Do we need the monarchy in this day and and age?

Not needed but rather wanted

I prefer a constitutional monarch with no powers (but less all the family hangers on) to having a superannuated politician for President. What powers would s/he have: control of all foreign policy, e.g., like Macron? And think about whom we might have had - Thatcher? Corbyn if things had gone differently? Johnson?

A less privileged monarchy would be more consistent with modern times and cheaper for the taxpayers.

I agree with Gillycats and also Peasblossom, who has very succinctly outlined the disadvantages of doing away with the monarchy. We don't 'need' a monarchy to govern us of course, but there are other reasons for maintaining a royal family.

I think getting rid of the monarchy would be foolhardy. There is strong Republican sentiment in Australia which, given the behaviour of the current PM would be a disaster. The Constitutional Monarch is the only safe guard against populist short term politicians. Look at what has happened in Russia and with Trump in the USA? The Constitutional Monarch provides long term stability for democracy. The Queen has been a life long servant of the UK and has dedicated her life to it’s people, acting as a marvellous ambassador. I think that Charles, for all his idiosyncrasies, will be similarly inclined. Although they don’t broadcast their role in upholding and protecting the democracy it is something which is vital in our increasingly febrile political world.

And still nobody actually wants to think about the practicalities ?

The title of the thread is, do we need the monarchy in this day and age.. Most people have tried to answer that question.

But a significant proportion of people just want to say how hard it would be to organise and that replacing an outdated system of government with one suited to the 21st Century would result in a bloodbath. If you want to continue with a monarchy, fair enough. But stop trying to pretend it would be too hard to make it happen and it would unleash Armageddon on the world.

Heartily agree!

While I am not a huge fan of the Royal Family - I do think that this institution are better than any of the alternatives currently in operation.
There have been "improvements" in the sense that fewer members of the Royal Family are reliant on the public purse than was previously the case. Buckingham Palace is now (partly) open to the public, so that people who are interested may see many of the works of art and gifts from around the world may do so. The Queen and some of the RF are great Ambassadors for the UK. Much of the Ceremony that takes place in London attracts overseas visitors, who envy us for what we have.
The younger Royals are trying to do good things.
While I would prefer to see William on the throne, rather than his father - I hope the RF continue for a while yet!

maddyone

Okay, it was suggested on a different thread that a new thread should be started about this, so here goes.
So do we need a monarchy today? That’s it really.

I am finding much of the discussion on here irrational.

Polling suggests that a large majority of Britons were in favour of the monarchy during the 1990s and 2000s with support mostly ranging from 70% to 74% and never falling below 65%. The latest poll was carried out by Ipsos Mori had 60% were in favour of the Monarchy and 21% against. That left 19% who are undecided.

If we did have another referendum there is no way the anarchists would be able to take over and make it undemocratic again. That would mean, as I explained earlier, those who don't vote, presumably around that 21% would be counted as wanting the status quo bringing those not wanting a change up to 79%.

So why on earth are we discussing this with people who offer nothing in its place and just want to shout the odds!

Here's an idea. When the time comes, why not vote as a nation for whichever member of the Royal Family we would like to rule over us. Those in line to the throne can put themselves forward and with a simple FPTP system we can get the monarch we want. My vote would go to Edward if he stands. He seems like a good egg.

No we do not need a monarchy. However would a President be worse. Another Trump? An earlier message said about the Guards wearing real bearskin hats. They are now nylon. The bearskins were extremely heavy. My husband was in the Grenadier Grenadier Guards for seven years during the war and was in the Normandy invasion.

Anarchists?

I want a Republic and I have explained why consistently. I also offer alternatives which are often countered by the "yes, but Trump" brigade. It's a bit scary that people who disagree with you are called anarchists and are told they are just shouting the odds. Should we just shut up and stop talking about it? How Putin-esque.

Think a lot of the awards system could be scrapped. A President?Trump, Macron, Biden, no thanks.

Peasblossom

Peasblossom

Oddly enough I think the violence would arise over the questions rather than the actual replacing of one HofS by another.

Take just the one. Who could stand?

Only UK born?
Not UK born but living in the UK? For how long?
Not UK born but naturalised?
UK born but not living in the UK?
UK but naturalised elsewhere?
Not UK born and not living in the UK?

Let’s debate that and see when the difference of opinion starts turning into aggression?

And still nobody actually wants to think about the practicalities ?

Interesting comment, because I posted a question asking about the practicalities of a slimmed-down monarchy which has been supported by many here and got exactly one reply which was – to paraphrase – it’s pretty slimmed down as it is. Which is of course a valid point of view, but hardly a debate.

But if you want my answer to the questions above: No, in all cases. My opinion is that there has to be very strong reason to restrict the democratic choices of the people, if they want to vote for a Martian they should be allowed to vote for a Martian, and I don’t see the reason for any of the above. England was ruled by foreign monarchs from 1603 to Queen Victoria, and of course the Queen is not just Queen of the UK, although it would be probable that at least the larger countries – I’m thinking of Australia and Canada in particular – would reject our kind offer to impose a Head of State on them.

Yes, we do! They perform the valuable thankless task of saying thank you to thousands of citizens. Who else will do that? I don't want the head of government wasting time doing that - I want him or her running the country.

Totally against the monarchy system. Privileged people who have little or no idea of what real life is like for the rest of us. They sell newspapers and that's about all, a bit of a soap opera for some to follow when they're bored. As a first step I'd be content with a very much watered down version as in The Netherlands. Make the rest of the hangers on get real jobs and work for their livings.

As far as I'm concerned I would like William and Kate to follow the Queen on the throne.
The thought of the adulterers Charles and Camilla reigning over us is too much to stomach.

volver

^And still nobody actually wants to think about the practicalities ?^

The title of the thread is, do we need the monarchy in this day and age.. Most people have tried to answer that question.

But a significant proportion of people just want to say how hard it would be to organise and that replacing an outdated system of government with one suited to the 21st Century would result in a bloodbath. If you want to continue with a monarchy, fair enough. But stop trying to pretend it would be too hard to make it happen and it would unleash Armageddon on the world.

That’s just sidestepping again.

If you don’t think we need the Monarchy surely that means you have to think about what would happen if it was abolished.

We all know what happens in a political vacuum. It couldn’t possibly happen here is thinking that’s caused a bloodbath many times before.

Bijou

No we do not need a monarchy. However would a President be worse. Another Trump? An earlier message said about the Guards wearing real bearskin hats. They are now nylon. The bearskins were extremely heavy. My husband was in the Grenadier Grenadier Guards for seven years during the war and was in the Normandy invasion.

Sorry Bijou the hats are not synthetic, the hats are made of real bear skin.

They take delivery of approximately 100 Canadian bear pelts a year, which is a tiny proportion of the bears culled annually.

Peasblossom

volver

And still nobody actually wants to think about the practicalities ?

The title of the thread is, do we need the monarchy in this day and age.. Most people have tried to answer that question.

But a significant proportion of people just want to say how hard it would be to organise and that replacing an outdated system of government with one suited to the 21st Century would result in a bloodbath. If you want to continue with a monarchy, fair enough. But stop trying to pretend it would be too hard to make it happen and it would unleash Armageddon on the world.

That’s just sidestepping again.

If you don’t think we need the Monarchy surely that means you have to think about what would happen if it was abolished.

We all know what happens in a political vacuum. It couldn’t possibly happen here is thinking that’s caused a bloodbath many times before.

Oh for goodness sake.

Fair enough, you want to continue with the monarchy.

We're not talking about a political vacuum, we're talking about replacing one form of government with another. We're not talking about armed insurrection. I've told you again and again what it would be replaced by, so have many others. But you keep worrying about the end of society as we know it. Whatever.

wicklowwinnie

As far as I'm concerned I would like William and Kate to follow the Queen on the throne.
The thought of the adulterers Charles and Camilla reigning over us is too much to stomach.

So you do want to have a say in who the Head of State is then? So you don't want it to go to the next person in line, just because of an accident of birth?

So a Republic then?

Petera

Peasblossom

Peasblossom

Oddly enough I think the violence would arise over the questions rather than the actual replacing of one HofS by another.

Take just the one. Who could stand?

Only UK born?
Not UK born but living in the UK? For how long?
Not UK born but naturalised?
UK born but not living in the UK?
UK but naturalised elsewhere?
Not UK born and not living in the UK?

Let’s debate that and see when the difference of opinion starts turning into aggression?

And still nobody actually wants to think about the practicalities ?

Interesting comment, because I posted a question asking about the practicalities of a slimmed-down monarchy which has been supported by many here and got exactly one reply which was – to paraphrase – it’s pretty slimmed down as it is. Which is of course a valid point of view, but hardly a debate.

But if you want my answer to the questions above: No, in all cases. My opinion is that there has to be very strong reason to restrict the democratic choices of the people, if they want to vote for a Martian they should be allowed to vote for a Martian, and I don’t see the reason for any of the above. England was ruled by foreign monarchs from 1603 to Queen Victoria, and of course the Queen is not just Queen of the UK, although it would be probable that at least the larger countries – I’m thinking of Australia and Canada in particular – would reject our kind offer to impose a Head of State on them.

Thank you. Someone whose actually prepared to say they’ll think about one of the questions.

I didn’t pose them because I think any of them should necessarily apply but to show how hard it would be to reach peaceful consensus on even a starting issue.

To bring the Monarchy to a peaceful and ordered end will require debate and then consensus. Those who refuse to do that can only bring it about by oppression.

sodapop

Are they still actually made of bearskin Yangste1007 I thought they were made from synthetic material now. I may be wrong of course.

Apparently they are still made of bearskin from the annual black bear cull in Canada. They had a trial of a synthetic material suggested by PETA but decided to go back to the ral thing. The bears will still be culled whether the guards use the pelts or not.

Yes, we need the monarchy in this day and age more than ever. Imagine getting a President like Trump or a leader like Putin instead. Horrific. They do so much for charity and good causes and bring in millions of revenue from foreign tourists.

Parsley3

Here's an idea. When the time comes, why not vote as a nation for whichever member of the Royal Family we would like to rule over us. Those in line to the throne can put themselves forward and with a simple FPTP system we can get the monarch we want. My vote would go to Edward if he stands. He seems like a good egg.

You still don't get that your views are very obviously minority ones. Why would we do what you suggest?

The monarchy should end with the Queen. I don't want Charles on the throne.

I'm more open to William if I had my way, if the monarchy was to continue, taking over.

The homes/palaces etc and pageantry could be run by the museums and various. This would still bring in the crowds.

A republic? They still get to vote and have opposition. The system needs changing to P.R anyway.

There is no difference of having a primeminister to a president. Your stuck with whomever to the next election which happens every 4 years in either cas3e

There are pro's and cons tor each. I think when the Queen passes and the older generation go you will see more and more actively calling for a republic