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

A wine cellar with 15,000 bottles of the very best wine.

They could always send an aide to the Offie with a suitcase!

vegansrock

The tourist argument is nonsense- how many tourists see the RF? Hardly any- tourists come for the historic buildings, the art galleries and museums, theatres and shopping NOT cos we have a nice little old lady with a crown. President Johnson would be ghastly as would King Andrew, but President Johnson would have fewer powers than he has now.

Even with fewer powers he'd be a disaster vegansrock
You cannot be serious.
Any more suggestions?

At least Queen Elizabeth II is respected around the world (if not by some posters on Gransnet).

Callistemon21

Some good questions, Peasblosso

If a separate Head of State to what extent would they also need all the trappings that come with that position. Would it save any taxpayers money?

Well, they'd want a new palace for a start. I can't imagine a President putting up with a leaky palace.
A fleet of bullet-proof cars
A Presidential plane
A Presidential yacht

Meddling in politics?

A wine cellar with 15,000 bottles of the very best wine.

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?

vegansrock

The tourist argument is nonsense- how many tourists see the RF? Hardly any- tourists come for the historic buildings, the art galleries and museums, theatres and shopping NOT cos we have a nice little old lady with a crown. President Johnson would be ghastly as would King Andrew, but President Johnson would have fewer powers than he has now.

I think you understood my comment vegansrock which was in answer to Lucca and Bungle. What I meant was there would be even fewer tourists to the UK without the RF family, and not that they all flock in the hope of seeing the Queen!

Some good questions, Peasblosso

If a separate Head of State to what extent would they also need all the trappings that come with that position. Would it save any taxpayers money?

Well, they'd want a new palace for a start. I can't imagine a President putting up with a leaky palace.
A fleet of bullet-proof cars
A Presidential plane
A Presidential yacht

Meddling in politics?

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.

Divide up their property and assets.

If the State did that, what's to stop them nationalising all our homes and assets?
There are some on GN who suggested this might be a good idea but I, for one, do not.

I am quite happy with a slimmed down Monarchy as I think they're as good value as a President might be and the choice of candidates for an apolitical President would seem to extremely limited. The thought of another election every four years makes me want to shout "Not another one!"

If the Royal Family decides it doesn't want to continue serving Britain then I wouldn't blame them either.

I am a Royalist, our current working Royals have been trimmed down over the last 10-20 years.

I think they are heading more along the lines of Denmark, Sweden etc.

aonk

At the risk of being very unpopular and wearing my hard hat I would say that we need the Monarchy more than ever.

Why do you think that aonk? Sincere interest.

I would say that France and Germany have been more stable in recent years than the U.K. , which has been in turmoil. Monarchy nothing to do with it. You could still have all the pomp and ceremony you like .

Do we need a monarchy? No. We need an elected head of state. How the nominations are decided is another matter.

We should look at how other countries decide nominations.

The tourist argument is nonsense- how many tourists see the RF? Hardly any- tourists come for the historic buildings, the art galleries and museums, theatres and shopping NOT cos we have a nice little old lady with a crown. President Johnson would be ghastly as would King Andrew, but President Johnson would have fewer powers than he has now.

Yes we do infinitely preferable to a President in my view.

At the risk of being very unpopular and wearing my hard hat I would say that we need the Monarchy more than ever.

I wonder though without the monarchy thing would we get even fewer tourists?

I would love a thread about what attracts tourists to countries. For the UK it can't be the weather surely, the cuisine is questionable, maybe architecture and buildings? I have a feeling that without royalty we would be worse off, the whole royal thing is invariably on the front of every travel brochure abroad.

Lucca

Bungle22

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.

I wonder though without the monarchy thing would we get even fewer tourists ?

I think the rip of prices in London and Major cities put more tourists off than anything else.

I wouldn't say we need the monarchy but we have one, and I wouldn't like to lose it.

Germanshepherdsmum

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.

Absolutely.

Bungle22

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.

I wonder though without the monarchy thing would we get even fewer tourists ?

Well said Daisy.

DaisyAnne

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.

A revolution ? Boring ? Heard it all now

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.

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.

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 ,

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