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.

"The lack of class consciousness shocking."

I don't think class consciousness is particularly relevant with the Royal Family, oddly enough. We can all see that they enjoy a lot of privileges but they have few real choices. Born for a specific purpose & corralled into being on display, working on our behalf 24/7. No real power. Don't think many of us would be rushing to fill their shoes if we're honest. The 'upper-class' aristocracy is effectively finished after death duties have done their work - just a few old titles still washing around - so it's left to people like the high-rolling Beckhams & Elton John to fill the gap.

With regards to tourism and the monarchy, this page is very useful.

The 'tourism argument' for a republic

A simple piece of reasoning is a good place to start.

Tourists come to see the sights and to pay for experiences while on their holidays.

In so far as the monarchy provides any tourism value it is in the shape of palaces and castles.

Buckingham palace is closed to tourists for most of the year. When it is open the visiting public are only allowed to see a small fraction of the rooms. It is reasonable to conclude therefore that if the palace were open all year round, and if the entire palace and gardens were open to the public, tourist visits would increase considerably.

Why wouldn't they? It would be a far better bang for the tourist buck.

This point is demonstrated by contrasting the success of the ex-royal Tower of London with Buckingham palace.

Buckingham palace is falling down and the palace officials have been demanding more cash from the government. As a tourist attraction it doesn't even make it into the top 20 in the country. The Tower of London's funding is entirely independent of government grants and the tourist revenue they bring in allows them to maintain the buildings to a high standard, while providing tourists with an exceptional experience.

VisitBritain, the body responsible for researching and promoting Britain as a tourist destination, surveyed 26,000 people about what attracted them to Britain. The monarchy was well down the list. A spokesperson from VisitBritain said the palace is: "one of those iconic photo destinations and we try to discourage 'tick-box tourism' - just going and having your photo taken somewhere and moving on." So even though people may go to see the sights, the monarchy is of limited value to the tourist industry as it does not generate revenue and is not the reason people visit Britain.

Even if there were a small minority who came to Britain for the monarchy - a minority no doubt outweighed by the extra tourists who would come to see a fully accessible palace - such tourism only benefits central London. The monarchy can do little for tourism in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions.

As we've said, Buckingham palace doesn't make it into the top 20 of tourist destinations. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes the grade, Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). It has been estimated that royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue.

Finally let's speak up for the ingenuity, creativity and hard work of ordinary people in this country. It is our heritage, our culture, our attractions that people want to come and see. We don't need the Windsor family to lend a helping hand for us to bring in tourists. We're doing pretty well without their help and would do better still if they handed the palaces back to the people who paid for and own them.

Yes! there bloody should be but - like all things logical and common sense - it won't happen. meditrina's faith in all things aunty beeb is touching but utterly misplaced. The beeb's a sycophantic whore to the monarchy and its flung around figures are to be treated with the same scepticism as one would a Nick brown tongue Witchell report.

Dingdong, I accept all that you've quoted but you cant measure the numbers that go to Buckingham palace, watch the changing of guard, take their photos etc. Or the numbers that when they think of England consider the monarchy, "I'm coming to London to see the Queen." is something I hear over and over when I work with American teens, yet they'll probably swing by the palace and then go spend their cash elsewhere. It's something that people consider part and parcel of Britian and draws them in, even if they then visit other tourist attractions.

Such as, if I wanted to go on a shopping break and was offered Dubai or New York... NY would win, as I'd be thinking of the statue of liberty, the empire state building, the New York culture etc. But when I was actually then I'd take a few photos and get on with the shopping. It's the whole ambience that gets tourists to a destination.

Maybe that's more of a personal view than fact however, but it seems to ring true to me

"The beeb's a sycophantic whore to the monarchy ".... makes a change from the usual view that it's a sycophantic whore to left-wing causes and woolly-minded Guardianistas.... Nice to see the hatred is evenly balanced.

The BBC wasn't quoting it's own research. It was stating what recent polls for a variety of organisations have found. Even republican.org.uk says "Opinion polls consistently put support for a republic at around 20%"

And here are a sample of the results of some published polls:

YouGov April 2011: 82% retain (45% unaltered, 37% with reforms), 13% abolitionists

Guardian/ICM: April 2011 (did not report figure for retention) 20% favoured abolition: 69% expected Britian to be a monarchy in 100 years time, 76% thought William will one day be a good king.

ICM 27 March 2009: 76% in favour of retaining post-Elizabeth monarchy; 18% pro-Republic.

BBC poll 28 December 2007: 78% retain, 19% abolish.

Independent newspaper: April 2002: 84% to retain (54% keep exactly the same, 30% keep with reforms); 12% abolitionists.

I am pretty left-wing in my views, but even I would not replace the monarchy. Given the current set-up, in which our monarch has little genuine political power, but has an enormous role to play in national identity (there are few nations indeed that could have pulled off a gig like yesterday's), there is not really a convincing alternative. A President would be party-political, which would be undesirable, to say the least. And no presidential system can be immune from Chiracs, Nixons, or - as looks set to be the case in Italy - Berlusconis. I would 10 times over rather have Elizabeth, or Charles, or William as my Head of State than Blair, Thatcher, or Cameron. This is quite without discussing the anthropological and social significance of the monarch.

The truly radical alternative is logically a state of constant revolution. Anything else is simply another kind of conservatism.

Not sure it's the right way to treat people (remain mute and well dressed) just so some other people can say oh yes, they hold the nation together, it makes me feel good to have a living symbol of "Britishness" whatever that is.

And what difference would a president make anyway, if the country even chose to go in that direction. The Queen does nothing but say yes to anything that comes her way.

Pent

I too do not want Blair, Thatcher or Cameron as President but I would like to be able to tell the royal parasites ponces freeloaders whatever, to fuck off once in a while it's called democracy.

I can vote for my choice as President and if they foul up I can vote for them to be chucked out again, that also is called democracy.

The queen does not have direct power, quite true but she has enormous influence and does on occasion use it.

The royal family is a the top of the class pyramid structure and the sooner it and all aristocratic titles are abolished the better.

The main problem is that we all operate in ignorance of our own system. The actual monarch has no power, Chil1234 and others have pointed that out. But the institution of the monarchy does have real power. The Royal prerogative does exist, it is exercised by the Prime Minister and Ministers under 'Crown Powers'. By this means, parliamentary debate, where we get to hold our democratrically elected reps to account, is unnecessary. Remember the Iraq war debate in the H of C? That was a special concession to us because there was a certain amount of disquiet about the rationale for the war, weapons of mass destruction, 45 minutes and all being less than convincing.

Alice, that is an excellent point.

Go to the "comment is free" website and have a look at the Martin Rowson cartoon, it says it all without words.

A happy couple walking across a bridge of media sycophants tongues followed by blood soaked dictators and the privileged elite.

What an utterly depressing thread.

No I wouldn't want President Cameron, but then I didn't want Prime Minister Cameron and yet he is still there because the people elected him. Of course at the end of his term he can't automatically hand over power to his eldest child.

And the idea that the economy would suffer if the monarchy was abolished is utter utter rubbish supported by no facts whatsoever.

Very depressing.

this
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.

relates to when king george gambled away everything, racked up massive debts and had to be bailed out by parliament (hmm sounds familiar). Therefore now the 'crown estates' are actually controlled by parliament, and all their profits go to the state coffers. And the royals live on excessive benefits through the civil list. Although David Cam has now done them a favour and changed this to give the royals 15% of crown estates profits. I wonder if this relates to labour MPs not being invited to the wedding?

HH so what you are saying is the royal family are benefit scroungers, does Gideon or Pickles know about this.

actually, I think that the common people should rise up in some kind of rebellion, herd all the royalty together and just burn the buggers.

Yes. That's definitely what I recommend. Who's with me?

(sorry, way too much of mother's medicine this evening, hic burp, staggers off, head down the loo)

Oh - and KnittingRocks - we bloody definitely didn't elect Cameron. Nope sirree. Bit like we didn't elect Clegg either!

Sigh. When will I ever be rid of this hatred? In vino veritas, eh?...

I'm with you lostmyidentity. Viva la revolution!

"we bloody definitely didn't elect Cameron. Nope sirree. Bit like we didn't elect Clegg either!"

By that logic - we 'didn't elect' Brown even more than we didn't elect Cameron. And we certainly 'didn't elect' Brown / Clegg!

Iyswim .

We did elect the chance of having Brown when we voted in his party with a majority. That is how the system works, right?

One thing is certain none of us elected Liz nor will elect Charlie.

The so called royal family, the top of the pyramid of spivs and chancers, bankers and politicians who are running the country for their own benefit.

I don't think you'd dare say that to Caroline Aherne's face?

I don't think you'd dare say that to Caroline Aherne's face?

I fear no one, I am shielded by the rightness my beliefs :o

Ok then newwave - how would you organise things then?

Isn't that a direct quote from the Mad Hatter?