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.

[quote Roussette]This made me laugh.

WARNING... do not click on this if you are a rampant royalist. You will really really not like it.

'A life of public service'

twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1362800464308408329[/quote]

Sums up pretty much all of the arguments for abolition made on this thread.

The wind farm rights are interesting. Apparently it was the queen herself who raised the question of under sea rights for the Crown Estate way back in the 60's.

I'm quite sure the fact it happened at the same time oil exploration was ramping up was entirely coincidental...

Putting it all on display and charging to see it

Why should we have to pay to see something we have paid for many times over - sometimes in blood ?

@DGRossetti

Putting it all on display and charging to see it

Why should we have to pay to see something we have paid for many times over - sometimes in blood ?

I don’t know about you but I haven’t paid a penny for it. Not one. I imagine a large percentage of it was gifts.

I don’t know about you but I haven’t paid a penny for it. Not one. I imagine a large percentage of it was gifts.

We'll forget about your ancestors that died empire building then.

Really, the last word on looted lolly goes to James Acaster. A sublime summing up which - like all humour - contains more truth than truth does humour.

@CathyorClaire

I'm wondering if Andrew's still retaining his £1K an hour extradition expert.

As for turned down honours I read somewhere BP has a policy of asking potential recipients whether they'll accept them in advance so unless said potential recipients go public with the turning down we'll never know.

There's an interesting list on Wikipedia. Ken Loach just about summed it up when rejecting his "honour" :"I turned it down because it's not a club you want to join when you look at the villians who've got it".

There's an interesting list on Wikipedia. Ken Loach just about summed it up when rejecting his "honour" :"I turned it down because it's not a club you want to join when you look at the villians who've got it"

Quite. And that's before "Sir" Jimmy Savile took a bow.

It's rather heartening to see David Bowie and Stephen Hawking on the 'no' bench.

“It's rather heartening to see David Bowie and Stephen Hawking on the 'no' bench.”

Bowie has a history of shagging underage girls that would put Prince Andrew to shame.

Better singer tho, granted.

The ones who want them can pay for them

Plenty of republics have orders of merit and people reject and accept them for reasons that have nothing to do with monarchy.

Bowie has a history of shagging underage girls that would put Prince Andrew to shame.

True. But we're meant to excuse it as a different time because it's Bowie.

You do know David Bowie is dead? He died five years ago. Not sure why you are talking like he is alive.

We’re talking about David Bowie now? Have the republicans got bored?

@VinylDetective

We’re talking about David Bowie now? Have the republicans got bored?

Yes, because the level of argument from the imperialists on here is pitiful. Can we please have some facts and your reasoned explanation of why perpetuating the British monarchy with its scope for abuse of power is a good thing?

What “scope for abuse of power”? The monarchy has no power, that’s been the basis for numerous arguments that it’s pointless.

@LApprentiSorcier

It's ridiculous that the Royals own/have access to so much wealth and property, when people over whom they reign are homeless and going hungry.

Absolutely this.

@VinylDetective.Did you miss the one about Boris proroguing Parliament?

If you're handed £££ million per year and have 19 houses and your entire family is bankrolled by the taxpayer you have unfair power.

[quote PersimmonTree]@VinylDetective.Did you miss the one about Boris proroguing Parliament?

If you're handed £££ million per year and have 19 houses and your entire family is bankrolled by the taxpayer you have unfair power. [/quote]
No, I didn’t miss that. That was the ultimate illustration of the lack of power; she had to do as she was told.

How does being funded by the taxpayer give you power? That’s like saying someone on universal credit has power.

Exactly. She does what she is told by a govt that is corrupt and makes decisions subsequently found to be unlawful by the Supreme Court. Abuse of power by the govt. Republics with presidents in a referee capacity have the power to put a stop to that.

Your comment equating the benefits claimants with the Windsors is just ridiculous. We are not expected to doff our hats to the unemployed as pillars of society. And they do not automatically qualify at birth for a life funded by the public purse.

You still haven't answered my question, nor can you.

@PersimmonTree

Exactly. She does what she is told by a govt that is corrupt and makes decisions subsequently found to be unlawful by the Supreme Court. Abuse of power by the govt. Republics with presidents in a referee capacity have the power to put a stop to that.

Your comment equating the benefits claimants with the Windsors is just ridiculous. We are not expected to doff our hats to the unemployed as pillars of society. And they do not automatically qualify at birth for a life funded by the public purse.

You still haven't answered my question, nor can you.

For goodness sake stick to the point. The logical conclusion from your illogical assertion that taxpayer funding confers power is that it also confers it on benefit claimants - introducing hat doffing is a red herring. It’s your assertion that’s ridiculous.

Abuse of power by a corrupt government is neither here nor there in this debate, other than to illustrate that the monarch has no power whatsoever.

You’re also making quite groundless assumptions about the nature of a republic should we have one. A non political president is as likely to be in the government’s pocket as the Queen.

Word salad.

Why won't you answer my question?

This question?

Can we please have some facts and your reasoned explanation of why perpetuating the British monarchy with its scope for abuse of power is a good thing?

Since we’ve established that the monarchy has no power to abuse, I think it’s answered, don’t you?

You've provided no answers at all.

The scope for abuse of power comes from the fact that a) nobody can remove these people from their position, as things stand b) nobody voted for them so they're inherently undemocratic in what purports to be a democracy and c) there is nothing to stop the PM of the day from acting in his or her own party interests instead of the nation d) if the monarch and her family commit crimes they can evade investigation, whereas you or I would be quite rightly thrown in jail and stripped of all privileges.

Why is the continuation of that situation a good thing?

Of course the monarchy have power. The amount of land they own is power. The Queen was able to influence policy and keep her tax affairs under wraps, because she has power.

The Queen is a master at keeping her own feelings and thoughts mainly to herself, which is where other royals have fallen. We can project our own feelings into the Queen, a perfect blank canvas for us all, unlike some moaning royals; e.g. Charles and Harry, who in their preaching from up above, give us something to dislike in the Monarchy.

We can imagine the Queen only holidays in beautiful but cold Scotland, and we don't know she drives a Hummer around her estate (or did drive). Her 'frugal' haha image was perfect in making us feel she doesn't enjoy her wealth too much. Never complain, never explain. Duty above all else is what she projects.

Sorry for rant. Not sure where it's going.

I would abolish it. In this day and age we should not be bowing and scraping to anyone, especially royalty who cannot behave. They are no better than anyone else and have inflated opinions of themselves because that’s how they are brought up. Kings and Queens, Princes and Princesses belong in storybooks and fairytales.

TBF there's probably not much actual power that's open to them to abuse without provoking a political storm at least not overtly but that's not to say the potential isn't there in the form of the sole prerogative.

Abuse of position is a different matter.

See the Duchies and the scope for creative accounting they offer as a start. Charles rents Highgrove from The Duchy of Cornwall which means the money gets recycled back into his pocket as income. He sold his own trees grown on Duchy land back to the Duchy with much the same result. He and the queen hoover up intestate estates and decide what happens to the funds from their sale. Any other intestate estate reverts to the government for the benefit of the taxpayer.

We can then move on to Andrew and his refusal to cooperate with enquiries into criminal activities depite his declaration on nationwide TV that he was willing to offer his help. He's chosen to hide behind mummy's skirts in the lap of luxury instead and no-one can hoik him out.

William and his date night helicopter ride? I can imagine the answer if any of his fellow officers had asked.

The hidden extent of meddling in legislation recently revealed.

Pretty much all of this has been referenced on this thread. No-one has come up with a convincing argument as to why the status quo is preferable.