Should there be a referendum on the future of the monarchy when the queen dies?

[dingdong89]

When the queen eventually passes away, should the British electorate be given the opportunity to express whether or not they would like the monarchy to continue?

Personally, I think it would be very sensible to hold such a referendum when the time comes.

When the queen ceases to be head of state after so many decades, it will lead to a significant collective psychological adjustment in the nation - because for most of us, she is the only head of state we've ever known. Thus, I believe that when we reach that crossroads, it would be appropriate to officially assess how the nation actually feels about the monarchy.

No.

There'd be all sorts of problems with the timing (these things take months to arrange), and opinion polls consistently put support for the Monarchy at well over 70% (anti typically 20%, rest are don't knows) so I don't think the case for public demand for change is at all close to being met.

No. After a blip with all the Royal divorces and scandals I think the monarchy is strong. Without it our economy would suffer.

NO! Absolutely not.

Oh I wish there would be. Even if there were, though, I think the vote would be for it to continue. Unfortunately.

Of course not.

No, we need the income they generate

NO. Not under any circumstance.

The Royal Family play a hugely important role. The most important of which is to stop an ex Prime Minister becoming President.

We already have quite enough 'presidential style' government creeping into Westminster and we do not want any more.

I also like the fact that someone appointed by accident of birth and utterly unimpeachable is head of our armed forces and ultimate protector of our constitution.

I would rather it be Elizabeth then Charles and then William for the next 60 years than than Blair Brown, Cameron and whoever.

The royals would then take their land back which they own and with it the revenues they contribute to the nation.

Most people don't realise that actually the Royal Family earns all go directly to the Treasury and in return they receive money from the civil list (a fraction of what they give). If I remember rightly this was an agreement made hundreds of years ago.

If we kick them out they'd have their own land back. Unless of course parliament passes a special law saying their land is no longer there's. Something which I doubt any court would back and certainly I for one also wouldn't. Cos if you allow the govt to start taking land off people just because they are rich, what next? Your home? My home?

Lastly who fancies President Cameron & Vice President Clegg?

I don't think there's any popular demand for a referendum or even any change in national psychology for that matter. The popularity of the monarchy certainly dipped a little when Charles married Camilla but there's been a lot of water under the bridge since then.

I think if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The royal family bring in hundreds of millions each year in tourism and a big reason why many people go to London. For most, Buckingham Palace is a must see destination.

They contribute hundreds of millions again each year to the treasury from the land they own and get a fraction back via the civil list.

They put up with all them stuffy/boring state visits & banquets. Sure they probably were fun for the first few years but I can imagine the Queen's "glee" upon hearing she's having to meet ANOTHER government official and have to make small talk with someone she'd rather not.

And what are the upsides of getting rid of them? I can't think of a single one really.

Absolutely not!

Further to my earlier post, the BBC has been reporting that the consistent level of support for the Monarchy is somewhat higher at 80%.

And probably higher at the moment.

Do you really think of yourself as a peasant, Admiralpiett?

Of course there should be a vote those saying no are anti democratic.

If the message from opinion polls wasn't so unambiguous in the level of support for the monarchy, then a referendum would be the right thing to do. It is not undemocratic to say there is no need for a vote on an issue where there is no public call for change.

I'd be in favour of a referendum, but the choices won't be:
Do you want a royal family yes/no

They will be:

Do you want to replace the royal family with this rich guy who helped get our party in this time and promises to do it again. yes/no

There is no need to replace them with anything else since they don't actually do anything now. But I'm afraid we would be forced to have someone in their place. We will not be given the option to have none at all.

I don't see the British model of monarchy or those that support it being anti-democratic. The Houses of Commons and Lords run the country, 100% determine our laws and democracy will be enhanced once the House of Lords is an elected rather than appointed upper chamber. The monarch is a symbolic figurehad, politically neutral, and even though they have the royal perogative in theory, in practice has no say over what happens in Parliament or to the people.

"If the message from opinion polls wasn't so unambiguous in the level of support for the monarchy, then a referendum would be the right thing to do."

If every opinion poll between now and 2015 showed the Labour Party ahead of the coalition government, that would not be a justification to call off the general election and invite Ed Milliband to form a replacement government.

This time last year, opinion polls were indicating that the Liberal Democrats were going to romp to victory in the general election - and yet they finished third with fewer seats than in 2005.

If opponents of a referendum are so confident that the electorate would vote in favour of the monarchy, then surely you have nothing to fear? Indeed, if the public voted in such a manner, it would strengthen the monarchy by giving it greater legitimacy.

Of course there should be.

I am finding the current wave of royalist feeling frankly nauseating. The lack of class consciousness shocking. The idea that this over-privileged family really give a stuff about the likes of us is ridiculous.

And finally, the oft-quoted economic benefit is probably overstated. The French beheaded their monarchy over 100 years ago and people still flick in their many thousands to Versailles.

*flock

Dingdong: the poll situation isn't comparable - in general elections you are typically looking at two or three parties in the 30-40% support range. The level of support here is consistently 80%. It would be a waste of time, money and effort for a foregone conclusion at this stage.

I find this 80% a bit suspicious. Normally you'd struggle to get 80% of people to agree that the sun comes out in the daytime. :o

Is it possible that they are asking the wrong question. When the subject comes up in discussion many seem to think the alternative to a queen is a president.

"who fancies President Cameron & Vice President Clegg?"

Of course if that is the alternative many are going to say "oh leave things as they are"

In fact we don't need them to be replaced as we already elected someone to run the country.

80% is the figure being used by the BBC, and they're not known for factual mistakes on straightforward data.

Even Australia, where the polls are much closer and the ancillary benefits (tourism and, importantly, charitable sector role) much slighter, has voted to retain.

NO,NO,NO, The monarchy is part and a big parcel of British history. We are a country with traditions and I want to keep them, WE are not a new country, like America (who admire our monarchy). Our armed forces answer to the Queen and not thank god to the likes of Tony Blair. Rule Britannia!!