To think the royal family are a bloody embarrassment

[MariaAngustias]

Just that - why are we paying for this bunch when we could be spending the money on essential services? Let the Queen continue then after her just get rid of the whole bloody lot of them. We have and alleged paedo, a whinging multi millionaire in his 30's moaning constantly, an allegedly corrupt heir to the throne meeting dodgy russians for money....... just go, enough. Seriously - this is all Jeremy Kyle for poshos.

@girlmom21

We don't pay for them, realistically. They bring in more money in tourism etc than they'll ever cost us.

This argument doesn't hold. We'd make far more money from tourism if the royal palaces were open to tourists. People pay to visit Versailles etc. And no the royals don't really own those palaces. They didn't build or pay for them from their own private income, they have no moral right to them. Almost all crown assets should go back to the state when we finally get rid of this weird antiquated system.

The Louvre museum is an excellent example of what can be done in and around old redundant palaces...

@99victoria

I don't understand how you can spare the energy to be embarrassed by the Royal Family when we have VOTED IN Boris Johnson as our PM!

There's truth in that, for sure, but when enough people have come to their senses, Boris Johnson can be voted out again.

Even if Andrew Too-Many-Names is found liable to pay compensation to Virginia Giuffre, what would happen to his title and all the other old shite that goes with it? Would the government or parliament be allowed to strip him of it or anything?

He'd just keep a very profile while continuing to live a life of idleness and luxury imo.

The RF are really no different from the shite Sleb Island/Jungle/House/Shores business, really.

Historically, there were more murders, disappearings, affairs, illegitmate children, theft and the occasional ecumenical matter to break up the monotony, though.

What modern offering do we have exactly for tourists to flock to this country?

When we have friends and family visiting us in London, they want to see:

Big Ben
London Eye
British Museum
All the museums!
Southbank
A theatre show
The Globe
Greenwich
Kew Gardens

etc
etc
etc

No one has ever been bothered to go to Buckingham Palace. I understand lots of people do go but it's not like there's nothing else for people to do here, or that they wouldn't still want to go if we didn't have a proper monarch anymore.

I'd actually like the so-called Commonwealth countries to dispense of the Queen as their head of state. It's archaic and rather colonial.

Well said!

The stability of monarchy is partly what gives the pound it's strength. Our economy and them are entwined.

This is just bollocks. One of the daftest things I’ve ever seen. We had a Queen in 1992 when Sterling lost nearly a fifth of its value, and again in 2017.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-4109490/amp/Sterling-worse-state-1992-Black-Wednesday.html

If Monarchists stopped trying to argue this nonsense, and just admitted that they like to tug the forelock at their ‘betters’, then I’d have more respect for them.

Most people's embarrassing relatives don't live lives of ridiculous luxury being paid for from public funds

They don't have the influence to skew state affirs in their own favour either ... and to gain exemption from the F0I Act in order to hide what they've done

Randy Andy is pretty tame compared to his great uncle Prince George Duke of Kent the sex-addicted cokehead. And his great-great grandfather Dirty Bertie was taken to court and got off by perjuring himself in the Baccara Scandal of the 1890s, so maybe that's his plan?

I feel for the Queen ,She has given decades of faultless public service and has been rewarded by constant whinging by PH and MM. Unpleasant allegations towards PA, and the loss of her much loved husband all at once! That said I would welcome a trimmed down monarchy when PC takes over . He has said he would favour Windsor Castle over Buck House ,and PW and Kate are seemingly keen also on a move to the west as well .

Trump held power for 4 years before he could be voted out, which he was thankfully. But still 4 years to wait and vote him out.

Only 4 years but the damage he has done will take a very long time to sort out. If anyone thinks they got rid of Trump, look at the current Republican GOP. Add to that what he did to the Supreme Court. Look at what is happening with HR 1, and with Texas’ new abortion laws. These are all a result of Trump and the resulting Trumpism and will change the face of the US for decades to come. “Just vote them out” is meaningless.

I’m very much a supporter of Her Majesty but recent events such as Andrew, Honors for sale, and Harry the loose cannon have me struggling with my thoughts regarding The Monarchy.

We really do need a clean slate and I think to jump a few chapters and start again with William and Kate would be a good new order of things.

@DismantledKing

Dismantled king but you still have to wait for that opportunity. Trump held power for 4 years before he could be voted out, which he was thankfully. But still 4 years to wait and vote him out.

Imagine Hitler was in power for "just 4 years" he managed to do enough damage with 1933 - 1945. When he expected to be in power for ever. Had he knowingly only had 4 years I'm sure he would have sped up some of his deplorable, savage and inhumane plans.

If you argument against an elected head of state is ‘look at Trump and Hitler!’, then it’s a rubbish one. The vast majority of countries manage.

Dismantled king no that's the argument about how a monarch safeguards against crazy people.

The alternative is wishy washy do nothing president's like France. Do you want Macron the indecisive wet flannel. Thing is president's tend to be one or the other don't they, crazy or very center ground with not much change to the state of play. Nothing amazing happens and nothing bad happens. The people of that nation just go through the motions.

Republics also depend heavily on party funding and take America with the NRA the only reason gun controls can't be brought in because they are a major political party funder so the republicans side step that issue and block it at every opportunity, meaning a democratic party can't ever pass anything, they won't use presidential decree because then they step on to the "power mad president side of the line"

Republics just seem a minefield of money, keeping funders happy and no major change.

@VladmirsPoutine

I'd actually like the so-called Commonwealth countries to dispense of the Queen as their head of state. It's archaic and rather colonial.

Nothing so-called about the Commonwealth of Nations, most of whose members are republics.

You're thinking of the Realms, around twenty of them, most of which are likely to ditch Charlie when the time comes, although probably not Canada or NZ.

@KarenofSparta

The Louvre museum is an excellent example of what can be done in and around old redundant palaces...

And have you ever seen the amount of stuff in the Royal Collections, most of which no-one ever sees?

Imagine if more of it could be on display, instead of locked away somewhere.

They bring in more money in tourism etc than they'll ever cost us

This is trotted out every time on these threads but there's never a link to hard stats substantiating it.

I like the royals as a rule and I think it must be very hard to live in that family. It is mainly not a choice.
However Prince Andrew is an embarrassment and a liar and Princess Michael of Kent an even bigger embarrassment. She's a racist snob. I'd hate to be her children.

I'd actually like the so-called Commonwealth countries to dispense of the Queen as their head of state. It's archaic and rather colonial

I doubt they'd do this with the Queen, but considering they were so lukewarm about having Charles that she had to ask them to give him the job, there's no saying they won't do it with him - especially if he keeps telling them how simply ghastly everything is these days and how they should be living their lives

Royal by an accident of birth. Not in the public eye for outstanding talents (except Princess Anne) or their intelligence. They get called Highness and we are expected to bow or curtsy to them. They are not higher than us in any way. They waste a fortune in money. Let the whole family live modestly and be part of the real world.

What modern offering do we have exactly for tourists to flock to this country?

As someone with a huge extended family of ‘tourists’ as well as being someone who considers herself a tourist when she comes to the UK - never underestimate the appeal of London and that includes anything Royal.

Again, why is the only alternative a US style presidency?

Angela Merkel is standing right there. Somehow managing to be a popular and effective leader without a monarch in place.

@BoredZelda

Trump held power for 4 years before he could be voted out, which he was thankfully. But still 4 years to wait and vote him out.

Only 4 years but the damage he has done will take a very long time to sort out. If anyone thinks they got rid of Trump, look at the current Republican GOP. Add to that what he did to the Supreme Court. Look at what is happening with HR 1, and with Texas’ new abortion laws. These are all a result of Trump and the resulting Trumpism and will change the face of the US for decades to come. “Just vote them out” is meaningless.

An elected head of state in the UK wouldn't necessarily have to have political power. The Queen has no political power. There are various routes we could take. We could simply make our Prime Minister Head of State, which would really just be adding a title and ceremonial function to the existing role - it wouldn't give the PM any greater power.

Or, we could elect a purely ceremonial figure - nominations from the public could be used to produce a shortlist.

The alternative is wishy washy do nothing president's like France. Do you want Macron the indecisive wet flannel.

That's not a valid comparison. The president de la republique has executive powers, quite similar to a British PM. A better comparison would be the ceremonial presidents in countries like Ireland, who perform functions quite similar to those of the queen/king in a constitutional monarchy.

I think the only way forward for the royals is to slim down the monarchy so that it more closely resembles a ceremonial head of state, cutting out all the expensive and potentially embarrassing hangers on. That is supposedly Charles' plan.

JeffGoldblumsGlasses

The monarchy does not safeguard against ‘crazy people’. Parliament is sovereign; if a demagogue was elected by the British people and started to enact crazy laws, the monarchy would be no protection at all. They are a constitutional monarchy only.