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.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

"as another product of dysfunction his replacement was hardly any better"
That's unfair and cruel as 'Bertie' had a speech impediment.

Do you normally put people down for having disabilities?

@KeflavikAirport

"And a Nazi sympathiser. Who but for an accident of fate would have led us into WW2. Great argument for the monarchy right there."

Not totally correct.
In 1743 King George II commanded the British Army against the French at Dettingen. It was the last time a reigning British monarch would personally lead troops into battle.
A figurehead monarch hasn't the power to lead the country into war any more.
That's what governments do.

Do you normally put people down for having disabilities?

Why would you assume it was because of George VI's disability that I considered him inadequate - especially when I specifically referred to the dysfunction in his background?

And no, I don't "put people down for having disabilities", probably at least partly because I have a severely disabled son myself

Time for them to go and not soon enough for me.
Far from being proud, I find them an embarrassment. Charles, Andrew etc. I still gag when I remember the transcript of the 'tampax' conversation.
All the 'anointy-nointy' stuff is ridiculous to me, but then I'm not religious either.
Personally, I can't stand the sycophantic fawning over a bunch of unbelievably pampered people who basically just got lucky a very long time ago.
I absolutely love history, architecture, churches and so on. When I go to other countries (take Italy for example) it isn't somehow less of an experience for it having no Queen.
And I don't subscribe to the view that this lot somehow embody Britain - I don't relate to them at all and I think a growing number of people are feeling the same as Charles moves into the frame.
People come to see the palaces and historic buildings in general, not the royals. The revenues that are always quoted are brought in from the physical buildings and collections, not the actual people. They cost us a fortune in security etc.
Tourism revenues would experience a huge boost if the royal palaces were actually opened up to the public. Think about the huge art collection at Buck Palace that the public never get to see. That has worldwide tourist appeal, could bring in millions if it was opened up.
My brother worked at the Tower and the Royal Armouries for decades as he's in museum work. Saw hundreds of thousands of tourists but, funnily enough, not a single royal in residence.
It all needs a rethink and now would be a good time.
Just my view.
Thank you for letting me get that of my chest!

I would like there to be a proper discussion about this once the Queen dies. She herself is popular, and has done a good job. (Regardless of whether that job should exist, the fact remains that it does for now.)

Charles has spoken about streamlining the Monarchy, which might be enough to satisfy a majority of the British people.

As has been demonstrated, a lot of people don’t like the idea of a Republic because of recent examples of Presidents, like Trump and Macron. But that’s because the role in both the US and France has become highly politicised. Presidents don’t have to be political, as can be seen in the Irish Republic and Germany. It can be a purely ceremonial role, as is the case with the Queen anyway.

Haven't RTFT because I regularly get monarchy rage, so had to get a paid subscription to republic.org.uk.

Republics bring their own challenges - which it's up to the people to resolve - but they are basically fairer. Monarchy is medieval. For some reason Brits seem to get perverse enjoyment out of being treated like peasants. Most other European countries woke up to this some time ago.
The last Italian king was a coward and fled his country dying in exile, the Spanish dude got done for corruption recently and we have a paedo in the midst of our "royal" family. Yet people still wave flags for them. It's muppetry.

Kate should not have her wedding, kids' school fees and oversized wardrobe paid for because her husband is an unelected descendant of a family that has no useful purpose and only serves itself, but somehow needs 19 taxpayer-funded residences.

For anyone genuinely interested in getting past the kneejerk BS responses of "they bring in loads of money from tourism" and "I quite like the queen", please look up Graham Smith and Republic online and on Youtube. The facts are there for all to read, and disprove.

Unless you are also an unelected parasite, what you read will make you think, and will then probably make you angry.

I'd be interested to hear MN justifications as to why it's OK for British taxpayers to be funding Prince Andrew's golfing trips, or indeed funding any trips/homes/decisions made by that person, and why it's OK for Prince Charles to take £13m out of the Duchy of Cornwall (a big business that doesn't pay tax because we're still in the Middle Ages) while also getting a sovereign grant.

Change is possible.

Well said PersimmonTree
You put it better than I could.

For some reason Brits seem to get perverse enjoyment out of being treated like peasants

Abusive relationship, isn't it ?

For some reason Brits seem to get perverse enjoyment out of being treated like peasants

And have a real race to the bottom mentality and embrace toxic nostalgia. It's backwards AF and embarrasses the fuck out of me as a Brit.

@rosy71

I think the whole Brexit fiasco should have taught us that there should be a viable alternative ready before any decisions are made. It's not so simple as to just abolish the monarchy. What would replace it and how would it work? We still need a head of state.

Not that difficult...we could go alphabetically down Nobel prize winners or award winning authors or distinguished sportspersons. It is a figurehead role to cut ribbons and for people to look up to.

I think the whole Brexit fiasco should have taught us that there should be a viable alternative ready before any decisions are made.

I wonder what else would have never happened if we had to "wait for alternatives" ? Abolition of slavery ? Female suffrage ?

That statue in Bristol would still be there in 2120, if we "waited for an agreed alternative"

Not that difficult...we could go alphabetically down Nobel prize winners or award winning authors or distinguished sportspersons. It is a figurehead role to cut ribbons and for people to look up to. One person couldn't do all of it. Who would come to our wee town and open our museum like Princess Anne did? Who would be a brilliant figurehead for our rugby team for years? These things count for people like me. And believe me I'm the least subservient and fawning person you're ever likely to meet.

There has been plenty of very current news about the royals influencing legislation: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

Anita's excellent baiting of us all aside, arguments against ending hereditary monarchy seem to be based around:
-change is scary
-we might end up with a political president
-we'd have to do lots of work to design and enact the new system
-belief that the royals bring in a lot of money that wouldn't come in if we got rid of them
-the queen is nice

@DdraigGoch

However, the point of monarchy is that you don't get to choose... Edward VIII abdicated because his prospective wife was felt to be unacceptable to the public.

And he wasn't chosen, nor his brother. It was his choice to abdicate rather than marry someone else.

@derxa

Not that difficult...we could go alphabetically down Nobel prize winners or award winning authors or distinguished sportspersons. It is a figurehead role to cut ribbons and for people to look up to. One person couldn't do all of it. Who would come to our wee town and open our museum like Princess Anne did? Who would be a brilliant figurehead for our rugby team for years? These things count for people like me. And believe me I'm the least subservient and fawning person you're ever likely to meet.

How do those things work in countries without a monarchy? Do you think no one opens museums or acts as sporting or charity figureheads in republics?

One person couldn't do all of it. Who would come to our wee town and open our museum like Princess Anne did?

I am sure, given a few minutes and some darts I could find any number of better suited people to perform such duties. Probably even more if I opened my eyes.

Only recently, I read a story, locally of 3 people who intervened at great risk of injury (and were injured) to pull a mad dog off a child it had gone for in the street. That's 3 people I'd happily honour and see recognised by the community. For example.

For me the game was up during the prorogation debacle.

The primary, most important duty of the modern monarch is to act as the ultimate protection for the people against the overreach of power. Arguably, that is the only real duty of the monarch. During the prorogation debacle, the Queen utterly failed in that duty, that one reason for being for the monarchy, and when it came to the crunch - nothing. Therefore, if it can't do the one thing it's supposed to, why have all the rest? What is the justification for the palaces, deference, wealth, protocol etc.

Now it might be that radical reform rather than abolition is what we actually need. A written constitution which would give certainty would help along with a move to a scaled down, Scandinavian type monarchy?

I'd actually be happier with a Presidency, not a Head of Government style Presidency like the US but a Head of State, low profile German/ Italian style President with clear, well defined powers. That deals with the "eurgh President Blair" objections because the role need not be high profile - how many people (without Googling) can name the German President?

The financial issue is also fairly easily dealt with, the revenues from the Crown Estate/ Duchy of Cornwall would sit in national funds without paying out the sovereign grant. We could even use those funds to start a Sovereign wealth fund like Norway's.

The royals are supposed to boost tourism but I've never been convinced they really do.

That does leave the issue of ribbon cutting and Charity I suppose but I have a feeling we'd manage.

I'm sure if we looked hard enough we could find one British person who has our best interests at heart and is a person of integrity. There is our president.

@DGRossetti

One person couldn't do all of it. Who would come to our wee town and open our museum like Princess Anne did?

I am sure, given a few minutes and some darts I could find any number of better suited people to perform such duties. Probably even more if I opened my eyes.

Only recently, I read a story, locally of 3 people who intervened at great risk of injury (and were injured) to pull a mad dog off a child it had gone for in the street. That's 3 people I'd happily honour and see recognised by the community. For example.

But they wouldn't be better suited because no one would turn out to see them.

The primary, most important duty of the modern monarch is to act as the ultimate protection for the people against the overreach of power. Arguably, that is the only real duty of the monarch. During the prorogation debacle, the Queen utterly failed in that duty, that one reason for being for the monarchy, and when it came to the crunch - nothing. Therefore, if it can't do the one thing it's supposed to, why have all the rest? What is the justification for the palaces, deference, wealth, protocol etc.

I have been a Republican all my life (long story).

Whenever I have suggested abolishing the Monarch, I have always been lectured how they are somehow imbued with this mysterious power that prevents us - unlike say Germany under Hindenburg - becoming a totalitarian regime.

Needless to say no one actually knew this, because even then, you didn't need facts to win arguments if you felt it was right.

So I wasted my time checking, just to make sure I wasn't mad, and sure enough, the Monarch has fuck all power when it comes to politics. As we have seen (if we were paying attention, I suspect not all have been) if the Monarch even changes their hairstyle, it can be contentious. Let alone defy an elected government.

So if nothing else., we now know that the Monarch is - as I maintain - a very expensive way of getting an inky scribble on vellum. A task that I would do for free, but which I am guessing there are some people who would pay good money for a shot at.

@Retrospectdiva

I'm sure if we looked hard enough we could find one British person who has our best interests at heart and is a person of integrity. There is our president.

Good luck with that. Integrity seems to be a thing of the past. I can count the number of people I know who have it on the fingers of one hand.

Definitely. One letter at a time.

But they wouldn't be better suited because no one would turn out to see them.

I'd much rather no one turned out to seem them open a museum, with many people then going on to visit the museum rather than a load of sycophants turn up to the opening and never go inside.

But, if popularity is your problem, we can still dump the royals and cycle through Love Island contestants for fete openings and the like. I am sure they'd draw more than Princess Anne anyway.