Royalty the queen and her family.

If I knew that a woman had let her husband abuse her daughter I wouldn't speak to her never mind give her a lift.

Pity old Oliver Cromwell was so extreme, he could have sorted it out.
I know. Shame.

Calling The Duke of Edinburgh Philip the Greek borders on racism in my opinion. At the very least, it’s being said in a derogatory manner.

I keep banging on about, but you folks who prefer not have the RF don’t seem to give a hoot about the many many employees who would loose there jobs !

Bridgeit

I keep banging on about, but you folks who prefer not have the RF don’t seem to give a hoot about the many many employees who would loose there jobs !

I believe they said something similar when they got rid of slavery. And bear baiting. And bare knuckle fighting.

Comparing employment to slavery is pretty damn low.

You cant sustain an inherently damaging institution because it gives people work. Page 3 for example gave people work, I am glad it no longer exists.

Who decides what is damaging?

Sadly ,so very sadly there is no equality throughout the world. Whilst we are sat comfortably discussing this issue , People across the globe are starving , will you stop being who you are or give up what you have , would help , can it be done ,?

Bridgeit

Comparing employment to slavery is pretty damn low.

No Bridget, you misunderstand completely.

When slavery was abolished people complained how it would impact their prosperity and make people poor, and leave the freed slaves with no income or future. But that was not a good argument, it was worth doing because getting rid of slavery was the right thing to do.

So if (when) we abolish the monarchy, some people might be impacted, but it doesn't stop it being the right thing to do.

Who decides what is the ‘right thing to do’?
It would have to be a referendum surely ?

Natateturbe. Just the point I was making, i did not know what was happening in that woman’s house, why should the
Queen know of that king and his family.

It is not possible to scrutinise everyone one meets as was said by a poster, so silly

Alegrias She ran against Trump and the GOP - also the result of a meritocracy, even though Trump inherited his wealth, his forebears built it in the land of opportunity... What I'm arguing is the delusion that meritocracy is inherently fair. It's not, it's as loaded as any other system. Kamala Harris is brilliant, she proves that anything is possible and doable - what she does not prove is that anything is probable if you just do this, that, or the other.

The idea of 'a meritocracy' has no value, it implies a universal fairness of opportunity that is delusional. That a society can have meritocratic ideals, which then lead to the creation of equal opportunities etc is great and realistic. But believing that one day that will stand for all is delusional. Thinking that doesn't make me a royalist - it just makes me believe that getting rid of them serves no purpose other than to appease the sensibilities and political idealism of republicans. That might not even be a bad thing, but it's not a good reason.

Equally, getting rid of the RF will not get rid of inherited privilege. The entire Republican Party in the US relies on inherited privilege. Ever seen a poor RP senator?

Getting rid of the RF won't make us a better country, just like it's never made any other country 'better'. I can't argue that keeping them will make much difference either. The argument is a fine distraction from other issues though.

I keep thinking of India. They no longer have a royal family, but still have one of the most rigid class systems in the world.

I agree with not keeping something going just because it employs others (who have the choice whether or not to apply for a job there) but relating it to slavery and bear baiting is strange.

Bridgeit good question. Would we stop being who we are, give up what we have to help others?
I don’t believe it any more than I believe not having a RF would make it an any more even society.
The incredibly rich would still be so, likewise the incredibly poor. The incredibly rich would still have the major say in what goes on. Trump was obscenely rich and achieved presidency partly because of that, even without being royal.

And who ever ran for President here would have to be wealthy
or belong to a political party.

The president of Ireland was chairman of the Labour Party
chairman

When I was taken to Sunday school, aged about six we were shown slides of the lives of children In Biafra, sadly it is many years later and now a pensioner nothing seems to have changed? And so it goes on, thankfully there are also still many folks who strive to help to bring about changes ...

My objections aren't about wealth. They're about inherited privilege in government. Would I want an elected rich person instead of an unelected rich person? In a minute I would. Does highlighting the inadequacies of other countries mean that we shouldn't have high ideals for our own? Of course not.

I regret that I brought up slavery and the like, it seems to have confused people.

And if someone can say "the idea of a meritocracy has no value", well there's no comeback to that is there?

So I'll just doff my metaphorical cap and go about my business, like a good obedient peasant should.

Beware Republicans! The Treason Felony Act is still in place to protect the queen and crown from the likes of you .

But the monarchy is corrupt secretive exempt from FOI Above the law. Those in public office should have rules written in law and be accountable.

The RF are not accountable they benefit with queen's consent their private interests can change laws from queen's As we now know.

The Queen won't have anything to do with our constitution so all she is there for is to do as the PM asks. Which gives the government great power to do as it likes.

There should be a written constitution

Charles and Queen benefit hugely from the two duchies

Here is what Republic say.

Republic has been uncovering some unique modern legal privileges enjoyed by the Duchy, privileges that we believe are the direct result of Charles's use of the 'royal veto', an issue we've campaigned on before.

The Duchy also hands its multi-million pound profits to Charles, without first bothering to pay corporation tax. Charles uses the Duchy as a vehicle to fund his own projects and charities, all designed to promote his own agenda and project his own influence.

The Duchy is a major land owner and property developer yet has unique commercial advantages, simply because Charles is the son of the Queen.

The Duchy has never been the private property of the Windsor family. It was effectively privatised in the eighteenth century when the king handed over the Crown Estate to parliamentary control (the Crown Estate was also not the private property of the royals). Charles was made sole-shareholder forty years ago, when he became Duke of Cornwall.

It's time the Duchy was exposed for what it is - a very modern business dressed up as a feudal landed estate. It's time we re-nationalised the Duchy, so its assets and profits can be used for the benefit of the community.

Why we need to take back the Duchy

www.republic.org.uk/the_real_duchy_of_cornwall

Oh it is hard you will agree, to know your place in Britain’s meritocracy. It’s most important you should know, the people who’re above you and the ones below.

Emphasis on the 'a' Alegrais - try not to sulk, it doesn't become you.

Come the glorious day Citizen! ?

Alegrias1 inherited privilege in government is alive and kicking in the USA, it is not necessary to look very deeply to discover it. In India there is the Ghandi family, political careers seem to run in families as do Doctors, Teachers etc. would you make that illegal also?

Alegrias Just so you don't assume we're all talking out of our jacksies.

press.princeton.edu/ideas/a-belief-in-meritocracy-is-not-only-false-its-bad-for-you

Bridgeit even if the RF surrendered the monarchy they would remain some of the richest people in the country and would therefore keep the people who work for them and do all the mundane tasks they feel are beneath them So the "what about the employees" argument doesn't apply. They wouldn't however be able to influence taxation and would have to pay their fair share.

So if (when) we abolish the monarchy, some people might be impacted, but it doesn't stop it being the right thing to do.
Agreed.

So I'll just doff my metaphorical cap and go about my business, like a good obedient peasant should.. ......probably a good idea.

Anniebach

It does indicate hate in my opinion ,

How do you describe your descriptive words re: m?

Certainly that comes across as hate.