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

Nor does it stop the Head of State and family being involved in scandals.

You just get scandals in a succession of different families instead of just the one,

lemsip

been done over and over again!

What has ?

We don’t NEED the monarchy it could be replaced with a President elected periodically

I believe a large majority WANT the monarchy in the UK, it’s a shame that the Royal family get so much press attention a lot of it for trivial reason, some of it serious wrong doing. On balance the ceremonial role of the Royal family justifies the cost, and I would not like to see a change.

I assume a president would be elected as is a government, given our choices of prime ministers!

I certainly don’t think of the Queen as a Demi god.

Freya5

Funny no one on here suggesting what would replace the Monarchy, a constitutional one. Remember Ollie Cromwell, didn’t end well. Unless you go the French /Russian way and have state sponsored murder, be careful what you wish for.

I think they just want a revolution Freya. Very, very boring.

No need, but I would miss the pomp and ceremony etc.

Freya5

Funny no one on here suggesting what would replace the Monarchy, a constitutional one. Remember Ollie Cromwell, didn’t end well. Unless you go the French /Russian way and have state sponsored murder, be careful what you wish for.

I'll make a suggestion then.

Replace the monarch with an elected head of state. A head of state who represents the people of this country because we elect them. A head of state that is subject to the laws of the country and can be removed from office if they try to break those laws or act in a way which is not acceptable to the majority of people in the country.

The Head of State in Republican Britain would not be the same as the Head of Government, that would still be the Prime Minister. One of the main duties of the Head of State would be to defend the (as yet unwritten) constitution, for instance preventing the illegal proroguing of parliament. (Remember that? Having a Queen didn't work so well then.)

For me, not having a monarchy is nothing to do with saving money. It is to do with having a country that doesn't think somebody in a jewelled hat who is good at waving is a good way of running the country. I think children should be introduced to the different ways of organising a government, so that people stop thinking that having a hereditary person as Head of State is a good thing, then eventually it will become the most obvious thing in the world not to have a monarchy.

Reform of the House of Lords seems a higher priority.

Prince Charles seems to be doing a reasonably steady job of paring things down and eliminating excess bowing and scraping. No reason to think that Prince William won't go further.

I strongly think that the queen should retire in June.

Whether you need the monarchy or not really depends on the answer to one simple question.

Would you rather have a President of the same kind as Boris Johnson?

Katie59

We don’t NEED the monarchy it could be replaced with a President elected periodically

I believe a large majority WANT the monarchy in the UK, it’s a shame that the Royal family get so much press attention a lot of it for trivial reason, some of it serious wrong doing. On balance the ceremonial role of the Royal family justifies the cost, and I would not like to see a change.

Still a majority (cards on the table - I'm in the minority). The latest IPSO polls are 60% in favour overall (so not, I would say, a large majority, but clear), about 50% in Scotland. But the same polling shows that the most favoured next HoS would be William, and in fact more people would prefer an elected president to Charles.

Also that 60% is down from 75% not so long ago.

grandtanteJE65

Whether you need the monarchy or not really depends on the answer to one simple question.

Would you rather have a President of the same kind as Boris Johnson?

That's not the case.

Would I want Johnson as President? Well if everybody voted for him, yes, he could be president. Because that's democracy. Just because I don't think Johnson would be a good Head of State that doesn't mean I don't think we should have a more democratic constitution in this country.

And as I said, President = Head of State, does not = Head of Government.

grandtanteJE65

Whether you need the monarchy or not really depends on the answer to one simple question.

Would you rather have a President of the same kind as Boris Johnson?

Let me ask another few questions:

1. If we moved to an elected system and Charles stood, would you vote for him? I’m sure many people would but I’m equally sure that not all supporters of the monarchy would.
2. Should we use the 'Johnson' argument above (and all its variants usually posted by people where they choose the worst examples of elected officials) to argue for a hereditary prime minister?
3. If Johnson were president, what could he actually do that the Queen is refraining from doing?

Thank you for taking some of my questions seriously.

How would you run the election? First past the post, proportional?

Would it the Candidates be affiliated to political parties? Could anybody stand for election? Would there be a limit on election expenses given the billions that the USA spends on Presidential elections. How would it work if a HofS and a Government were at odds. Would the HofS have to uphold decisions to which he/she was opposed?

How would we eliminate populist bias in the election. At least at the moment we do have a woman!

I do take a bit of issue with your “good at waving is a good way of running the country” because the Queen doesn’t run the country dies she? Is that elected set of twerps. That’s my problem with the idea of an elected HofS really. All over the world we can see where the electorate got it wrong?

Time for a vote on a Republic. Their immense wealth, including possession of castles, palaces and estates is wrong in this day and age.
The argument that they bring tourists is challenged by the fact that both France and Italy have more tourists than we do.
They are secretive, with the Queen lobbying to keep her wealth private and both she and Charles were named in the data leak Panama papers for their offshore wealth.
Unelected, unaccountable people, with unearned privilege.

No - once the Queen is gone it should stop.

I love the pomp and pageantry. I think we are probably best in the world at that. The House of Lords should definitely be reformed with an elected upper House. Most of the current bunch are either cronies of the government or simply there because their ancestor made friends with William the Conqueror. Polly Toynbee wrote an interesting article in the Guardian recently. She didn’t say the Monarchy should end with the current incumbent, but NOW. Maybe the Queen could have all her Jubilee celebrations, which she deserves, and then abdicate. I was born in 1953 so she has been the monarch for the whole of my life. Who would we have in her place? Well, I think the Irish system works well. Obviously not the US system or we might end up with a trumpian twit

I’m going backwards and forwards between threads now and talk of the Crown Estates.

Is it possible Bungle that you think the Monarchy owns more than they actually do. That most of those Palaces and estates belong to Nation not the Royals.

The monarchy has given the country stability. Regularly electing a president gives quite the opposite. Just look at the US.
Most of the complaints seem to be from people who want all the monarch’s money and property to be confiscated. In other words a revolution. No thank you.
I expect Grany will be along in a moment with some handy links to republican propaganda.

Answers in order .

How would I run the election? Whoever gets most votes gets to be HoS. No need for constituencies, and no need for the convoluted system they use in the US.

Would it the Candidates be affiliated to political parties? No.

Could anybody stand for election? - Yes

Would there be a limit on election expenses given the billions that the USA spends on Presidential elections. No idea.
How would it work if a HofS and a Government were at odds. Would the HofS have to uphold decisions to which he/she was opposed? Yes. That's what we pay them for. The Queen does it, The Speaker does it.

How would we eliminate populist bias in the election. At least at the moment we do have a woman! Irrelevant. You could ask the same question about elections for the PM, but we don't think of making the post of PM hereditary, just as Petera said.

I do take a bit of issue with your “good at waving is a good way of running the country” because the Queen doesn’t run the country dies she? I didn't express this well; I think that us having a HoS that demonstrably doesn't actually defend our constitution is not a good way of running the country.

All over the world we can see where the electorate got it wrong? Are you serious? Are you suggesting that this democracy idea is OK but really we shouldn't have it and it would be better to have the posh folks running the show because they know best?

It is better than the alternative.

winterwhite

Reform of the House of Lords seems a higher priority.

Prince Charles seems to be doing a reasonably steady job of paring things down and eliminating excess bowing and scraping. No reason to think that Prince William won't go further.

I strongly think that the queen should retire in June.

I think the setting up of an English Parliament would be my first choice for moving us forward. It could be sited in the centre of the country (England) too.

At the same time, I would turn the Lords into an elected house, acting as the second house for the UK. This time in the centre of the UK.

The Houses of Parliament could be a tourist destination.

Then I might think about the Head of State - if someone could suggest a way of electing them that meant all the things they complain about didn't happen. I don't think, from recent experience, that this is possible.

Didn't we just hear that the Queen made a vast amount of money selling licenses to the SEABED ,so I think we can safely say she owns a hell of a lot of things a president wouldn't .As to the "crown estates" They were handed over by one of the Georges ,,,,but only as a repayment of his enormous debts .Not out of the goodness of his heart he got a great deal by making sure they got an income from it for hundreds of years too .
Lands stolen or "acquired" hundreds of years ago by crooked means surely should belong to the country NOT the RF ? If they get to keep the spoils of war can we expect all crooks to keep their loot

The Irish President was nominated by the Labour Party.

Another election ? poor Brenda from Bristol, poor Annie from Wales,

Town and countyCouncil elections, general elections, Senydd elections ,

Paddy I think only communism would satisfy you. Perish the thought that some people are rich and others not. I frankly couldn’t give a damn how much money the Queen has or how much property the Crown owns.

paddyann54

Didn't we just hear that the Queen made a vast amount of money selling licenses to the SEABED ,so I think we can safely say she owns a hell of a lot of things a president wouldn't .As to the "crown estates" They were handed over by one of the Georges ,,,,but only as a repayment of his enormous debts .Not out of the goodness of his heart he got a great deal by making sure they got an income from it for hundreds of years too .
Lands stolen or "acquired" hundreds of years ago by crooked means surely should belong to the country NOT the RF ? If they get to keep the spoils of war can we expect all crooks to keep their loot

So how, exactly, would you start fining people the amounts their ancestors, according to you, stole. Don't get me wrong, I am sure some did; you would have to claim back all that you (I don't) see as belonging to the country. What happens if an ancestor of yours did the same. Pillaging was quite popular in the past, wasn't it? Should they come to you for that amount?

It's all quite ridiculous.