Royal Family

[TedTheCat]

I was chatting to friends earlier today who had mixed opinions on the Royals and whether they support them.

I would prefer not to have a Royal Family, but wonder what other people think.

YABU - Keep the Royal Family

YANBU - Get rid of the Royal Family

If there was a vote on whether or not to keep them, I'd vote to get rid provided that before the vote took place, it was decided what would replace them/what system we'd move to/what the general system would look like.

I wouldn't vote to get rid of them without that. And while I don't like the idea of having a royal family, I don't dislike it enough for it to be something I'd campaign for, and if a political party promised a referendum, it wouldn't sway my vote at an election.

I also don't have any particular issues with any members of the royal family (Andrew aside). I think the king and queen, and the prince and princess of wales do a perfectly fine job, I just don't think the jobs need doing.

But in theory, yes I'd get rid of them.

I loved the royal family when I was younger. Now if be happy to see them go, especially Willy. We would still have the castles and royal residents to attract tourism.

We’ve got rid of them before, decided we didn’t like it and invited them back. Oh and to the PP, Spain has a King, they decided they didn’t like being ruled by a one party fascist dictator after all.

Completely agree. We must not throw away over a thousand years of history.

The history will still remain if we do get rid. But we need a more positive present. Equality, not bowing or curtsying to people who are on the receiving end due to an accident of birth or marriage.

Get rid of them. 100%.

I do not agree that they are 'benign'; they are lying grifters and net takers. I do not agree that they bring in money, there is very little evidence for that. I think that also many do not realise the vast amounts of public money they are given and for what?

Re Andrew: the point is not merely that he is abhorrent and entitled, but that the rest of his family have repeatedly and publicly demonstrated their support for him.

History doesn't disappear when you change your constitution. And if the "we've done it this way for a long time" argument we're reasonable then no reform would be ok ever which seems odd.

Not sure where my "and Spain" came from! But France seems able to support tourism without a monarchy.....

Get rid of them. The notion of hereditary monarchy, and indeed any hereditary titles, is so out dated now.

The Irish system works well - an elected ceremonial head of state, no third cousin hangers on. The term is long at seven years and can be extended to a second term without an election so the elections aren't expensive.

Exactly.

What are you talking about @Toddlerteaplease. History doesn’t disappear. 😂

@cyclamenqueen "One problem with getting rid of the wider family is the need for people to do visits etc. "

Why do we need people to do visits?

For keeping Andy, get rid of the lot.

How exactly should his family have. " got rid" of a family member ? You know he is not convicted of a crime ? he ( allegedly) slept with a17 year old which is gross, but not a crime

It would be near impossible to prove he knew she was trafficked

How do you dispose of unsavoury family members ?

Personally the rest I like and they are entertaining and bring in lots of tourist revenue so no need to "get rid" but definitely stop the bowing and curtsying which makes we wince and cringe everytime I see someone doing it

It’s not that simple. We have a constitutional monarchy. The monarch appoints the prime minister. The system needs all the cogs in place to keep turning, which wouldn’t happen if the monarch just stepped aside.

If you want to replace our constitutional monarchy, what with? What model would work in the UK?

Do you want an elected president with huge powers, like in the US, but who could become a lame duck depending on the party numbers in the houses?

Or an elected president who is head of state but has limited powers and appoints a prime minister based on which party has the most seats, like in Ireland?

Or an elected president who is head of state and appoints a prime minister of his/her choice, like in France?

Now lobby the political parties until one of the commits to a referendum on constitutional reform. And at the referendum… do you offer different models or just one against the status quo? Is a simple majority sufficient to enact such massive change? Is there a minimum turnout required for the result to be valid?

It may be easier to retain the system we have had for centuries!

YABU - I'm quite a royalist (not entirely sure why - just love all the history and pomp I guess, I think think meeting them for whatever reason brings real joy to lots of people in a way that meeting an government official never could).

However, if someone like Harry or Andrew were ever to become the monarch...I couldn't stomach that - so it's quite conditional. I think my feelings for royalty would also decrease if either of them were to ever become working royals again, no matter how minor a role.

I don’t agree that the Royal Family are in themselves a tourist attraction. And if they were they will be less so now that Queen Elizabeth II is no longer with us. Does anybody really visit a country just because they have a monarch?

Get rid.

The idea that they are more important than us, just because of a happenstance of birth, is a ludicrous position to hold in 2024.

We don't need any of them. Being "head" of state is a nonsensical argument, it's all just made up and we can change it anytime we choose.

Keep the castles as tourist attractions, give Will, Kate and the two others twelve months notice to vacate to Balmoral, where they can live out their days in obscurity.

Let's be honest, our history, the Monarchies, Colonialism and what we did to other countries, isn't anything to be proud of. We invaded a third of the globe, ransacked and looted entire continents, and it's still going on today.

Bury it all, we have nothing to be proud of.

'However, if someone like Harry or Andrew were ever to become the monarch...I couldn't stomach that'

2 points on this:

If you believe in hereditary monarchy you don't get to choose who is in line. If you think we should choose the best suited person then you may as well do away with monarchy altogether.

Also, the casual lumping together of Harry & Andrew (which happens so often) sets my teeth on edge. Whatever you think of Harry he left the RF, is no longer funded by the public and made a different choice for himself - something that millions of people do without it being questioned. He does not 'owe' the public anything.

He also has not been accused of any crimes - unlike Andrew. Who by the way has been publicly supported by his family while Harry has been very publicly cast out. Do you honestly think their behaviour shows our country in a good light?

While I have zero interest in them as people, I do enjoy all the pomp and ceremony, which, as a country we do very well.
I was fascinated by the Queens funeral and all that entailed, as well as the coronation.

I’d rather we did schools and hospitals and public transport well than pomp and ceremony tbh.

If your feelings depend on the individual in the hot seat, then you're not a royalist. The whole point is that we don't get to choose, we're stuck with whoever we get.

Agree with all of this.

Also, do you think we would know all we know about Andrew if he had been the eldest son? We know they protect those in direct line.

@pimplebum "How do you dispose of unsavoury family members ? "

You don't pay off the woman making an accusation. And you definitely don't publicly support them as the Queen did. You retire them to one of your smaller homes and never allow them to take any official role ever again. Easy.

And look how well that’s going 🤣

I'd like a smaller role, certainly nothing that is in theory political. So the House of Commons votes in or out a Prime Minister, the honours that are in the gift of the PM be labelled as such, for example.

I think the monarch should be free to be of any or no religion too.

However, I'd prefer King Charles to President Blair, Johnson or any other of the recent Prime Ministers.

And make everybody else pay for their own security, even on engagements

I don’t think this is fair as it’s not their fault they need security. It’s not a lifestyle choice, I’m sure they’d rather do without it.