Abolishing the Royal Family

[FeelthewrathofthesuperRad]

Anyone else in favour of it?

I’m not entirely sure what their purpose is either.

[Brahumbug]

There is no evidence that the royal family bring in money from tourism, instead they cost the country a huge amount of money. We need a ceremonial president such as Ireland has. I would have it so that no former or current politicians can go for the role. Another problem with the monarchy are the powers of royal prerogative. The prime minister uses these on behalf of the queen and they can't be questioned by parliament, fundamentally undermining democratic accountability, not to mention the queen reviewing proposed legislation and having it changed to protect her and Prince Charles's interests.

[AnnaMagnani]

Yes, for their own good.

It's clear they all have mental health problems and are trapped in a relationship of fear with the tabloids - anyone who steps out of line gets monstered and their lives made unbearable. And the job is miserable.

[PurpleDaisies]

@oldwhyno

No. We don't need that kind of instability right now. I'm not a royalist per se, if we didn't have them I would be arguing in favour of them. But without knowing what benefit there would be to getting rid of them it would be a huge and stupid risk to the constitutional stability of the country.

The benefit would be that we wouldn’t nominate our future king/queen by which family they were born into. It’s an embarrassment that this still continues.

What dreadful constitutional crisis do you think would befall us given that apparently the queen has no actual power (one of the most common arguments for keeping them from monarchists)?

[Kimye4eva]

I never was in favour of getting rid, but after hearing Harry say he was trapped and his father and brother still are, it made me think completely differently about it.

We have no idea how his father and brother feel about it. The sovereign and future sovereign are in a completely different position and both likely have a sense of duty (as the Queen does). Unless you are the sovereign (or very likely to be) then the whole thing is just a massive restriction on your life.

I expect Harry will have a very different view to his father and brother.

[Kimye4eva]

It's clear they all have mental health problems and are trapped in a relationship of fear with the tabloids - anyone who steps out of line gets monstered and their lives made unbearable. And the job is miserable

This has happened to relatively few. Diana, Megan. Harry and William’s MH challenges are more likely due to losing their mother at a young age.

[AnnaMagnani]

It's also happened to Charles, Margaret, Edward, Sophie, Fergie, Beatrice and Eugenie - anyone who was the convenient hate figure at the time. That's not even a complete list.

The whole thing is a poisoned chalice and should be given up.

[MollieBa]

@CrunchyBiscs David Attenborough?

[dreamingbohemian]

I don't understand how people can seriously use 'but what other option is there' as an argument. I don't know, maybe look at what 95% of the rest of the world does? Look at how dozens of other countries managed the transition out of monarchy? (Not the French way obviously....)

I wouldn't worry about the Commonwealth either. It's very likely that after the Queen is gone, a lot of those countries will be removing the UK monarch as head of state. As they should, the empire has been gone a long time now.

[Silurian]

@CrunchyBiscs

Well, come on then - who is to replace them as head of state - well I suppose Bojo is so popular

I am trying to think of some - maybe the lady who arranged the vaccine roll out in the UK - can't fine her name online right now. Katherine something?
Let's have a list folks.

Every time someone suggests Borisas a reason not to have an elected HoS, I despair of their inability to understand the way the government works. Boris is the PM. He has considerable power within the context of parliament. An elected ceremonial Head of State would have virtually no power, would be a politically neutral representative of the population, would attract no career politicians because of the lack of power, and would (unlike Boris) be elected. People would put themselves forward as candidates and their suitability assessed. They don’t have to be politicians or former politicians. You could have a set of candidates consisting of national treasures and/or people who’ve done considerable public service.

You could have David Attenborough running against Maggie Smith, Benjamin Zephaniah, Trevor McDonald, Clive Stafford-Smith, Claire Balding, Timothy Spall, Shami Chakrabarti etc.

[MrsBotibolsCruise]

@Silurian you have a point there! Good idea. I would vote to elect Chris Witty.

[HappydaysArehere]

@JanewaysBun

I'm happy with the status quo for now. Boris frightens me far more than Prince Charles

Plus I enjoy The Crown so want to watch a few more seasons first

Exactly King Boris the Horror story coming to cinemas near you next week.

[PicsInRed]

Abolish.

The next 2 in line are horrid and they'll heavily influence the upbringing of the 3rd after them.

There's no hope for any improvement from any of them and they need to go.

Other states manage with an elected head of state (and have the option to tell them to fuck off when they misbehave) and they can also take 100% of 365 days a year tourist income from uninhabited palaces and castles (e.g. Germany, Austria, France etc). Let's press on and do that.

[TuesdayinSeptember]

@JackieBeaver

No, the royal family do a lot of good work and bring in a lot of money through tourism etc... I would however like to see Prince Andrew properly investigated.

What good work do they do which couldn't be done by some other high profile person? As for tourism, France has almost treble the number of visitors the UK has, and not a royal family in sight.

Each time we learn more about them, I'm more puzzled as to why anyone would look up to such a dysfunctional family

[PicsInRed]

Also "FREE THE ROYALS!"

[underneaththeash]

The alternative would be far worse. I think they generally do a really good job - although I think Charles should abdicate in favour of William.

I think they should have an unwritten rule to not marry needy American actresses,

[dazzlinghaze]

I'm in favour of abolishing the monarchy. The idea that a group of people are special due to their blood is so outdated. If they were all perfect people I might think differently but their royal blood hasn't prevented there being pedophiles, racists and god knows what else amongst the family. They're no better than the average family and are undeserving of the roles they have. The way they have protected Andrew has cemented this view for me.

[HairyToity]

They are irrelevant. I think it'd make UK richer not poorer, if we abolished them.

[TuesdayinSeptember]

@underneaththeash

The alternative would be far worse. I think they generally do a really good job - although I think Charles should abdicate in favour of William.

I think they should have an unwritten rule to not marry needy American actresses,

What alternative do you have in mind when you say it would be 'far worse'?

[Cattenberg]

It’s time for the whole institution to go. It’s long been an anachronism and no one can hide the fact that it just isn’t working any more. Prince Andrew was the final straw.

[Cakemonger]

Yes. I'm not sure how you can 'reform' an institution that is inherently based on racism and class privilege. So it needs to go.

It won't happen though. It is too useful a distraction for the politicians and press from the real problems in our society.

[Silurian]

@underneaththeash

The alternative would be far worse. I think they generally do a really good job - although I think Charles should abdicate in favour of William.

I think they should have an unwritten rule to not marry needy American actresses,

In what way would a democratically-elected, fixed-term, politically-neutral, ceremonial Head of State, chosen in a free vote by the population, probably from a bunch of candidates of people with strong public service records, be 'far worse'?

And surely you can see the irony in rejecting a democratically-elected person in a fixed-term office while you say you prefer a monarchy, but then say you want the next in line to abdicate in favour of his son, and add a coda about who they can marry? With a monarchy, you don't get a choice. You get whoever comes next of the conveyor belt, however good or bad, and whoever they choose to marry. That's the nature of a monarchy. Blood and primogeniture trump suitability.

[Kikitheparot]

The royal family is a fantastic marketing and political tool for Britain. There is still a mystique that surrounds the royal family and other Heads of State want to be invited to Buckingham Palace and to meet the Queen. An elected head of state would not have the same draw.

Any visitor to the UK wants to see Buckingham Palace in the hopes of glimpsing the Queen and watching the changing of the Guard.

Finally, who would open community projects, attend schools, honour those who have benefitted the arts, sports, community, raise the profiles of charities? Take an interest in and head the armed forces? Act as patrons of charities. All those things that mean so much to ordinary people (me included).

The royal family does a great deal of good. They play an active and beneficial role, and are apolitical. This could not be replicated by a single elected head of state.

Our country would be lesser without them.

[Kikitheparot]

@Cakemonger

I'm not sure how you can 'reform' an institution that is inherently based on racism

You have absolutely no basis for what you are saying.

[imjustanerd]

I'm not a big fan of having a monarchy it's an outdated institution. However, the thought of what we could have doesn't exactly inspire any confidence.

It's all well and good saying we could choose what type of presidential system we could have but do you really think we'd get a say in that? All the power mad self serving politicians would have a field day spinning us what we think we would want. Just look at Brexit and how well that went, I don't think we'd be any better off.
But of course we will never fully know unless we try it and that's a risk I'd not be happy to take, too many charlatans, too many dangerous lobby groups.

[Silurian]

@Kikitheparot

The royal family is a fantastic marketing and political tool for Britain. There is still a mystique that surrounds the royal family and other Heads of State want to be invited to Buckingham Palace and to meet the Queen. An elected head of state would not have the same draw.

Any visitor to the UK wants to see Buckingham Palace in the hopes of glimpsing the Queen and watching the changing of the Guard.

Finally, who would open community projects, attend schools, honour those who have benefitted the arts, sports, community, raise the profiles of charities? Take an interest in and head the armed forces? Act as patrons of charities. All those things that mean so much to ordinary people (me included).

The royal family does a great deal of good. They play an active and beneficial role, and are apolitical. This could not be replicated by a single elected head of state.

Our country would be lesser without them.

Most Head of State in the world aren't monarchs. They still exchange state visits with other HoS. It's not a matter of non-monarch heads of state sitting solitary and wishing someone would come to visit, and needing to tempt them with mystique and tiaras. And there's no reason why an elected HoS couldn't continue to use BP as his/her residence while in office, and host foreign visitors there, surely.

Elected HoS are generally commander in chief of their country's armed forces.

And do you really think community projects, the arts, charities in countries without monarchies wither? And I think we'd be far better off without the easily abused system of backhanders that is the 'honours system'.