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

And some Kings are quite the reverse too...also from Wikipedia...

In June 2014, Juan Carlos, citing personal reasons, abdicated in favour of his son, who acceded to the throne as Felipe VI. Since August 2020, Juan Carlos has lived in self-exile from Spain over allegedly improper ties to business deals in Saudi Arabia.

Recordings of the former King's alleged mistress Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn speaking with a former police chief were leaked to the press in mid-2018. Sayn-Wittgenstein claimed that Juan Carlos received kick-backs from commercial contracts in the Gulf States – particularly in the late-2000s construction of the €6.7 billion Haramain high-speed railway in Saudi Arabia – and maintained these proceeds in a bank account in Switzerland.

Spanish prosecutors opened an investigation into the use by Juan Carlos and other members of the royal family of credit cards used between 2016 and 2018 which were paid for by an overseas account to which neither Juan Carlos nor any member of the royal family were signatories, leading to accusations that the funds are undisclosed assets of Juan Carlos, and as the card drawings exceeded €120,000 in one year, comprised undisclosed income and was therefore a tax offence in Spain.

Reports have been made that Juan Carlos made a private trip to Kazakhstan in October 2002 to hunt goats with President Nursultan Nazarbayev, on departure from the country he was given 4 to 5 briefcases purportedly containing $5 million in cash.

I got the following from Wikipedia:

So you had to look her up to find out.
Interesting

And many are quite the reverse.

volver

Callistemon21

The Irish President is often brought up as a comparison and aspiration for the UK and other countries.

No-one outside of Ireland really knows who she or she is so a person of little consequence in the world

Mary Robinson was President of Ireland from 1990 to 1997. I got the following from Wikipedia:

While in office she finalised the signing into law of two significant bills that she had championed throughout her career: a bill to fully liberalise the law on the availability of contraceptives; and a bill fully decriminalising homosexuality. In 1996, she also signed the legalisation of divorce into law.

After she left office, she became a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in which capacity she visited Tibet and brought attention to the human rights situation there. She criticised the US for violating human rights in its war on terrorism.

She became Chancellor of the University of Dublin. Along with ex-President Jimmy Carter she called on the UN Security Council to act on what they described as the inhumane conditions in Gaza, and mandate an end to the siege there. Appointed as special envoy to Africa's Great Lakes region by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon she played a key role in supporting implementation of the U.N.-drafted peace deal signed by 11 African countries in late February 2013.

She's also chair of The Elders, succeeding Kofi Annan, and brings attention to the situation regarding Climate Change.

If that's being a person of "little consequence in the world" perhaps you will be so kind as to enlighten me on how the Queen has done so much better.

Well Said volver Many presidents are like this achieving great things.

Lauran123

I don’t think it should be for life , Nor do I think they should live in Palaces ,at least with a president you can vote them in or out every few years and you can select whom you feel would be the best at the time ,,,,,,,

Where do you think a President would live?

Perhaps entertaining other Heads of State in a semi in Surbiton?

No we don't the RF sits on at the top representing an unequal society Unearned privilege wealth. The RF are not good for Britain for politics undemocratic. The RF do not represent the public they do not defend our constitution.

Monarchy is corrupt RF are in public office for private gain. They interfere in politics for their own gain.

Abolish the monarchy

Callistemon21

The Irish President is often brought up as a comparison and aspiration for the UK and other countries.

No-one outside of Ireland really knows who she or she is so a person of little consequence in the world

Mary Robinson was President of Ireland from 1990 to 1997. I got the following from Wikipedia:

While in office she finalised the signing into law of two significant bills that she had championed throughout her career: a bill to fully liberalise the law on the availability of contraceptives; and a bill fully decriminalising homosexuality. In 1996, she also signed the legalisation of divorce into law.

After she left office, she became a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in which capacity she visited Tibet and brought attention to the human rights situation there. She criticised the US for violating human rights in its war on terrorism.

She became Chancellor of the University of Dublin. Along with ex-President Jimmy Carter she called on the UN Security Council to act on what they described as the inhumane conditions in Gaza, and mandate an end to the siege there. Appointed as special envoy to Africa's Great Lakes region by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon she played a key role in supporting implementation of the U.N.-drafted peace deal signed by 11 African countries in late February 2013.

She's also chair of The Elders, succeeding Kofi Annan, and brings attention to the situation regarding Climate Change.

If that's being a person of "little consequence in the world" perhaps you will be so kind as to enlighten me on how the Queen has done so much better.

I don’t think it should be for life , Nor do I think they should live in Palaces ,at least with a president you can vote them in or out every few years and you can select whom you feel would be the best at the time ,,,,,,,

I agree that the tourist argument doesn't hold water - would you visit a country just because they had a RF? As for the belief that everyone around the world loves our royals - most are more interested in our premier league football clubs and those that are interested are just interested in the soap opera/gossip aspect -and theres plenty of that in our current lot-name one country that is a republic that is desperate for a royal family.

All humans are open to corruption , there’s good & bad in all & every walk of life .

Petera

AGAA4

I certainly don't want a president - think Trump. President's like prime ministers are open to corruption

I certainly don't want a king - think Charles. Kings like prime ministers are open to corruption.

I think it's not a bad thing for a Head of State to have a personal cushion of wealth.

A Head of State who was hard up personally might be tempted by bribes and corruption.

So, what exactly is the function of a Head of State?

Callistemon21

The Irish President is often brought up as a comparison and aspiration for the UK and other countries.

No-one outside of Ireland really knows who she or she is so a person of little consequence in the world

Well in fairness, while the Queen is better known as the same family have been in Buckingham Palace for decades, she's not really of any great consequence in the world either.

AGAA4

I certainly don't want a president - think Trump. President's like prime ministers are open to corruption

I certainly don't want a king - think Charles. Kings like prime ministers are open to corruption.

The Irish President is often brought up as a comparison and aspiration for the UK and other countries.

No-one outside of Ireland really knows who she or she is so a person of little consequence in the world

I certainly don't want a president - think Trump. President's like prime ministers are open to corruption

It’s not so much stability , more a bond of continuity , a sort of road map of our country’s development, our traditions, and our ways of life , including the ups & downs & behaviours .
In essence we are all much the same.

Anniebach

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 ,

All political parties can nominate a candidate, and they run for election alongside other candidates who do not represent any political party. Then the people decide. Once someone is elected, they are no longer representing any political party and cannot publicly comment on or influence government policy.

It's a system which means you don't have families growing up with a sense of entitlement. They are either already grown up once their parent is elected, or are only children of the President for a few years until their time is up and a new President is elected.

I doubt many people here in Ireland could tell you the names or jobs of the current President's children.

Callistemon21

paddyann
We did have an articulate supporter of Scottish independence on GN but she argued that the Scots could still keep the Monarch as Head of State after independence.

But why would you?

Perhaps it could be an additional question on your referendum form?

My feeling, which will probably not be expressed with the same eloquence as Alegrias1’s, is that this is just a pragmatic approach by people who are pro-independence.

In short, the calculation is that, amongst pro-independence people, those who are anti-Royal will hold their noses and still vote for independence while those who are pro-Royal might not.

So better to kick the can down the road, especially as – constitutionally – the two issues are independent even if one is often a marker for the other.

And in general, if we are to have referendums, I think putting more than one simple yes/no question on it has all sorts of problems unless the questions can be acted on independently.

Totally separate but the media conflate the two and so do most of the public.

BlueBelle

I m not too sure what stability the RFamily have given us GSM Margaret went off the rails Anne, Charles and Andrew divorced Diana killed, Harry bunked off, Andrew in a BIG court case More problems than in the average Joe Soaps family
Not a very stable example ???

I said the monarchy, the institution, not the RF.

Genuine question Callistemon21, I'm not trying to tee up an argument.

The one we appear to have now is quite well slimmed down.
Those who carry out duties on behalf of the Head of State just get paid expenses.

It surprises me that some people think the Monarch gets loads of money from the taxpayer as if it's a huge salary for her own personal use!
The Sovereign Grant is used for the salaries of staff and upkeep of properties relevant to HM carrying out the affairs of State and duties.

We know that for sure do we ?

I m not too sure what stability the RFamily have given us GSM Margaret went off the rails Anne, Charles and Andrew divorced Diana killed, Harry bunked off, Andrew in a BIG court case More problems than in the average Joe Soaps family
Not a very stable example ???

Genuine question Callistemon21, I'm not trying to tee up an argument. We often hear the idea of a slimmed down monarchy - who or what do you have in mind, Monarch + Children + Grandchildren, Monarch + first n in line to the throne, for some value of n...? Or would it be more ‘fluid’? I can see disadvantages to both my suggestions, for the first one some, especially amongst the grandchildren, would become irrelevant. For the second nearly everyone on the list would be ‘demoted’ at some point as they fell further down the line of succession and potential become ‘non-Royal’.

I've no idea how it works in the remaining 6 monarchies (or 11, I think, if you count Principalities and Duchies) in Europe.

Interesting random fact related to Princes/Elected Presidents: the President of France, in this case of course Macron, is one of the two Princes of Andorra, the other being the Bishop of Urgell. Therefore, the Andorran monarchs are in the first case elected by French citizens and in the second place appointed by the Pope.