How do you feel about the RF and monarchy?

[MarshaBradyo]

Has it changed, do you support more or less

I had a thought that the Queen’s passing might lessen it for me but opposite has happened. I appreciate the historical significance and process

Also if you’re part of Commonwealth (I’m Aus too so am interested) what’s the general vibe about monarchy v republic

@Aphrathestorm
There has been a rise in republicanism - tabloids etc ( and even the BBC ) have not provided balanced reporting re the 'royals'. Particularly re republicanism and the mournathon .
There are also issues surrounding fair policing of protest
It's all rather heavy handed and ill thought through

I suspect soon it wil be 50/50 re support for the 'royals' and papers will make money revealing the things they've sat on for years
That will be eye opening for some

I think they are great for tourism , and no one does big ceremonial events like we do. If we moved to a republic it would cost us. London will be mobbed during the coronation , it will put us on a global stage again and secure so many lively hoods. You’d not get that with a president, who would cost us just as much but not bring in the tourist money to offset it.

on a side level I feel quite sorry for them, after Harry’s indiscretions and appalling behaviour, right ater they lost the queen too, but it’s a blip in time and the royals will move on. The sour stink will only follow harry and Meghan around.

Being an ardent royalist is a pretty clear indicator of a low IQ in my experience.

If you moved to a republic you would look like a modern democratic country.

The idea of having a king just seems ridiculous in 2023.

Couldn't give a flying fanny adams

You do know we have a prime minister right, and Charles isn’t in there running parliament, the government is ?

I for one am not paying for a president. How many people watched the queens funeral. It was a global event. The amount of revenue our monarchy brings in is enormous, it ensures a global audience and secures livelihoods. No president will accomplish that.

The whole lot of them should be abolished. I hated them before the queen died, still hate them.

Including the Queen. Everything bad that happened , happened on her watch. She bailed out her poor darling son. She lived in palaces stuffed with treasure (ever been inside buck palace? It's gaudy as fuck) while people live in poverty. Honestly theyre an embarrassment.

I man you can't defend the idea of a hereditary monarch... however I think we should keep them for the entertainment value. It's like a soap opera!

You said it so I didn't have to ...

Re low IQ I think it’s a shame when easy insults are used but that’s SM these days. Just do a low prod in the other direction.

Re support it seems it went up at Jubilee and maybe funeral too. I think we’ve seen the full extent of celebrations and traditions which many like. I enjoyed the spectacle of it tbh

I wouldn’t say I’m an ardent royalist so cheap shots won’t affect me as below as in it’s not the RF that I look up to. More retaining the constitutional monarchy and the traditions rather than the actual people.

Plus agree with pp they’ve thrown in some distracting entertainment recently,

@Comedycook

You could still have 'royals ' in a mature democracy with a head of state ( or no head of state - no law saying you have to )

The issue most republicans have are clear:

1. The huge cost of the royals and no concrete evidence exists to prove they bring ANY money in despite that being the main royalist argument .
2. Unearned influence - the queen and Charles both changed 1000s of laws to further solely their own interests . No interest in the people - they can go to hell. So to say they 'apolitical ' is stupidly . They can't comment publicly on politics ( though the queen influenced the independence vote in Scotland)
3. The principle of 'take what you get ' head of state . No choice . That's the main issue for lots of republicans

It's not the fact that Charles and Willy Windsor call themselves 'royal' that matters to me ( I can call myself royal if I want - I have a bloodline going back to when we crawled out of the sea !) . It's the fact that they drain this country of 350 000 000 a year and influence laws with no right or qualification to do so

Once they are removed from the seat of democracy and the money tapes are off maybe the 'royals' could set up a subscription model ? Lol

The royalists could wait at the end of their drives ans wave manically

I was an ardent republican before and remain an ardent republican now.

same, except i'm probably more of a republican now.
The tone-deaf plans for the coronation are - well, frankly, hilarious. Charles said before, i think, that it would be a smaller event? now it's a 3 day shindig so everyone knows when to doff their caps etc?

@MarshaBradyo
Did you say you are in Australia ?

You'll be a republic before Canada and before us
Lucky duck

And re the low IQ . Yes it's a low blow ( but have you seen any interviews with ardent royalists ?) but if you take education level to indicate intelligence, which I admit isn't 100% reliable , the higher your education level tue less likely you are to be a royalist.
Also the older you are the more likely you are you be a royalist- but that's a different and more pressing issue for Mr and Mrs Windsor .
Demographics

I’m Aus / U.K. born in U.K. and back here for now longer I think over two decades so pretty even stevens on nationalities

During the pandemic I felt pretty strongly re disliking them, their silly we have it so hard home schooling take etc and they did seem redundant but the spectacle and traditions in last year have changed my mind a bit.

Not necessarily towards individuals, I don’t mind Charles that much but when people fawn the youngest royals I have to take leave ;

But yes I think I’m in that group who increased support for a constitutional monarchy lately, but I admit I’ve still found the Harry saga amusing - and speaking of support his has really dropped. That part is just silly distraction I don’t get too involved with it.

Meant to say back here is U.K. not Aus

It’s not an ‘easy insult’. Just look at these threads. The same things come up again and again, a complete lack of understanding of how government works, the difference between the PM and an elected ceremonial HoS (see predictable comments on ‘I wouldn’t like a President BoJo!’) the difference between an elected HoS (who might be called a ‘president’ or something else) as a largely ceremonial role and countries in which the president has considerable executive power (eg the US — cue predictable ‘You wouldn’t want Trump as an elected HoS, would you?’, with an air of cleverness), why an elected HoS would in no way need to be a politician (no particular reason why Judi Dench or David Attenborough shouldn’t be candidates), a misunderstanding of tourist revenue requiring a regnant monarch to pull in foreigners, despite Versailles doing perfectly nicely despite the guillotine), and how inexpensive an elected HoS is in other countries ( inIreland the presidential salary is pegged to the top civil servant scale, for instance, plus the use of a house, transport, security), how Andrew or Harry aren’t some kind of anomalies, but examples of what happens when you have a hereditary monarchy — you don’t get to choose, you get whoever is next in line, regardless of whether that’s a dutiful drone who spends a lengthy reign never stepping out of line, a dimwit playboy, a Nazi sympathiser or someone who knowingly consorted with a paedophile.

What’s depressing, but perhaps more understandable is that so many pro-royal people on here don’t trust the electorate or the democratic process, though this predates Brexit.

There are no reasons that stand up to scrutiny for wanting the monarchy to continue in its present form in 2023. People may as well admit to themselves that they like the tabloid soap opera of Harry, William and co, Charles and the tampon, Saint Diana, and that they like posh frocks, marching, tiaras and state coaches, as a distraction, like a long running tv show, or that it illogically makes them feel there’s something unbroken about Brexit Britain, that they believe foreigners still envy.

I don’t mind people discussing pros and cons and stating their preferences but yes low iQ is for the birds as a debate

I mean I know I don’t have a low iQ and I would like to retain the monarchy so it can’t be correct

@Croque
You equate the 'royals' with intellectualism?

........ok Jan .

And please define 'intellectualism'

I know loads of 'intellectuals ' as you may define them ( university lecturers )
Not one royalist among them

I think you might mean 'history '
The history doesn't go anywhere ...

I agree op, it’s a shame when these threads descend into hurling abuse at anyone who disagrees with your opinion. The low iq comment says more about the posters than it says about anyone else.

when you can’t enter a debate other than to hurl abuse, you lose all credibility.

Well, I’m still waiting to see any intelligent argument for retaining the monarchy in its current form…?

I would end it. I used to think I was a bit of a royalist but I have no time for the institution now. After the Queen died I wanted an end to it.

(no particular reason why Judi Dench or David Attenborough shouldn’t be candidates)

my go-to suggestions are always Floella Benjamin, Tanni Grey Thompson and Doreen Lawrence.

If you take a moment out from abusing people. you will see the subject of the thread is has your views changed. So if you’re waiting for an argument on retention you will wait a long time, as it is simply not what the op asked.

you can however start your own thread instead of abusively loitering on someone else’s hoping it morphs into a different topic.

Off you pop.

If UK did become a republic would the various royal palaces still be taxpayer funded or would they all be sold off to private ownership? If the argument against monarchy is a cost driven one, any replacement would have to cost considerably less to be justified.

The one advantage of monarchy I can see is that because they're in it for life they are much less influenced by political short-termism. Charles probably knew he'd have many years sitting around waiting. He spent his time on building long term projects to support disadvantaged people through e.g. the Princes Trust. Same with the Duke of Edinburgh awards. These things wouldn't have had the popularity, attention or longevity if they didn't have a royal patron.

William has set up the Earthshot Prize which is looking at funding 10 or 20 years of environmental protection and conservation technologies. How would an elected HoS create similar focus if they change every 5 years or so?

I'm a republican. Not an ardent one, but I can't really see how we can justify a hereditary monarchy in this day and age. It's so anachronistic.

I was quite fond of the Queen, and while she had her faults, I think her longevity alone brought something special to the role. I also believe that she had a very strong sense of duty. I was sad when she died as it felt like the end of an era. However, we should have stopped at her death. The younger generations have hardly covered themselves in glory and it is painfully clear that they are at least as flawed as human beings as the rest of us, so it's very difficult to make a case for their hereditary power and privilege.

I think we need a non-party political president instead. Someone like David Attenborough would be good!