Abolishing the Royal Family

[FeelthewrathofthesuperRad]

Anyone else in favour of it?

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

If you have a political democracy, lots of countries have a president as well. We have the Queen and lots of other countries have their monarchs.

I don’t particularly crave an elected head of state. Who would be a replacement? The Prime Minister cannot do the job and should never be asked to do it. We frequently have a majority party in Parliament with less than 40 % of the vote. So they are not acceptable. The same would happen with a vote for a president - like they have in Ireland.

Our history is different. We have a queen who isn’t political. They should cut down on staff and houses but overall it’s the best solution because the others will be political and cause rifts.

I used to want the royal family abished, but now I'm fairly ambivalent about the existence of the royal family. I quite like a non political head of state, so long term I would support a ceremonial head of state but at the moment don't know enough about how to bring that about to have a strong view on it. I also think now is the wrong time for major constitutional change.

But, I think the circle of working royals should be small and that minor royals should not have access to public funds, so should be functioning like any other privately wealthy citizen.
Also, where they are implicated in criminal wrongdoing they should be properly investigated like any other citizen looking at you Andrew

We have a queen who isn’t political.

We have a queen who gets very political when it comes to safeguarding her own interests. She also still holds the power to refuse consent to parliamentary bills although in practice it's never now exercised.

Even the heir has form for behind the scenes meddling in government policy

Yes British history is possibly a better way of putting it. In that sense I think the monarchy now is better than it was in the past?
Just because you don't identify or agree with the royal family doesn't mean there aren't millions of British people that do. Same as some people don't agree with the Catholic church and think they are massively outdated and unfair but no one is calling for the Pope to be abolished?!

you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/investigate-queens-consent

The queen is not neutral. We are just told that she is.

It really seems from all these threads that a lot of people have been brainwashed and have sucked up the propaganda/selective narrative we're taught in history at school. They have no idea about what the royals do or don't do, or why they do it. This is just how the royals like it to be.

It seems as though lots of people are just too afraid of change, but most importantly too scared to ask questions in order to establish the facts. They'd rather just keep believing what they are told, and allow these abuses of position and power to continue. Why?

@PersimmonTree

you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/investigate-queens-consent

The queen is not neutral. We are just told that she is.

It really seems from all these threads that a lot of people have been brainwashed and have sucked up the propaganda/selective narrative we're taught in history at school. They have no idea about what the royals do or don't do, or why they do it. This is just how the royals like it to be.

It seems as though lots of people are just too afraid of change, but most importantly too scared to ask questions in order to establish the facts. They'd rather just keep believing what they are told, and allow these abuses of position and power to continue. Why?

The Queen does not (publicly) voice political opinions. She is head of state.

Can you please show where the Queen has abused her power. That’s a very strong allegation you appear to be making.

@Hummingbird18

Yes British history is possibly a better way of putting it. In that sense I think the monarchy now is better than it was in the past? Just because you don't identify or agree with the royal family doesn't mean there aren't millions of British people that do. Same as some people don't agree with the Catholic church and think they are massively outdated and unfair but no one is calling for the Pope to be abolished?!

How is the monarchy "better" than it was in the past? In the sense that it doesn't still stab and behead people, persecute them or actively invade other countries? It still commits crimes that go uninvestigated.

@Hummingbird18 I'm not on some kind of personal vendetta and nor am I alone in wanting a republic. I just strongly dislike blatant abuses of position and power and the defenders/enablers of those abusers.

Perhaps I am stupidly naive but I think that "millions of British people", rather than "identifying and agreeing with" the royal family, simply just don't know what goes on, can't be bothered to learn, or choose not to look.

Let's not forget that "prince" Andrew - friend of gun runners and paedos - is still 8th in line to the throne, is still technically an HRH, and is still funded and supported by his mother.

That is the image we project to the rest of the world. We allow, enable, facilitate and support this kind of outrage. We are allowing ourselves to be represented by these people.

Millions of Brits are happy with the queen's choice not to make a public statement repudiating and distancing herself and her family from his despicable behaviour? Are they really? Are they happy with her decision not to obligate Andrew to cooperate with the FBI investigation? Her decision not to strip him of his title?

If you've ever watched the Epstein documentary you will see the opinion of women that Andrew has: they are objects to be utilized.

So half the population of Britain are happy with that image of our country being projected all over the world. Really??

No if the Royal family were abolished I would be very upset and depressed. On a practical level they do a lot for the prestige of the country when they travel etc. Tourists come as they are one of the attractions. They help to unite the country in an emotional way. The Americans are fascinated by them and the reason is they don’t have a monarchy. Charities benefit from then and Prince Charles’ Trust does a lot of good work. Our heritage is bound up with them and the prospect of having some inadequate president is depressing . Our country would be less colourful and interesting. The Queen has done a good job and I believe Charles and William will do the same.

@Happydaysarehere. This is a serious discussion. If you CBA to RTFT fair enough, but please don't state as fact things that have been established as untrue or distorted (tourism, good work etc) as it just perpetuates these damaging illusions.

Why do you or the Americans need the RF for entertainment, and why should we pay for "interest and colour" when we have Hollywood, Corrie and Eastenders?

It’s very difficult to find evidence the Queen has been political. She has never ever withheld Royal consent to pass legislation. She may well have her own views but few really know them. No alternative would be acceptable to the majority. That’s the problem.

I do think they need to change. Charles, apparently chooses his morning breakfast egg from a line up of 8 cooked eggs. He chooses the ones cooked to his requirements. What happens to the others. If he has surplus eggs, maybe they should go to a food bank?

He therefore should look urgently at his own habits and profilacy before lecturing others. He has 120 staff. There are occasions when he really should cut back. William might understand this better. There certainly needs to be a culling of palaces and residences. However the alternative, President by election, is not palatable. Who?

We pay because the majority, as far as we know, want it. I’m not sure about tourism but soft power is arguable. Nothing is black and white. What I think is certain is that younger people support the monarchy less. So they have work to do or they become irrelevant. At the moment Charities like their input. If they don’t, remove royal patronage. We certainly need to see Empire removed from MBE awards etc. So everything they do needs consideration and possibly revision. Abolition is too far. Lots of people enjoy a bit of pomp and ceremony!

Charles, apparently chooses his morning breakfast egg from a line up of 8 cooked eggs

That pesky little word ‘apparently’.

I read once that Prince that Charles had someone to put toothpaste on his toothbrush in the mornings ( after sizing up the eggs first of course)
Maybe his estranged son might send him a few over? If they are good enough for Oprah..

@PresentingPercy. Lol, well of course it's hard to find evidence of what the RF get up to!! There's an FOI ban on disclosure of info for up to 5 years after the death of the royal concerned. Why is that acceptable?

The flipside is that even if she were neutral, the queen can be manipulated by the PM of the day. Questions remain about Cameron and the Scottish referendum, and Boris proroguing. He got her to do what he wanted.

In favour of abolishing the monarchy. But why does anyone think we need a head of state? Switzerland does very well without one.

There is always someone who attends state occasions as head of state! Everywhere. Trump signed his own laws. The Queen does ours. Every country either has a president doing both roles (snd is political) or they separate the roles. We have separation and few would want any PM doing it.

The Queen has no say in what she signs. She is a constitutional monarch. What would a prime minister persuade her to do? She does what she is required to do in step with our unwritten but well understood “constitution”.

Jeremy Paxman wrote about the eggs! So not an entirely shabby researcher!

@PresentingPercy

There is always someone who attends state occasions as head of state! Everywhere. Trump signed his own laws. The Queen does ours. Every country either has a president doing both roles (snd is political) or they separate the roles. We have separation and few would want any PM doing it.

The Queen has no say in what she signs. She is a constitutional monarch. What would a prime minister persuade her to do? She does what she is required to do in step with our unwritten but well understood “constitution”.

Our constitution really isn't well understood, at all. Which is why there's a huge fuss every time a PM wants, for example, to prorogue Parliament for his own ends. As was the case recently.

I'm in favour of a revolution once the Queen passes. The contempt William and Charles show towards us plebs pisses me right off. Fuck them all.

The Queen has no say in what she signs. She is a constitutional monarch. What would a prime minister persuade her to do? She does what she is required to do in step with our unwritten but well understood “constitution”.

But the Queen does have a lot of power secretly to influence the passing, and both she and Charles have exerted pressure privately on lawmakers to make changes to directly benefit themselves.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth

The RF have way too much secret power with no accountability, have an uneasy quid pro quo with the press and the government, use the press as their personal propaganda tool and take advantage of laws letting them hide their wrongdoings so the public never even have access to information or fair and unbiased news coverage to make an informed decision.

@PersimmonTree
How many times has Parliament been prorogued when it’s use has been anything other than business as usual? Parliament is prorogued for various reasons (Usually to a timetable) and it’s perfectly normal. When it’s been contested, 1948, 1997 and 2019 it’s been used for political purposes which have even called out as wrong - in the eyes of most people. So “every time the Pm wants to prorogue Parliament” is a totally inaccurate view of what prorogued actually means in our parliamentary timetable., It’s a regular occurrence that goes unnoticed until it’s abused. Perhaps read a bit more about it before you post?

@Ohforarainyday

The Queen and the Palace can lobby. She does however now pay some tax. She didn’t until fairly recently. I think as she has a “relationship” with the government concerning her tax and what money she is given, and of course there are discussions and views put forward. It’s called negotiation. The government decides though. Not The Queen. Her accounts are also published. However the discussions around a president wouldn’t be much different!

Right OK, Brexit was business as usual, and Boris would never exploit all and any avenues for the pushing of his own agenda. Silly me.

Thanks for the suggestion about further reading, I will certainly do that.

I'm in favour of a revolution once the Queen passes. The contempt William and Charles show towards us plebs pisses me right off. Fuck them all.

Could not agree more!

[quote PresentingPercy]@Ohforarainyday

The Queen and the Palace can lobby. She does however now pay some tax. She didn’t until fairly recently. I think as she has a “relationship” with the government concerning her tax and what money she is given, and of course there are discussions and views put forward. It’s called negotiation. The government decides though. Not The Queen. Her accounts are also published. However the discussions around a president wouldn’t be much different![/quote]
Negotiation? Like with the Mafia, then.

The discussions would be very different around a president because a president can be removed from office if they abuse their impartial position. Who kicks Liz out if she fiddles the books? Nobody.