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

Yes

Yes

Yes we need and should be proud of our monarchy. Long live the Queen!

No

Yes we absolutely should keep the monarchy. They are part of our history and bring much tourism to the UK. The Queen has been a wonderful head of state & I expect Charles & Camilla followed by William & Katherine to be exactly the same. Long live the Royal family.

Oh Lady! Sorry, honest mistake!!

aha!

24? 25? Lost count.

Who's Lacy?

President Boris and his first Lacy as the alternative? Ouch!

Don't know what happened there, didn't mean to post that. Sorry. Please ignore.

StoneofDestiny

Bizarre how people on here seem to think the alternative to a monarchy is 'Trump'.
Surely it's not beyond the minds of people to reimagine our own model of Head of State - one based on merit not accident of birth and one that supports one figure, not their whole extended family.
Ireland has a good model for one, but we are quite able to design our own.

Bizarre how people on here seem to think the alternative to a monarchy is 'Trump'.

varian

I really don't think that Trump could ever have been elected President of the UK!

Really?

I wouldn't be so sure
Not taking bets, anyway! Does he have British citizenship through his mother?
?

I agree with there being a second chamber in Parliament containing elected and appointed members for a specific amount of time as they are needed to scrutinise and revise bills of parliament. Some of them could be members of the aristocracy but would not be there just because of an accident of birth. It could still be called the House of Lords maybe.
The main value of the monarchy lies in it's continuity. Also I do not believe that this institution should skip a generation as a person's popularity could rise or fall over a period of time.
For a republic -- this would surely need a large percentage '
"yes" vote.

nanna8

No but the tourists like them. At least get rid of all the peripherals and just have the one nuclear family. Divide up their property and assets.

But they do actually own a lot of the assets themselves. Are you suggesting actually removing their property?
I agree it is an outdated concept but the alternative would be another "presidential" political layer, no better than the current arrangement in view of the standard of many of our politicians today.
I would however skip Charles and remove most of the rest from the circus. No more honorary military titles etc., no more "trade" jaunts for people with no commercial knowledge or competence.
It is such a shame that the Princess Royal isn't next in line for the throne but I suspect she has far too much sense to take it on. I have the impression that she works much harder than Charles who appears to only do undemanding tasks that he feels like doing. His choice, but not what we need of a king.

inspiringstory.org/2020/12/13/080-jose-mujica-poorest-president-in-the-world/

Oh StoneofDestiny, I can certainly reimagine a head of state who would be acceptable to me.
Ideally one who understands the plight of the disadvantaged in our society and would do something about it. Do I think people would vote for someone who understands the plight of the disadvantage in our society because they have experienced it? No that person probably wouldn’t have the money to stand for election.

I love the monarchy…I. remember my mummy crying when King George VI died..We seemed to grow up with Anne and Charles..lovely time.

23

Bizarre how people on here seem to think the alternative to a monarchy is 'Trump'.
Surely it's not beyond the minds of people to reimagine our own model of Head of State - one based on merit not accident of birth and one that supports one figure, not their whole extended family.
Ireland has a good model for one, but we are quite able to design our own.

No

I used to work in the Lake District and must say we had so so many Chinese and American that just came to see the queen

Odd, in the Lake District the foreign tourists mainly come to see Beatrix Potters house on the way to Scotland.
These tourists never get to see the Queen - she retreats to one of her many homes to avoid them.
Tourists will come with or without a Queen or King - they want to see the historical settings of Bath, Stratford upon Avon, The Cotswolds, Edinburgh, the Highlands, Durham, Skye, Orkney to name a very few - not a king or queen in site.

Don’t need, but want.

I’ll take the Queen over any president, of any duration, of any country.... so make that 22!

21

I cannot believe the number of anti-monarchy comments. In this woke world, anything that relates to the past seems to be an anathema. The Royal family, especially as led by the Queen make our country so special. So you guys want us to be like America with Trump and France with Macron etc etc.? At least with the Royal family we can rise above crazy politicians. Our country IS special. Don’t ruin it

DaisyAnne

trisher

DaisyAnne

Trisher. People do not dread voting for a head of state, they are just content with our current form of democracy.

Your comment "I suppose there have always been those who questioned and opposed every step that was taken towards democracy." is simply rot. We have a form of democracy - and they all vary - that the vast majority don't want to change. Your opinion is worth no more, or less than anyone else's but it is a minority view.

Your next line which starts "Slaves who thought it was OK to be owned by someone because some owners were benevolent ..." sounds like the doublespeak coming out of Russia at the moment. Perhaps some Putinitus is going round.

The Queen is a constitutional monarch. She does not make decisions on how our country is run. We are under more threat from the current government than from her. I certainly think some will think we have moved closer to the dark ages after their time in power.

I see your off-topic posts goes on at length so no point in replying to the rest. When we have someone pontificating on how the Queen running the country takes us back to the dark ages I know we have arrived in la-la land.

DaisyAnne have you read some of the posts on this thread? They show fear!
What evidence have you that the vast majority are happy with our democracy? I think the demographic on GN may be happy but other sections certainly aren't
You are spouting the statements about the monarchy most of us were raised on. Unfortunately the reality is different. That's why I posted the link. The Queen has done what you say she doesn't interfered in government.
As for this government being corrupt and self serving, of course they are and it seems there is no one to support the constitutional traditions this country has always used. The PM is riding roughshod over them, the speaker seems powerless to intervene. An elected H of S could point out this and hold the government to account. Polly Toynbee says it better www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/17/britain-monarchy-end-royal-jubilee

I am not going to bother with what you purport to be fact other than to say I don't know how anyone other than the Queen can be judged for interference as they are not Sovereign at this time.

As you seem to pick what you read I will repeat:

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%.

GN members are citizens of this country, not a stand-alone state called Gransnet.

But DaisyAnne the support amongst 18-24 year olds has dipped to 31%. and 41% of them support an elected head of state. What seems inevitable is that as the older people die off the monarchy will be less and less popular.
Of course GN members are citizens but they cannot under any circumstances be regarded as younger citizens so they are not the future.

It seems very odd to me to be complaining of a corrupt and self serving government but to oppose a position which would impose checks and balances on any government, something which isn't happening now.