far worse.

You seem to be confused.

No one on this thread is arguing for communism.

No one has suggested that we remove the monarchy by having an armed revolution and shooting the royals .

If this is your best argument against abolishing hereditary monarchy in the UK, I feel quite positive for the republican movement.

@MooseBreath

I'd say abolish. The fact that an elected government needs to seek permission from the reigning monarch (who was born into the position, not earned through merit) means that the country is not Democratic. Just because the Queen typically signs off doesn't mean it isn't an issue. What happens when a future King or Queen disagrees with the government and refuses to sign?

We now know that can never happen. If they do - they're toast.

So the Monarch isn't even a decent head of state.

I could deliver exactly the same constitutional functions as the Monarch with a rubber stamp, and a hatstand to keep the crown on.

All else is pomp and circumstance.

I agree. Kate is no different in theory, but she is at least respectful of the idea of monarchy

The two are miles apart, and if you can’t see that, I’m astonished

Given this is a thread about abolishing the Monarchy I'm astonished you're astonished.
Let's not turn this into a Meghan hate thread, there's been enough of those these last few days.

I’d vote to keep it.

Who else would represent Britain around the globe, host state banquets and visiting dignitaries, act as patrons of 100s of charities and armed forces, host garden parties to thank those involved in charities/ public works, open schools, visit factories, hospitals, universities etc etc?

One President alone couldn’t do all those things. We’d need an army of civil servants to do the same job (probably at increased expense).

Where did I say I hated Megan?

I strongly object to the next head of MY church being an unrepentant adultery. So unrepentant that he married the woman with whom he committed adultery. Jesus said to the adulterous woman "go and sin no more". Charles obviously hasn't read that bit.