Can anyone please tell me....

[Ihateboris]

What they actually do for us, the British tax payer? If anyone comes along and says they bring in more than they cost, kindly provide a current legitimate source..not a quote from ChatGpt.

You are the one with a narrow view, I’m simply pointing out that there are historical reasons that involve the monarchy for these events and that you can’t have these same events without the monarchy 🤷‍♀️.
you said we would still have trooping the colour ( which although people turn out to see it , it’s actually for the monarch to view and honour their troops) and horse parades !
I know that you actually said that because you wanted to wave aside another poster’s comments about tourists coming to see these things.
no monarchy , no monarchy adjacent ceremonies or parades, simple.

It’s interesting, isn’t it. They have acted as a human shield for a - presumably republican minded - Labour government, helping to allow the UK to not be completely fucked over by Trump. They get accused of kissing Trump’s ass, but I’m sure the citizens don’t mind receiving the benefits of the ass kissing.

Any elected head of state would, presumably, have no real power (we wouldn’t be changing our system
if government) and would simply have to emulate the soft power, constitutional monarch role as best they can, without the benefits of history, tradition and the strange, mysterious allure of blue blood. They will need to be both interesting enough to attract the same deference from the future Trumps of this world, and apolitical and strong enough in stomach to kiss his big heiny at the behest of the elected, political party in power from time to time.

How do we avoid a head of state with a political leaning? Will the candidates have to have unblemished records of political neutrality? Will their elections be coordinated along with general elections or on a different cycle?

How do we stop the elected head of state behaving like a king in a palace and being corrupt, like the Sarkozys of this world?

I think if we want to become a Republic on the basis of the principle of justice and fairness to all citizens, and the end of unnecessary opulence for the few who get it by birthright, then we need to stop with all the ceremonial stuff too, like military parades. When it’s done by republics, it always makes me think of the Soviet state and dictatorships. Everyone getting excited by their big fallic symbols of world dominance in the arms race - what’s that all about? How is that better than royal, military ceremony and regiments built up during our colonial past?

Sell the palaces and the jewels etc off. No reason why a republic based on the full and true equality of the citizenry needs to hang onto the trinkets of colonialism and monuments built on the sweat of forced labour. France are complete fucking hypocrites hanging onto theirs, glorifying in the mystique of Marie Antoinette like they didn’t chop her head off; and getting their knickers in a twist because their royal jewels have been repatriated into the economy by some enterprising citizens. Those tiaras everyone swoons over can go back to the countries they were stolen from
in the first place. Let India make money showing them off.

It will all be a bit grey, but it will be worth it for true equality of all citizens - save for the clever, enterprising ones who will get rich and live rich and wield influence anyway, and the ones who will inherit titles and wealth, as I assume trying to get rid of the landed aristocracy might result in a human rights issue.

France is not the same. The UK does not hold the same standing in the global consciousness as France, and particularly Paris, does. Since the 1700s Paris has historically been viewed as the destination for culture, thought, education, art, food, fashion architecture, etc. That attitude continues.

There’s even a recognised syndrome for tourists who get to Paris and are disappointed that it’s not everything hey we’re expecting. That mainly impacts Japanese and Chinese visitors. Meanwhile, Americans still romanticise France for not just its culture but its historic aid to then in the War of Independence (helped along most recently by the massive popularity of Hamilton - visiting , he Marquise de Lafayette’s grave while in Paris is popular, apparently!).

Empty German and Italian palaces don’t get the visitor numbers that Versailles does. The UK Royal is family is a USP for the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome

Personally, I would prefer an elected head of state than a hereditary monarchy.

But this article has a balanced take on the finances
https://inews.co.uk/news/how-royal-family-funded-cost-taxpayer-3378178#:~:text=Brand%2520Finance%2520estimated%2520in%25202023%2520that%2520the,upkeep%2520comes%2520to%2520around%2520%C2%A3500m%2520a%2520year.

It's just branding though. Other countries manage to have militaries, parades and national days without having a monarchy at the centre of it all.

I don't think untangling the monarchy from the UK would be as complicated as you seem to think.

Re the Trump visit issue - the UK is just one of several countries who have been ‘kissing the ring’ to try to mitigate the trade tariffs. Switzerland just gave him a block of actual gold and a limited edition Rolex, some other country gave him a damn crown.

Kate putting on a gold dress and tiara and smiling demurely at a convicted rapist all evening was what the UK could afford to play this current despair making season of American politics. We couldn’t afford to give him a new Air Force One plane like one of the Middle Eastern countries.

Other countries have their own history and traditions with regards to their military, parades and national days that were established without a monarchy, we don’t.
and I think untangling the monarchy from the U.K. is indeed more complicated than people think!
look at Brexit, however my actual point was that if republicans want to abolish the monarchy then fine but they cannot expect to keep the same celebrations and tourists attractions that are monarchy related!
this is simply fact , you cannot throw your cake away and eat it simultaneously.

1. Brexit was complex and expensive because of laws and trade. The Royal Family wouldn't have the same impact.

1. You keep talking about people wanting their cake and eat it too. I actually don't want to eat that particular cake, I'm just saying that things would go on without the royals. I actually wouldn't care if I never saw another royal wedding or jubilee ever again in my life.

Odd that you think people are so desperate to hold onto royal aligned things. It's as though you think all parties and special occasions in the UK would cease without a royal family 😁.

NO HALF IN HALF OUT!! 🤣🤣🤣

Brexit was complex and expensive because of laws and trade.

Yes, it’s not as if a 1000 year old monarchy the pre-dates all applicable law in the UK is deeply enmeshed in hundreds of legal concepts, structures, entities, processes and branding…oh, wait.

i think there are three separate but connected points to this discussion.

First there’s the specific point the OP is asking what does a constitutional monarchy currently do for the UK?

Then the follow up, how can we replicate the benefits of the current system while mitigating the potential negative consequences.

To end up with the main issue of how can the republican movement generate enough good will and excitement for a new more egalitarian and democratic system with the general public to make it safe enough for a political party to risk committing to the process.

The good news is you only have to go through the main upheaval once, the bad news is that it will be tedious, expensive and a lot more long winded than anyone can imagine.

So the end result that we are aiming for will have to be more than just ‘not them’. It will have to provoke some feelings of national pride, anticipation and the reassurance of a safe pair of hands to represent the UK as head of state.

Then you are replying to me for no reason then ! , I was clearly pointing these things out to another poster who did think we could abolish the monarchy and keep the same traditions.🤷‍♀️

Exactly! 🤣🤣 , difficult concept for some apparently! 🤣

So are you accusing the king of slurping up to Trumple when they were riding around in a carriage? I don't think you heard them any more than any of the rest of us. Was he more likely to point out a spiffingly lovely row of trees than to tell Trumpy he's been a big admirer for donkeys' years.

I wasn't at the banquet but I did hear some of the things which the king said, publicly, because it was on the telly.

I agree.

Having a monarch is tied up into our culture, our history, and who we are as British people. I am a royalist in that I'd prefer a monarch to the idea of an elected head of state. The king or queen has a lifetime of being trained for the job and so lose a lot of personal freedom. By contrast, an elected head would be a career politician and one of a pile of people who would be trying to claw their way to the 'top' - no, thank you.

For me (not so much Charlie, sadly) the Monarch is a sort of 'head of family' - the one who holds 'us', ie the British people, together, with consistency and reliability through a legacy of hundreds of years of development.

I've not really thought it through but just off the top of my head I do not think they need the amount of residences the tax payer provides. My opinion is that one 'head office', called Buckingham Palace, is sufficient. Within the palace, they should be afforded enough living space to be in alignment with the average family and the rest should be used as offices and space for state occasions - putting up visiting dignatories and the like. I don't believe they should be above the law and should comply with taxes and the like, just the same as the rest of us.

I’m not sure why people don’t understand! 🤷‍♀️

'Animal Farm' comes to mind. Replace one lot with another lot and what happens?

Not forgetting also that the King is Head of State for 14 other Commonwealth realms; so any change is not only complicated but also involves other nations.

There used to be a place called 'The Queen's Gallery'. I thought it had pictures that the general public could go and see. Does it still exist? If it does, I don't expect that they can exhibit all the pictures at the same time, any more than museums can exhibit everything they own, all at the same time.

I don’t think that’s true.
Look how many people go to Versailles every year, there’s lots of other things to do in London and the UK.
We could open up the places to tourists.

Yes, it’s now the King’s Gallery. I’ve been a couple of times.

And I bet the one he appreciated most and stroked his ego was being in Kate’s company, you could tell he was smitten, never underestimate the power of a beautiful princess and the history only our monarchy can deliver.

I am American and totally agree with this. Other countries have palaces and all the hoopla without an actual monarchy. My country’s politics are messed up so i won’t cast stones, but surely this anachronism has to end.

Blimey.